Last week international electronics mega-manufacturer Foxconn announced plans to invest $30 million in a new robotics plant in Harrisburg, PA. Foxconn, the notorious Chinese low-wage manufacturer of Apple’s iPhone, has become the poster child of U.S. outsourcing in the face of ruinous global labor cost competition. The calculus of manufacturing supremacy is seemingly simple: Low labor costs and taxes, proximity to a large consumer base, and manageable corruption levels equal a sure strategy to attract global firms.

So what’s going on in Harrisburg? Foxconn is beginning to realize what a number of global manufacturers have come to realize: Production sites that can leverage university, government, and private R&D, a market-ready STEM workforce, and a vibrant cluster of global manufacturing supply chains trump cheap labor and tax breaks. In this regard the Harrisburg region is a big win for Pennsylvania as well as Foxconn—a company trying to move away from a legacy of poor working conditions to one of high-value, high-skilled production.   

Harrisburg and the larger Rust Belt Pittsburgh-Youngstown region to the west are hotbeds of advanced manufacturing. Youngstown is home to the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute—an internationally recognized hub for so-called “3D printing” that draws together public- and private-sector resources. Pittsburgh—with the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, and firms like Google—has redefined itself from a gilded-era steel town to a modern technology leader in software and robotics. Indeed, Foxconn is investing $10 million in Carnegie Mellon’s world class advanced robotics R&D. Finally, also in the Rust Belt and including Harrisburg, Akron and Cleveland, cheap natural gas has helped push manufacturing job and firm growth in a region that was hit extremely hard by the recession.

While Foxconn may be one of the highest profile foreign firm to relocate to the United States it is certainly not, as we’ve discussed, the first. Again and again, global firms interested in high-end manufacturing are putting a renewed premium on geographic clusters of intensive innovation. To be sure, countries with low labor costs still maintain solid advantages in a number manufacturing industries that will help their economies grow—this is the benefit and reality of a global economy. But when it comes to advanced manufacturing, U.S. metro areas and regions that foster synergies between research, skills, and production will likely continue to be highly sought after from firms looking to move up the global value chain.

The “diversity explosion,” described in my recent book, is altering all parts of American life but particularly the lives of our younger population. As the white population ages and whites continue to decline in numbers among our under-30 population, as recent Census tabulations project, a growing portion of America’s children are racial minorities from a kaleidoscope of backgrounds in terms of their parents’ or grandparents’ place of birth. Origin countries include Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Taiwan, Brazil, and others. 

A dramatic remaking of the nation’s child population is under way; in growing parts of the country growth of the child population is synonymous with the growth of minority children. More than one-third of the 100 largest metropolitan areas now have minority-white child populations. California and Texas house the largest number of these metropolitan areas, and Hispanics constitute the largest minorities. Florida, Georgia, and Arizona each contain more than one of these metro areas; the newest include Atlanta, Orlando, and Phoenix. And in many other “whiter” areas, such as Allentown, Pa. on the periphery of the New York megalopolis, the share of minorities among children is increasing. 

Of course, metro areas such as Los Angeles, Miami, and New York are used to accommodating large numbers of young children from dozens of foreign countries. Yet the first-generation immigrant children in large sections of the Southeast and Mountain West and scattered parts of “middle America” represent the front lines of the country’s diversity explosion. For an overview of U.S. county profiles by race and age, see the U.S. interactive map.

Material adapted from Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America by William H. Frey, 2014.

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

With the GOP convention now in the electoral rearview mirror, attention is pivoting quickly from Ohio to Pennsylvania as the Democrats kick off their own nominating convention in Philadelphia.

Although it has voted Democratic in the last six presidential elections, political analysts have historically regarded the Keystone State as a swing state. FiveThirtyEight’s latest general election forecast projects a 46 percent vote share for Hillary Clinton, versus just under 44 percent for Donald Trump, making it the sixth-most competitive state. Pennsylvania also features what is shaping up to be a tight Senate race between incumbent Republican Pat Toomey and Democratic nominee Katie McGinty. Thus, it is useful to see how the state’s voters might view the condition of the economy, which could very well influence turnout levels and candidate preferences amid close contests this November.

The economic perspectives of Pennsylvanians are perhaps best understood through the prism of the state’s highly distinctive major metropolitan areas. Five large metro areas span the state—Allentown, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton—and together account for 63 percent of Pennsylvania’s population and 75 percent of its GDP. Their economic specializations are diverse: trade, transportation, and manufacturing in Allentown and Scranton; financial, professional, and educational services in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; and government in the state capital of Harrisburg. While much political news coverage of Pennsylvania is likely to focus on its iconic small towns, it is really these large metro areas that define the state demographically and economically.

While Pennsylvania was not one of the states hardest hit by the Great Recession, most of its major metropolitan areas bounced back relatively slowly. According to the Brookings Metro Monitor, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Scranton ranked among the 20 slowest-growing large metropolitan economies from 2009 to 2014. All performed somewhat better on achieving increases in the local standard of living (prosperity), but Pittsburgh stood out for its 6 percent average wage growth during that time, seventh-fastest in the nation. This wage trend also seems to have propelled Pittsburgh to a better performance than other Pennsylvania metro areas on indicators of employment, wages, and relative poverty (inclusion). Allentown, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, on the other hand, registered declines in typical worker wages during the first five years of the recovery and little to no progress in reducing poverty.

The picture over a longer timeframe is similar, though somewhat less dire. Pittsburgh posted middling growth but very strong performance on prosperity and inclusion over the past 10 to 15 years. That provided a contrast with Allentown, where the economy grew somewhat faster but productivity and average standards of living did not, and economic inclusion suffered. The remaining metro areas—Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Scranton—all grew weakly but managed to post middling performance on prosperity and inclusion indicators.

Pennsylvania remains a whiter state than the national average, but its major metro areas are increasingly diverse, particularly in the southeastern part of the state around Philadelphia and Allentown. Nonetheless, Pennsylvania’s economic challenges are frequently framed around the plight of the white working class, which, as my colleague Bill Frey notes, comprises 59 percent of the state’s eligible voter population. In Allentown, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, whites have indeed suffered long-term wage stagnation. Yet in the more manufacturing-oriented Pittsburgh and Scranton areas, median wages for whites rose significantly from 2000 to 2014. By contrast, workers of color have experienced much more troublesome wage trends, losing ground to whites in every major metro area. Across the five metro areas, typical earnings differences between whites and other workers in 2014 averaged between $10,000 and $12,000.

A look at the most recent job trends, from 2014 to 2016, suggests a shifting metro growth map in Pennsylvania. Over the past two years, Philadelphia and Harrisburg have posted much stronger job gains, Allentown’s average annual job growth rate has halved, and Pittsburgh’s job level has flat-lined. The state’s two largest urban centers frame this stark change. In every major industry category, average annual job growth in Philadelphia over the past two years outpaced its rate over the previous five years. In Pittsburgh, on the other hand, job growth slowed—or turned negative—in nearly every sector. The recent energy price crash has halted a fracking boom that buoyed the western Pennsylvania economy through much of the recovery, at the same time that Philadelphia is enjoying a surge in professional services and construction employment. Fittingly, Donald Trump used Allegheny County, outside Pittsburgh, as the backdrop for one of his first post-primary campaign stops, while Philadelphia’s economic momentum will be the background of the Democrats’ argument for another four years in the White House.

The Pennsylvania economy is thus not easily characterized, and the attitudes of its voters are likely to be shaped by regionally specific short-term and long-term trends. Those trends seem sure to keep the Keystone State’s electoral votes and U.S. Senate seat highly contested over the next several months.