CLT Biz
Click here to review our newsletter!
 |
Re-interpreting Charlotte and Its Place in the World | Regionally and Globally
| Please let us know if you like our content, have suggestions, or want to be included on our mailing list! |
Yes, I want to subscribe to CLT.biz Insights now!
2017.01.18
| This Friday, January 20th at noon, President-elect Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. As evidenced by the discourse online and in the media, there is much anticipation/speculation about his agenda and priorities. While winning the electoral college but not the popular vote, Americans nevertheless voted for change. Significant global changes have already begun this past year, and with the President-elect’s notoriously unpredictable tweets, which he has assured us will continue, it is anybody’s guess what direction that change will take.
So, as we enter a new administration, we know changes are coming but are not confident what those changes will look like. In an effort to provide some guidance to your thinking about our future, we have gleaned several articles that may help you put this in perspective. First up is a discussion of the top global risks for 2017–areas that we ought to be paying particular attention to. No surprise, Trump is at the top of that list! Next, we look at how the post-WWII era has brought about a “new world order” that will change traditional alliances even now being questioned. Adversity to change is the normal human reaction, but it is instructive to take a look at changes in global living conditions over our history–basically the question of whether everyone around the globe is better or worse off. There are some surprising (and refreshing) findings there! Then we take a look at Germany’s response to Brexit and how they view the future of the European project. Hopefully, these discussions will provide you with valuable insights for better decisions about your future. |
 
Top 10 Global Risks of 2017The World Enters Geopolitical Recession In 2017, we enter a period of geopolitical recession. So sayeth the Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2017 report, identifying the most challenging political and geopolitical trends and stress points for global investors and market participants in 2017. The Eurasia Group first wrote about the coming of the “G-Zero” world—a world with no global leader—six years ago. Prescient. While it seemed unconventional at that time, it is becoming increasingly evident. “The underlying shifts in the geopolitical environment have been clear,” according to the report, “a U.S. with less interest in assuming leadership responsibilities; U.S. allies, particularly in Europe, that are weaker and looking to hedge bets on U.S. intentions; and two frenemies, Russia and China, seeking to assert themselves as (limited) alternatives to the U.S.—Russia primarily on the security front in its extended backyard, and China primarily on the economic front regionally, and, increasingly, globally. “These trends have accelerated with the populist revolt against ‘globalism’—first in the Middle East, then in Europe, and now in the U.S. Through 2016, you could see the G-Zero picking up speed on multiple fronts. “But with the shock election of Donald Trump as president of the U.S, the G-Zero world is now fully upon us. The triumph of ‘America first’ as the primary driver of foreign policy in the world’s only superpower marks a break with decades of U.S. exceptionalism and belief in the indispensability of U.S. leadership, however flawed and uneven. With it ends a 70-year geopolitical era of Pax Americana, one in which globalization and Americanization were tightly linked, and American hegemony in security, trade, and promotion of values provided guardrails for the global economy.” Ominously, the report indicates, “This year marks the most volatile political risk environment in the postwar period, at least as important to global markets as the economic recession of 2008.” At the top of the group’s list is the risk presented by Independent America: “The triumph of ‘America first’ as the primary driver of foreign policy in the world’s only superpower marks a break with decades of U.S. exceptionalism and belief in the indispensability of U.S. leadership. Independent America renounces exceptionalism, the notion that the U.S. actively promotes democracy, civil rights, and rule of law.” Read more… |
 |
 NEW Perspective on Alliances Post-WWII New World Order BeginsFormer Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently addressed the World Affairs Council of Charlotte. Secretary Hagel’s global insights and perspective on changing alliances suggest that a post-WWII new world order is emerging.“It is a different kind of dynamic today than what it was in 1946 for many reasons,” Hagel points out, describing the post-WWII building of coalitions of common interests—the United Nations, World Trade Organization, international development banks and institutions, IMF, World Bank, NATO, and dozens of other alliance-painted coalitions.He says the new world order is building partnerships that aren’t necessarily based on a NATO-type alliance, but on mutual security and not just straight military security: “The security of any nation rests upon the most fundamental of all securities and that’s economic security. A nation is only as powerful as its economy.“It’s going to be a balance. New partnerships, stronger enhanced relationships, alliances and trade. Trade is an opportunity. Trade does so much more than just exchange goods and commerce. It opens doors that allow nations to respond to each other, understand each other, communicate with each other, connect with each other, coordinate with each other in ways that nothing else can. You need all the other pieces of government as well—but those are fundamentals. Alliances and trade.” Read more… |
 |
 Better or Worse Off? A History of Global Living Conditions In an incredibly important article, economist and media critic Max Roser, known for his research on global trends of living conditions and his visualizations of these trends, shows us the history of global living conditions—“the history of everyone.”Very few people think that the world is getting better. In a handful of charts, Roser instantly communicates the progress of the human population over the last two centuries in poverty, literacy, health, freedom, fertility and education. If you don’t read anything else this week, make sure you make to time to read this and consider its implications with respect to your current world view.As Roser indicates, “For our history to be a source of encouragement we have to know our history. The story that we tell ourselves about our history and our time matters. Because our hopes and efforts for building a better future are inextricably linked to our perception of the past, it is important to understand and communicate the global development up to now. A positive lookout on the efforts of ourselves and our fellow humans is a vital condition to the fruitfulness of our endeavors.” Read more… |
  |
EU Response to Brexit “The outcome of the British referendum has created increasing pressure on the EU to reform itself to better respond to the expectations of its citizens,” Caro explains. “At the same time, the European member states will only be able to overcome common challenges like the refugee crisis, terrorist threats, or Russia’s aggressive foreign policy if they act together. “With its economic and political weight, Germany will play a key role in any further decisions regarding the EU’s future, but it needs partners to assume the leadership required to help navigate these crises.” Read more… |
 |
 Opens Aren’t Everything Subject Lines That Generate More Clicks and Leads You wrote a great email…  …but WHAT IF NO ONE READS IT??Just write a compelling subject line that gets more opens, right?Well, yes—getting your prospect to open your email is obviously critical to your email marketing success. But the most successful subject lines don’t just entice your prospect to open your email—they pave the way for more clicks and leads.Here’s how… Read more… |
  |
EVENTS
   WACC Speaker Series Panel on the Middle East – January 18, 2017
Challenges and Opportunities in the Middle East for the Incoming Administration Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Career Ambassador Dr. Jim Walsh, Research Associate, MIT Security Studies Program Moderated by Dr. Jonathan Berkey, Professor of International Studies, Davidson College Ambassador Pickering, a Career Ambassador, and Dr. Jim Walsh, an expert on international security, will offer unique insight on the future of U.S.-Israel bilateral relations and foreign policy concerns between the U.S. and the Middle East as the new administration takes office. They will shed light on the issues relating to the Iran Nuclear Deal, Saudi Arabia, and the ongoing crisis in Syria. Click here for registration information! WACC Business Breakfast Series – February 2, 2017 Global Economic Outlook 2017 Dr. Jay Bryson, Managing Director and Global Economist, Wells Fargo Dr. Bryson will provide analysis on financial markets and macroeconomic developments in the major economies of the world. Dr. Bryson will share an expert presentation on the outlook of the 2017 global economy. His presentation will not only address the impact of U.S. financial markets around the world, but trending economic strategies worldwide, challenges in addressing fiscal policy domestically and abroad, and growth in emerging markets. Click here for registration information! WACC CEO Seroes – February 22, 2017 A Conversation with Brian Moynihan Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan will serve as co-chairman of the January 2017 meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. As the leader of one of the world’s largest financial services firms, Moynihan will share his thoughts on the global economy and the work Bank of America does to drive responsible growth in the U.S. and around the world. Click here for registration information! |
  |
| If you would like to connect with our readers, please contact me for more information. Learn more. |
Sincerely,
John Paul Galles
Publisher
CLT.biz LLC
Publisher’s Post
NAFTA: True to Campaign Rhetoric?
“NAFTA has destroyed American jobs!”
That seems to be a common refrain in our current Presidential race, though it is NOT new.
Publisher
Indeed, in Ross Perot’s 1992 bid for the Presidency, he referred to NAFTA as the “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving the United States for Mexico, rallying support by provoking fear in American workers. Sound familiar?
The U.S. has long been negotiating trade agreements. In 1947, 23 nations signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). That was followed by a much larger group (123) of nations participating in the Uruguay Round of GATT in 1994, which established the World Trade Organization (WTO) in January 1995. GATT remains in effect under the WTO framework to this day.
In addition to these, the U.S. has entered into and continues to negotiate trade agreements with nations around the globe including Israel, Columbia, Chile, Australia, Bahrain, Morocco, Peru, Panama and Singapore.
Here in North America, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is a three-country accord negotiated by the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States to eliminate most tariffs on products traded among the three countries. Implemented in 1994, it was ushered in by both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well as members of Congress from both political parties.
As of 2015, the NAFTA trade volume of U.S. imports from Canada were approximately $312.1 billion and exports $279.9 billion, and U.S. imports from Mexico were $309.1 billion while exports $236.4 billion. While both have been trade deficits for a number of years now, it is important to note that U.S. exports are only about 16 percent of our GDP. U.S. imports to Canada and Mexico represented around one quarter of all our imports; and exports to Canada and Mexico represented around one third of all our exports.
As Geopolitical Futures in the NAFTA article in this week’s CLT.biz Insights points out, “There is no definitive evidence illustrating NAFTA’s impact on the U.S. job market…due to the fact that both sides of the debate provide numbers to support their arguments that are at best estimates given the complexities of the economy and shortfalls in modeling.”
Evaluating the extent of NAFTA job losses also needs to take into account concurrent changes in our economy. Most significant has been the advancement of technology. American manufacturing has undergone a huge transformation of industries to more automated and advanced manufacturing requiring fewer workers. The transformation continues at an increasing pace. Futurists have identified major trends toward even fewer workers as Manufacturing 3.0 processes are being driven by machines able to adapt to change on their own.
The American economy itself, which experienced dramatic economic growth during the 1990s and early 2000s, has also been impacted by the huge loss of over 9 million jobs during the Great Recession from 2008 to 2010. Our economy has not yet fully recovered.
On the other hand, during this same time period, global merchandise trade has increased fivefold. Finished goods are produced nearly everywhere and shipped nearly anywhere to meet demand.
Pre-NAFTA there were a number of studies predicting its impact. On the whole, these studies expected NAFTA to have a negligible to mild effect—in either direction—on U.S. employment.
Job loss estimates post-NAFTA have varied. However, they are not nearly as overwhelming as the current political upheaval would have us believe. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study puts the number at one million jobs. While the U.S. Department of Labor data reported that about five million manufacturing jobs have been lost since NAFTA, another report by think tank Public Citizen looks further at that data and estimates that only one in four of these job losses was NAFTA-related.
In 2008, President Obama pegged the number of jobs lost due to NAFTA at about one million. He compared that loss to the large-scale annual churning in the U.S. market where approximately 17.5 million jobs are lost each year and more than 18 million created, concluding that NAFTA losses account for less than one percent of annual job churn.
The Trilateral Commission, which oversees NAFTA, at its meeting in Ottawa, Canada, in 2008, has itself observed, “NAFTA’s critics were correct in arguing that governments have not pursued domestic policies that enable firms and workers to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the pact…and help manage adjustments to the new competitive environment so that political support for the pact can be sustained.”
They have described NAFTA as a living document and updating it as both necessary and desirable to ensure that it contributes to the sustainable economic growth in all three countries.
Given the fact that NAFTA was passed with bipartisan support, that current political rhetoric grossly overestimates job losses by anybody’s estimates, that the Trilateral Commission consistently monitors NAFTA, and that the Mexican government has already expressed an openness to renegotiation, it would be foolhardy to have a simplistic and negativistic attitude toward NAFTA in general.
As with the surprising vote in favor of BREXIT (and I hope you will read Gillian Tett’s observations on that in this week’s CLT.biz Insights), there is a marked rise of nationalism around the globe. The nation-state is reasserting itself as the primary vehicle of political life. Multinational treaties are being challenged as not in the national interest primarily because they are perceived as bad for jobs.
Trade matters are highly complex as (i) they are impacted by a number of factors including economics, politics, technology, and other marketplace disruptions that are not necessarily under the same control, and (ii) since they do not involve some players, they are subject to economic sabotage like “dumping” (exporting at below price).
Trade agreements promote the free exchange of goods and services and they are essential to opening new trade opportunities.
It would be most helpful if the political candidates were more articulate on the aspects of foreign trade as it becomes increasingly important to our economic welfare. By the same token, we ourselves should not easily condemn trade practices without taking the time to be reasonably informed rather than repeating ridiculous rhetoric.
John Paul Galles, Publisher
Please feel free to contact me 980-999-1249 or jgalles@CLT.biz!
THE INDUSTRY 4.0 “WORKFORCE”:
Making Us Reevaluate Human Endeavor
Some presidential candidates have suggested restraining international trade as a means to restoring and retaining jobs in the U.S.; however, simple observation of the ever-expanding and increasingly interactive flows of goods, services, finance, people and digital communications confirms our global economy does not easily afford artificial barriers.
Equalizing the field of international trade is laudable, however, we need to also—or moreso—recognize that the nature of Industry 4.0 itself is catapulting advanced manufacturing in the direction of substantially fewer workers and more automation.
Industry 4.0 facilitates the vision and execution of a Smart Factory. Within the modular structured Smart Factory, cyber-physical systems monitor physical processes, create a virtual copy of the physical world and make decentralized decisions.
Over the Internet of Things, cyber-physical systems communicate and cooperate with each other and with humans in real time, and via the Internet of Services, both internal and cross-organizational services are offered and utilized by participants of the value chain.
However, workers’ pay, training, benefits and taxes are more expensive relative to robotic counterparts. As a result, the vision of Industry 4.0 suggests that the adoption of big data, autonomous robots, simulations, additive manufacturing, system integration and augmented reality will further reduce the number of jobs.
While we all would like to think that we are not replaceable—from publishers to financial advisors, to bus drivers, firefighters, doctors and surgeons—new technology and artificial intelligence are replacing more tasks and supplanting more jobs.
Even the big consulting groups like McKinsey and Company and the Boston Consulting Group have suggested that it is likely that 45 percent of current jobs will be provided by robots. As a result, increasing unemployment may reach 50 percent in 30 years.
There will be jobs for those that build and service these new machines; however, programs are also being written so that these machines will repair themselves.
Combining the impact of all these new technologies, it is probable to conclude that we will be facing potentially devastating economic upheaval. With the future of human labor in doubt, we will need to reconsider the next generation of “jobs” that will enable our livelihood.
Over the past 50 years, the impact of technological change has moved people from the farms to the factories and then to a nation substantially built on services. As technology continues to replace and supplant human labor and thought, we might envision further evolution to a reduced work week allowing time for more creative work that will end up as ever-newer innovations and entrepreneurial opportunities supported by technology.
More time invites more creativity, especially with the access and application of technology to support such thought work. Art, culture, travel, education and adventure will be pursued in a multitude of ways including virtual reality and high-speed travel.
Our old manufacturing revolution and its applications will pale in comparison to future production. We won’t need to produce 5,000 widgets in a factory to reduce the price of an individual widget; we can simply scan one and 3D-manufacture it from anywhere. We may be able to diagnose our own ailments and identify treatments that have been designed for our individual DNA. We may even learn to eat certain foods that will cure our ailments and prevent future health problems.
We need to embrace a broader dialogue on these challenges to rethink and reassess how these changes will affect our values and purpose. Our “world” is being radically disrupted, but maybe that disruption will give way to even more innovation and creativity than we know today.
We need to look forward, not be lulled into the thinking of the past century and applying arcane solutions. We need to reevaluate the human endeavor and what makes us fundamentally individually valuable.
In May of 2006, the Brookings Institute published a working paper titled Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming is Over. It set forth three basic findings with regard to climate change.
First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we’re not going to like it. Third, reducing greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than assumed.
While many people to this day remain skeptical about global warming and climate change, many nations around the world are worried enough that they have continued to seek further consensus as well as formal agreement and an actual business plan that addresses global warming and reducing greenhouse gases.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of what happened at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (the yearly session of the Conference of the Parties or COP21) in Paris in December 2015. Basically, official representatives from 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal, legally binding agreement to fight climate change. The Paris Agreement or Accord, as it has come to be called, aims to help the world abandon fossil fuels in this century and, specifically, stop global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and, if possible, below 1.5 degrees.
And while the Paris Agreement will be dissected and discussed every way imaginable, it represents a key shift in the climate movement: A global consensus that something significant needs to be done, and a pathway to do it.
One of the most respected voices on climate change is James Hansen, a former NASA scientist now climate activist that has been studying changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s. At a benchmark Congressional hearing in 1988, he described the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere causing global warming with a 99 percent certainty. He advocated the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide.”
It was Hansen and 16 others who released a report in July 2015 announcing that the Earth’s huge icebergs and ice sheets, such as those found in Greenland, are melting faster than expected. It stated, “The sea level could soon be up to five meters higher than it is today by the latter part of this century, [if] greenhouse gases aren’t radically slashed. This would inundate many of the world’s cities, including London, New York, Miami and Shanghai.”
As these scientists describe it, there is a great deal of excess energy already in the “system.” So far, the oceans have been absorbing a huge amount of this excess heat. However, this will not continue forever, and when it stops, the heat will go into the atmosphere.
Evidently, the Arctic has been heating up much faster than other places. The volume of sea ice has been drastically reduced, so that there is less and less multi-year ice. Sometime in the next few years, there will likely be a period late in the summer when all the sea ice will disappear.
The ice reflects most of the sunlight that hits it regardless of whether it is 3 inches thick or 3 meters. So, when light reflection is diminished by melting ice, the oceans warm. The next great fear is that as the oceans warm, methane that is now held in ice crystals deep on the ocean floor will be released. This is especially true at the Siberian continental shelf. Methane gas has a much stronger greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Virtually every aspect of climate change that we have seen has occurred much, much, much faster than previously predicted. This is true of the Arctic sea ice melting, glaciers shrinking, sea level rising, and ocean warming. There’s no reason to believe any of this will slow down. In fact, it is only likely to accelerate.
Of course, many big questions remain, but having the Paris Accord in place is a collective first step. Implementing the agreed-upon assessment mechanisms and action plans will be essential to meet the longer term challenge. Making sure that nations fulfill their obligations under this agreement is also vital to the prospect of slowing and reversing the greenhouse effect.
What is most important is to learn all we can to take individual ownership of climate change. This is not an effort won by any one person or any one nation. It will only be won with every effort we can put forward. Even if you refuse to accept these concepts for your own generation, then make it your commitment for future generations.
As Chief Seattle is frequently quoted, “Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints!”
I believe that we need to apply that same premise to our lives here on this earth. I challenge you to follow that fundamental premise.
First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we’re not going to like it. Third, reducing greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than assumed.
While many people to this day remain skeptical about global warming and climate change, many nations around the world are worried enough that they have continued to seek further consensus as well as formal agreement and an actual business plan that addresses global warming and reducing greenhouse gases.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of what happened at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (the yearly session of the Conference of the Parties or COP21) in Paris in December 2015. Basically, official representatives from 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal, legally binding agreement to fight climate change. The Paris Agreement or Accord, as it has come to be called, aims to help the world abandon fossil fuels in this century and, specifically, stop global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and, if possible, below 1.5 degrees.
And while the Paris Agreement will be dissected and discussed every way imaginable, it represents a key shift in the climate movement: A global consensus that something significant needs to be done, and a pathway to do it.
One of the most respected voices on climate change is James Hansen, a former NASA scientist now climate activist that has been studying changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s. At a benchmark Congressional hearing in 1988, he described the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere causing global warming with a 99 percent certainty. He advocated the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide.”
It was Hansen and 16 others who released a report in July 2015 announcing that the Earth’s huge icebergs and ice sheets, such as those found in Greenland, are melting faster than expected. It stated, “The sea level could soon be up to five meters higher than it is today by the latter part of this century, [if] greenhouse gases aren’t radically slashed. This would inundate many of the world’s cities, including London, New York, Miami and Shanghai.”
As these scientists describe it, there is a great deal of excess energy already in the “system.” So far, the oceans have been absorbing a huge amount of this excess heat. However, this will not continue forever, and when it stops, the heat will go into the atmosphere.
Evidently, the Arctic has been heating up much faster than other places. The volume of sea ice has been drastically reduced, so that there is less and less multi-year ice. Sometime in the next few years, there will likely be a period late in the summer when all the sea ice will disappear.
The ice reflects most of the sunlight that hits it regardless of whether it is 3 inches thick or 3 meters. So, when light reflection is diminished by melting ice, the oceans warm. The next great fear is that as the oceans warm, methane that is now held in ice crystals deep on the ocean floor will be released. This is especially true at the Siberian continental shelf. Methane gas has a much stronger greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Virtually every aspect of climate change that we have seen has occurred much, much, much faster than previously predicted. This is true of the Arctic sea ice melting, glaciers shrinking, sea level rising, and ocean warming. There’s no reason to believe any of this will slow down. In fact, it is only likely to accelerate.
Of course, many big questions remain, but having the Paris Accord in place is a collective first step. Implementing the agreed-upon assessment mechanisms and action plans will be essential to meet the longer term challenge. Making sure that nations fulfill their obligations under this agreement is also vital to the prospect of slowing and reversing the greenhouse effect.
What is most important is to learn all we can to take individual ownership of climate change. This is not an effort won by any one person or any one nation. It will only be won with every effort we can put forward. Even if you refuse to accept these concepts for your own generation, then make it your commitment for future generations.
As Chief Seattle is frequently quoted, “Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints!”
I believe that we need to apply that same premise to our lives here on this earth. I challenge you to follow that fundamental premise.
The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, the set of ideals (Democracy, Rights, Liberty, Opportunity, and Equality) in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers.
It is a basic part of our fabric, rooted in the Declaration of Independence proclaiming all men created equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Those ideals have recently been put to the test by a pair of economists at Harvard, known for their work on income mobility. They have released a report on factors across the nation within communities correlating with income mobility: The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility. Their findings took many by surprise.
Across the country, the researchers found five factors associated with strong upward mobility: less segregation by income and race, lower levels of income inequality, better schools, lower rates of violent crime, and a larger share of two-parent households. In general, the effects of place are sharper for boys than for girls, and for lower-income children than for rich.
“The broader lesson of our analysis,” Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren write, “is that social mobility should be tackled at a local level.”
They found substantial variation in intergenerational mobility across geographic areas within the U.S., although upward mobility is especially low across the South. Most important, their findings confirm that Charlotte is the worst big city for climbing out of poverty in the nation!
Charlotte’s ranking is especially surprising in light of the national and international accolades the city has received over the recent years as one of the most entrepreneurial, fastest growing, best places for families to live, U.S. cities attracting the most families , most livable cities for people 35 and younger, cities where African-Americans are doing the best economically, best metro areas for STEM professionals, best performing cities, and—ironically—one of the world’s most competitive cities.
In reaction to this study showing that upward mobility for children in poverty is more difficult in Charlotte than any of the country’s 50 largest cities, the city formed its own special task force to investigate why, in the words of one member, “If you’re born poor in Charlotte, you’re mostly likely to remain poor—more so here than anywhere else in the country.”
The upward mobility study of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s “Opportunity Landscape” was released this spring, presented by UNCC’s Metropolitan Studies and Extended Academic Programs and prepared by UNC Charlotte’s Urban Land Institute with support from Foundation for The Carolinas.
Here are a few of the findings or highlights from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg study:
• 38 percent of households with children are single parent;
• Segregation is evident in neighborhoods, by race and class;
• One fifth of the households made more than half the income;
• Many households would fall into poverty after 3 months without income;
• Differences in mobility emerge when children are young (based upon reading skills);
• Inter-racial trust has remained flat.
The task force recognized Charlotte’s ranking as a clear challenge and stressed that overcoming impoverishment needs to be addressed through long-term community-wide solutions that address the systemic nature of this highly complex issue.
That our city can garner such outstanding recognition nationally and internationally, yet cultivate such a dismal landscape of opportunity, particularly for those most in need, is indeed food for thought. We cannot truly advance our community if we are leaving people behind in that process. Let’s get our competitive juices flowing to float everyone’s boat!.
We know that 80 percent of global business activity is outside the United States, and that 82 percent of business growth occurs outside our borders. Furthermore, 95 percent of consumers are beyond the borders of our country.
Thinking globally, you might first look for opportunities in Mexico or Canada, or maybe even Europe or China because of their strong and growing economies. Perhaps you should re-think that and instead examine emerging countries where you can have the most impact.
Emerging economies need so many things; they will likely have only increasing needs for products and services from the United States. They are seeking support and business strength to build infrastructure, energy systems, health care facilities, and educational programs.
At the same time, you have to determine how to use your limited resources and time. You can learn a lot from the experiences of others doing business outside the U.S. For example, Clifton Vann, CEO of Hyde Park Partners, provides significant insight into the opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa.
His business activity in Nigeria and Tanzania and other African nations is indicative of the opportunities that exist in the global marketplace. His company’s success even prompted him to to host the inaugural “Power Africa Charlotte” conference in the fall of 2014. He is working to hold an even larger conference in May of 2016 to educate other businesses to the openings for business growth.
One very important indicator for opportunity is population growth. Emerging countries face staggering population growth rates within just a few decades. As a benchmark, for a country to sustain itself at current population levels there must be a fertility rate of at least 2.10 babies per woman over her lifetime. In the United States, the current fertility rate is about 1.90. That is just below a replacement rate—and if that rate is maintained or lowered, the U.S. population is likely to decline absent immigration.
A brief survey of birth rates around the globe shows that most European countries are likely to decline in population because their fertility rate is not replacing the current population. For instance, Germany is among the lowest with a fertility rate of 1.44 per mother; Italy is at 1.49; the United Kingdom is at 1.90. Outside Europe, Russia is at 1.64 and Japan is among the lowest at 1.46. These numbers are likely to produce smaller populations over the next 50 to 100 years.
On the flip side of the fertility rate charts, Nigeria is among the highest at 5.25 per woman, Zambia is at 5.76 and Kenya is at 3.54. These nations and other similar countries will see rapid growth.
When you examine the impact of these numbers along with improvements in health care within each country, you can project population growth into the future. Europe is not likely to grow without immigration, China’s population will decline, but Africa is likely to grow rapidly as the economies within that continent improve their health care and diets. Where population is rapidly growing, there are even greater economic opportunities.
It is very interesting, and sometimes amusing, to discover the incentives offered by various countries to raise their fertility rates. Some nations have declared holidays so that couples will have more time procreate.
Russia has identified September 12th as the “Day of Conception” giving couples the day off from work to conceive babies. The government then rewards couples who “give birth to a patriot” during its June 12 festivities with money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes.
The French government provides tax and transportation breaks as well as child care and pre-school and health care benefits. Their package of incentives must be working because France now has the highest birth rate in Europe.
In Sweden, parents are given 18 months of government paid leave from their employment. In Spain and Italy, they are offering cash incentives—with one village offering $15,000 per child. In Great Britain, the government extended paid maternity leave from 26 to 39 weeks. The measure also allows fathers up to 26 weeks of unpaid paternity leave.
Denmark has even created a national campaign to have more babies. They call it, “Do It For Denmark!” View this amusing if somewhat risqué video to see their campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=vrO3TfJc9Qw.
An analysis of population growth will provide interesting information about likely business opportunities in foreign countries. It will also lead you to an understanding of the needs that a country is seeking to fulfill.
The Hyde Park Partners profile demonstrates one company opening a pathway to commerce with sub-Saharan Africa, which has enormous needs but also increasing resources to dedicate to procuring products and services addressing those needs. You may want to learn more. The opportunities are substantial and there are fewer competitors in these early stages of growth.
