Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Hoping to Retain Graduates, Maine Helps With Loan Costs « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Deandub11
Member
Username: Deandub11

Post Number: 112
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I understand all this costs money, but could something like this work for Michigan? I'm so sick of hearing about every one of my friends leaving. I would say 1 in 7-10 of my acquaintances stay in state after graduating from many schools, but especially Michigan.

"BANGOR, Me., July 2 — Seeking to discourage Maine college graduates from leaving the state, Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Monday giving tax credits to lower the cost of student loans for those who stay in the state.

The program, called Opportunity Maine, starts in January and will apply only to new loans. The tax credit will last 10 years, or until the recipient moves out of state."

"The legislation passed the House unanimously and the Senate 27 to 8. Opponents said they were concerned about the cost of the program.

Opportunity Maine is projected to cost the state $50 million in the next 10 to 15 years and perhaps more if the program is extended to new Maine residents who graduated from colleges outside the state, Ms. Cain said. The Legislature has not determined how it will pay for the program.

Proponents say the program will ultimately pay for itself because, unlike many state scholarship programs that offer free tuition but do not require residency after college, Opportunity Maine keeps graduates in the state to help the local economy."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07 /03/education/03maine.html
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 6152
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This plan could work for Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9480
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You can't repay loans if you can't get a job. Paying a little more in interest with a good paying job is easier than not paying interest with a crappy job or no job.

Additionally many kids coming out of college want a real city life which we do not offer in the state of Michigan.

Until we get good jobs and offer viable places for college grads to live incentives won't do anything. Seeing as our government still loves manufacturing and sees no benefit of helping create viable cities students will continue to leave.

We've spent 50 years making this mess and I don't expect college grads to give up opportunities or their 20s and 30s trying to make any part of Michigan better. I hope they do and wish they do but I certainly don't blame them if they leave.

So let's look at what Michigan has to offer new grads:

Poor/no jobs
No viable cities
No viable mass transit
A racist/angry citizenry
A state that would prefer to cut every service than pay a tax
No support of cultural institutions
More sontruction of suburbs and a dying core city and inner rings
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 1237
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The program was initially brought forward as a ballot initiative spearheaded by young college graduates. It was passed by the Legislature instead of going to the voters.



Better get to work
Top of pageBottom of page

Deandub11
Member
Username: Deandub11

Post Number: 113
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey JT thanks for the bright picture you just painted for me. I'm 24, graduating from law school and hoping to practice in Michigan. Ha...
Additionally, Hemingway I might just take you up on that.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 1238
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm reading "Trump The Art of the Deal" circa 1987 right now. I know, I know, the guy is a prima dona to put it nicely but I found it in my grandpa's old bookcase and started reading it after a friend of mine who graduated from the UofM B School suggested it as a good read.

Anyway, in it he is writing about New York in the 1970s when it was teetering on the brink of financial ruin (sound familiar) and some of its best areas were ghetto. He describes the west side of Manhattan like this.

quote:

At the time, a lot of neighborhoods on the West Side were considered dangerous places to live. There were welfare hotels on every side street, and drug dealers in every park. I remember the New York Times running a long series of articles about the block between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue at 84th Street -- what tough area it was."



Despite all of this, he invested in his hometown and made a fortune. Property values in Manhattan today are amongst the highest in the world, and this is now one of the cool places so many people from Michigan wish they could move to straight out of college.

I'm not comparing the gentrification of Manhattan to what we are starting to see in Detroit. I'm not saying what Trump and other developers did there is feasible here. My point is that it's not always as dark as the nay sayers make it out. But that doesn't mean rose-colored glasses cure everything. People make a place worth living in when they start working towards making it a better place. Those college grads in Maine are doing just that, making their home state more competitive with that legislation. Michigan is showing signs of something similar with the Kalamazoo Promise but still has a long way to go. As cliched as it sounds, Metro Detroit and Michigan will get better when the people who live here start doing the hard work of making it a better place.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wilus1mj
Member
Username: Wilus1mj

Post Number: 202
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You could still do better salary wise outside of Michigan even with a substantial tax break. It only would really benefit grads who have jobs already, not increase the amount of jobs available.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9481
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dean - I hope you stay and help make Michigan a better place (and hopefully Detroit) but you certainly can't hold any ill will towards those that chose to leave.

In an ideal world our tops grads would stay and move to Detroit or inner rings and make them better places which will help the state as a whole. Anytime a new grad stays it is good.

My outlook is probably bleaker than reality.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 508
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1,

Your earlier post wasn't an "outlook", it was a collection of more or less undeniable facts.

A negative person looks at those facts and says "this sucks"; a positive person looks at the same facts and says "let's change the situation".

Metro Detroit needs its situation changed and that will take real leadership from government and business. I see plenty of business leadership out there willing to help, but we have unimaginative government that doesn't know how to do anything new or take a risk.

So that's change number one: kick out just about the entire governance structure of this region and replace it. Just IMVHO.
Top of pageBottom of page

Deandub11
Member
Username: Deandub11

Post Number: 114
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wilus I tend to agree with you, but at the same time if staying in Michigan, whether it be for family, familiarity, wanting to help, whatever, is more important than making more money in another state, than debt relief would be a good incentive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077

Post Number: 88
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think that kicking current government out of office won't help us in that regard. What we need to do is repeal the term limits so that politicians can learn how to do there jobs and make concessions.

Secondly, I think that there are a lot of good things going on in the metro area that could help retain college grads. As a recent grad myself I intend to return to Detroit after I finish med-school. I've always felt I'd rather live in an area where I could make a difference and really improve things, rather than moving to some already successful area.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 1271
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All you gotta do is see any of Mr Joshua's right to work threads for insights on why Michigan is not a particularly friendly place to work in at the moment.

It does not surprise me that graduates leave.

(Message edited by cambrian on July 03, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dannaroo
Member
Username: Dannaroo

Post Number: 88
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wilus1mj said:

quote:

It only would really benefit grads who have jobs already, not increase the amount of jobs available.



Not necessarily - a bill like this could encourage a student to stay who was initially on the fence regarding moving out of state upon graduation (but I do agree that it would be most enticing to those who currently have a job).

Also, while legislation such as this wouldn't really create jobs right away, if it were successful in retaining graduates and helped to stem the brain drain it could definitely contribute to slowing further job losses. And any increase in population (especially an educated population) will work to increase demand for goods and services.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 509
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you want to retain or attract young, educated adults, you have to jump out of your own opinions and try to think like that potential customer base. What amenities, services and infrastructure are important to young, educated adults? Well, you can look at the places that are attracting that demographic and compare them to the places that are not, and try to get some sense of it.

We have some things:

* nightlife
* sports

But we are not successfully attracting this group, so the things we lack appear to be critical:

* decent public transportation
* good urban living options in viable cities

People create opportunities for jobs, not the reverse. Companies will put offices where there exists the talent they want.

My point is that we have an infrastructure problem; government's job is to take care of infrastructure, and neither before nor after term limits has any Michigan or metro Detroit government in the past fifty years done any reasonably decent job at this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spartacus
Member
Username: Spartacus

Post Number: 194
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cambrian, you crack me up. You seem to want to interject something about labor in the vast majority of your posts (whether relevant or not).

Let me see if I understand your above post. You point out that some people in Michigan are advocating that Michigan should become a "right to work" state. You further feel that these advocates are discouraging college graduates from moving to or staying in Michigan. Is this an accurate representation of your argument?

If so, could you please try to further explain your thinking? If you don't, I fear everyone is going to think you stupid.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 1272
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Labor and graduates go hand in hand sparticus. As I'm sure most going to college are not housewives killing time. So I'm probably not the lone prophet on the hill that sees that connection as you suggest. When you look around and see a lot of people out of work including professionals, it is not a work climate that is good. Or would you say other wise?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 511
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would say that "right to work" laws and the labor movement in general have very little effect on what college-educated professionals want to do for a living.

You are thinking that our future lies in replacing lots of manufacturing jobs? I am not. Those are the kinds of jobs that come to right-to-work states in the modern day. My suspicion is our future will be brightest if we try to latch on to the economy of the future, not the economy of 1955.
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 4641
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 3:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This whole concept of trying to attract "young" yuppy types really stumps me. What do we need to attract these specific types? More lofts? More VW dealerships? More coffee places that charge $9 for a gourmet coffee? Maybe we needs to create some mountains for the young yuppy climber and his chad friends? Maybe we needs to create a district for Trixies and Jappy girls?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 326
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This proposal sounds very similar to one of the planks of my platform when I ran for office last year. My thought, as reinforced by ProfessorScott, was that by retaining talent in Michigan, companies would be more willing to seriously consider this as a state to locate.


I believe that one of our legislators earlier this year floated the idea of making our Merit scholarships similar to the Maine program, in that the money would come after college, not during. That idea was shot down in the compromise legislation.

I think it is a great idea (if I do say so myself). Hope it works out for Maine, and I hope that, if it does, we take note in Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077

Post Number: 89
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think a big part of what is missing as one of those in the desired class that is missing is exactly what profscott listed above
* decent public transportation
* good urban living options in viable cities
These are some of the things that myself, my wife, and many of the people of my class find important when looking for locations to set up a life.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk

Post Number: 4461
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Despite all of this, [Trump] invested in his hometown and made a fortune. Property values in Manhattan today are amongst the highest in the world, and this is now one of the cool places so many people from Michigan wish they could move to straight out of college.



Please Trump was a sumlord/speculator who got lucky. If he cares so much about his hometown why are his developments considered some of the most anti-neighborhood and architecturally unappealing in New York. If you want to believe the ghost-written bluster pumped out by Trump's PR department feel free but don't for a second think it has any relevance to the problems of Detroit.


Burns
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 903
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Younger people are making a viable city themselves, since nobody else would do it. They're moving downtown or to places like Royal Oak, Ferndale, etc, because they watched Friends and Seinfeld and every other show on TV for the last 20 years and everybody lived in the city and said "that's for me".
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9482
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

because they watched Friends and Seinfeld and every other show on TV for the last 20 years and everybody lived in the city and said "that's for me".



Yep, younger people make their choices based upon TV characters and settings. When are the older generations going to give the younger generations even an iota of credit?
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 904
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, they've been fed steadily through the media for some time that urban living is hip. That's the example I'm giving. Don't be snippy with me, mister.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 905
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, media has no effect on youth. You're right. Good for you for making sure to call my opinion it may have an effect bullshit. Good day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9484
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Deleted last post before JL's response. JL is right: Younger generations opinions actions are only based upon TV. They are also lazy, ignorant and stupid.

Have a field day with your ignorant stereotypes. When an opinion is based in sterotypes I wil call it out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 906
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1 you're being rediculous. All I am saying is that growing up watching all these movies and television shows based in cities that really show how fun city life can be may have an effect on making the younger generation that has grown up in suburbs more interested in having that experience. It's really nothing to get angry over. And no, it is certainly not the ONLY basis for their actions. Wow, it was just an innocent thought I threw out there. Sorry to SOMEHOW offend you with it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9485
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 4:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You didn't offend me at all (my generation is too stupid or lazy to get offended :-))nor am I getting angry.

I agree that so many of the younger generation being raised in suburbia may be a reason that city life can be more appealing but TV probably plays a much smaller role than you seem to believe.

I think that the younger generation is looking for lifestyles that go beyond waorking, sitting on the couch and watching TV, repeat that became very much the norm in recent years.

The younger generations are more dynamic, more active, more successdul, more educated, etc than they are given credit for. That is what drives the decision. When you elaborate on your comment more I agree but your original comment came off as dismissive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 907
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fair enough, I agree. It's a trend I like and I hope it continues. I myself am part of it. I'm a "younger" generation (I hope I can still say that.. not sure), and I chose to buy my first house near a real downtown area where I can walk to what I please, and I'm loving it. Grew up in the far burbs and don't miss it at all. (no offense to anybody, we all have our preference. I know some get testy about burb bashing.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9486
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And to add in it seems like there is an emerging trend of empty nest baby boomers moving back to cities. I expect that to be a lot of the new riverfront residents. Of course I have no real info to say that is the case, just my gut feel.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 513
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe just the younger people are finally starting to develop the idea that it's okay not to have to drive every time you leave the house, and the idea that you don't need to have a half-acre of grass around your dwelling, and the idea that cities aren't inherently evil things.

To address the question of why it's important to attract young adults: those are the ones who are going to work for the next 45 years and support us old farts as we retire :-)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.