New Student Edition 2006 - The Michigan Daily - 13C Fixing Michigan's struggling economy A debate between the Michigan Daily and the Michigan Review on what needs to be done to revitalize Michigan's struggling economy EJJh j irimm lihi THE MICHIGAN REVIEW Engineering sophomore Chris VanDeusen takes a break outside his dormitory for a cigarette. Chris began smoking his freshman year. UIGH TING UP Smoke sig nal Alarmin number of students become smokers freshman year By Ashlea Surles I Daily Staff Reporter By Christopher Zbrozek Back in the 1950s, Flint - yes, that Flint - had one of the highest per-capita incomes of any city in the country. The wages "Gener- ous Motors" and other industrial firms paid to line workers straight out of high school made an education almost superfluous. Those days are gone and will not return. The state's economy - particularly its manufactur- ing sector - has been stagnating for years, driving residents from the state in search of greener economic pastures. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Metro Detroit led the nation in the outflow of its young adults between 2000 and 2002, well before auto- motive suppliers like Delphi and now Dana Corp. went bankrupt. To revitalize the state's economy, Michi- gan needs neither the greater protectionism some on the labor left advocate nor the slash- and-burn tax policies of the political right. Rather, the manufacturing-dependent state that was once the "Arsenal of Democracy" must develop and retain a highly educated workforce that can compete in the high-tech, knowledge-based fields that are shaping the 21st-century economy. Protectionist tariffs - such as the 25-per- cent duty on trucks imported from Thailand likely to be axed in an upcoming U.S.-Thai free-trade deal - might provide some tempo- rary breathing room for Michigan manufac- turing workers, if at the expense of broader national economic growth. There is, however, hardly enough political support for increased protectionism to override the broader trends embodied by the so-called Washington Con- sensus. And Michigan's leaders can do little but beg to change the nation's trade policies anyway. The notion that slashing the state's taxes will return it to prosperity even further off- base. The argument that the cost of doing business in Michigan drives companies away might have made a bit of sense when the state's competitors for unskilled manufactur- ing jobs were nonunion states in the South. But in an era when we face competition from foreign workers paid less in a day than even poorly paid American workers make in an hour, no state in the union can hope to attract much investment through the comparative advantage of low-wage labor. The path Michigan needs to follow is that set by states such as California and Massa- chusetts, where a commitment to education and a culture of entrepreneurship that starts at research universities and extends to startup firms has built a knowledge economy hardly affected by the ongoing decline of American manufacturing. So far, the state's political climate hasn't allowed this agenda to flourish. There are, however, some recent signs Lansing might be starting to get it. This year's budget includes a slight uptick in higher ed funding, although not enough to offset four years of cuts. It looks like we might actually see a tougher high school curriculum. And despite much political wrangling, a version of Gov. Jen- nifer Granholm's plan to invest in growing high-tech firms is going forward. Michigan has some great potential eco- nomic strengths. We're the global hub for automotive engineering. We've got solid research universities. We're in a strong posi- tion to develop the alternative energy sources our nation will need to shift away from fossil . fuels. With foresight and determination, we can build a stronger economy to replace the manufacturing jobs that are rusting away. - This editorial originally ran Mar. 8, 2006. By Nick Cheolas Do good businesses attract smart employees, or does a skilled population attract business? The answer to this question will determine the form of Michigan politicians' attempts to revive Michi- gan's ailing economy in years to come. It appears, though, that the latter is the case. What's accepted as a given is the need to revive the economy. Not only do an estimated 1,000 Detroiters leave the city per month, but Michigan is hemorrhaging residents as well. According to a recent Detroit News editorial, Michigan lost near- ly 80,000 people over the last two years and is the largest contributor to other states' repopulation. Worse than the abnormally high amount of people leaving Michigan is the type of people who leave it - fresh, college-educated 20-somethings. The very people who could save the failing Michi- gan economy leave because - irony of ironies - the economy cannot support their ambitions. Save innovative thinking, this could be the vicious cycle to which Michigan is doomed. But economic improvement is often miscon- sidered. We debate whether small-scale tax cuts create an entrepreneurial climate in Michigan that encourages risk-taking and innovation. Whether osnot Michigan's Single Business Tax is eliminat- ed is immaterial to the state's economic prospects. It'll grab headlines and inspire plenty of rhetoric' in Lansing, but it won't seriously affect the num- ber of businesses in Michigan. Businesses don't relocate wholly or even largely on account of taxes - if so, why do businesses continue to operate in New York and California? They stay because of the skill and education level of the population, who are the potential workforce and consumer base for a firm's products. The only way to keep the 6,000 University grads and the thousands of other young college graduates in Michigan is to create an atmosphere which supports their ambi- tions. Many on both sides of the political aisle agree that education is the key to prosperity. How- ever, the traditional approach to "improving" edu- cation - through increased funding and stiffer requirements - has been misguided and funda- mentally flawed. Make no mistake - school funding and high standards matter, but they are by no means the solution to Michigan's economic crisis. Quite frankly, those who fail to graduate fail to care about graduation requirements. Also, all the stan- dards in the world matter little to a teacher in charge of 35 students who have no motivation to learn, no role models, no aspirations and no real sense of how education can improve their life. The bottom line is that the current K-12 edu- cational system - regardless of funding or stan- dards - is designed strictly to impart knowledge and polish skills, not to provide motivation, men- torship or the personal relationships that are criti- cal to many - particularly those who come from low-income families - to succeed. Scholarship money and graduation standards have little effect when students drop out before the 11th grade. Inthe American university systemfor example, is responsible for keeping us ahead of the curve despite our lackluster K-12 test scores in relation to the rest of the world. Students choose a college which best suits their needs, Competition to attract students results in newer facilities and innovative programs. Nothing in the constrainedK-12 system provides this type of environment. State legislators - many with little or no experience with educational policy - can allo- cate all the money and implement all the require- ments they wish. But until Michigan stops trying to educate the children of single-parent welfare homes in Flint the same way as children of doc- tors and lawyers from Birmingham, we will never achieve the educated workforce needed for a vibrant economy. - This editorial originally ran Mar. 8, 2006. n a grave voice, University Vice President for Student Affairs E. Royster Harper pre- sented a shocking pair of statistics to the University Board of Regents at its meeting last month. About 3 percent of incoming freshmen report- ed smoking cigarettes when they came to the University, Harper said. But by the end of freshman year, the number of smokers had leaped to an eye-widening 25 per- cent, she said. After Harper read the numbers, a murmur rose in the room among both the audience and the regents, who seemed stunned by the statistics. University officials link the dramatic increase to a variety of causes. Robert Winfield, director of the University Health Service, said students may begin smok- ing during their freshman year as a result of increased alcohol consumption, the stress of being away from home, heightened social pres- suies and late nights that are part of the college lifestyle. "When I talk to smokers about smoking they usually say they smoke because it's a habit, they use it to take breaks, and they do it socially," Winfield said. Malinda Matney, senior research associate for the division of student affairs, agreed that the increased alcohol consumption of students tran- sitioning from high school to college may be a factor. "Oftentimes smoking behavior travels with alcohol behavior," Matney said Carol Tucker, an educator for UHS, said "col- lege is a time when people experiment," specu- lating that most people who smoke in college do so socially and are not heavy smokers. "Unfortunately, some become addicted," she said. There is some dispute over the accuracy of the numbers presented to the regents. Kenneth Warner, dean of the School of Public Health, has done significant research on smok- ing trends and said, based on other surveys, that 3 percent is far too low to be correct. "There's no way that's accurate," he said, add- ing that he suspects freshmen taking the surveys may have been reluctant to report tobacco use. There is also a discrepancy between dates of the two surveys Harper used. The 3 percent figure likely came from the Uni- versity's annual student life survey on freshmen who entered the University in 2004 - this year's * sophomore class, Matney said. The 25 percent fig- ure likely came from a University survey conduct- ed among freshmen who entered in 2001 at the end of their first year - last year's senior class. Harper did not return phone cafls or e-mails asking for clarification. A pair of surveys the University took in 2001 suggests the dramatic increase from Harper's report holds up to scrutiny. Although only 4.7 percent of 2001's incoming freshman said they had smoked within the last year, a later survey of the same class found that 25 percent had lit up by the end of their fresh- man year. of students smoke of students smoke after freshman year Everyone agrees that whatever the percentage increase in smokers in that critical first year at the University, students picking up the habit in their first year is a problem. Winfield said UHS encourages students to stop smoking, but reducing students' use of tobacco also takes preventative measures, such as the prohibition of smoking in all residence halls that was implemented in 2003. Warner believes this policy effective in reduc- ing the number of students who smoke, citing workplace research that links the implementa- tion of smoke-free policies with increased num- bers of employees who quit. UHS offers "quit kits" for students interested in kicking the habit. Kits include information on the dangers of smoking, a list of local quit pro- grams and discount coupons for nicotine substi- tute products at the UHS pharmacy. The University also runs an annual "Smoke- out" campaign in conjunction with University Students Against Cancer. Volunteers distribute information packages and provide visual aides on the Diag to encourage smoking cessation. Warner said there is no question that the Uni- versity could influence students' decisions to permanently ditch their lighters. Others question whether the University's programs could lure students away from their nicotine. Mike Reid, a freshman in the School of Nurs- ing, speculated that programs are ineffective because "people who smoke wouldn't make an effort to go." Reid said hearing and becoming aware of the dangers of smoking "doesn't entice people to quit because, especially with addiction, it's something they have to want to do." - This article originally ran Jan. 13, 2006.