Cedar Fair in talks on $4.1 billion takeover

---

Jeff said:

The economy does suck here. What does that have to do with anything? I can't speak for Detroit (save for the fact that the American auto industry hasn't gotten it right in at least a decade), but here in Cleveland, there has been zero adaptation to what the world needs. You could write a book on Cleveland's failure to maintain a solid economy. I wouldn't blame it at all on off-shoring either.

---

I agree with that.

In Cleveland's favor, we're lightyears ahead of everyone at paying for stadiums and convention centers from taxes on beer and cigs.
(sarcasm off) Sure, the teams bring money into the city, but not the same as industry which is almost nonexistent here.

Hell, look how long it took for Clevelands first Mall to go thru? Steelyard Commons is going nicely and to Walmarts favor, they refused the tax abatement offered by the city.

There is a lot at play with the Ohio economy and any discussion we have about it is going to be pretty shallow. But, keep in mind that for the last 100 years or so the Ohio economy was largely based on agriculture, steel and the auto industry. We all know what happend to steel and the auto industry.

All of those jobs (which were good at one time) required little, if any, advanced education. I think I read somewhere that only 17% of Ohio residents have a Bachelor's degree or higher. That doesn't bode well while the economy is shifting to the information age.

Add to that the fact that an Ohio education is one of the most expensive in the nation (I believe in the top 10 for in-state tuition) and you have competing interests. Ohio needs education yet Ohio can't afford education.

I am certain that without Cedar Point Sandusky would be nothing. While there is some industry there ALL of the recent growth supports the service industry which offers low paying jobs, for the most part, with little if any benefits. So, the "growth" you see happening is actually NOT helping these long term issues.

How does that get changed? Someone smarter than me will have to figure it out.

---

Gemini said:
Maybe Ohio and Pennsylvania should figure out what California is doing right?

---

We have a winner!

I already answered why those "two new jobs" didn't appear in Cleveland. We haven't adapted. I can count the big businesses in our area that have big impact on one hand (Progressive, Key, Cleveland Clinic are probably the most notable). Not exactly a huge boon to our development.

Several of my EECS colleagues have started companies on the side. A few started here. Most are either in Boston or the Bay Area. One friend who started here, and has a successful, profitable networking security company has said quite publicly: if he had it to do over, he wouldn't put an office in Ann Arbor.

Why? There aren't enough of the people he needs in SE Michigan---not just tech, but legal, business, etc. So, he also had to start an office in Boston. It's been a real pain.

Why do the companies locate in California? Because there's a supply of talent. Why is the talent there? Because that's where the jobs are. How did Silicon Valley start? A big-a**ed investment from Stanford way back when to incubate some companies in a new field that was a big risk. It paid off.

A few other places have duplicated that: Austin and Boston come to mind for computing. San Diego and Chicago for wireless. Boston for biomed.

Other places have tried to make that kind of investment, and most have failed. Usually it is because they are johnny-come-latelies, looking at growing into a center for today's big thing, which looks like a sure bet. Problem is, you can never be better than an also-ran, because there is already a critical mass for that big thing elsewhere---that's why it's a big thing---and that's where the people and the jobs will flow. Instead, you either have to re-invigorate your own critical mass in some way, and make it a big thing of its own, or you have to make a risky bet on something that might or might not pay off.

SE Michigan mostly has been investing in Today's big thing, and failing, instead of betting on tomorrow's. The state, along with UM, has been trying to grow biomed. It's been a huge failure; UM can't even keep a director for the new and flush-with-cash Life Sciences Institute.

However, the area is also showing signs of regrowing its former strengths, despite itself. Toyota has an R&D site that is growing like gangbusters. Hyundai just purchased a big tract of land for an R&D site of their own. Why? Because this is where the automotive design talent lives. The ex-Pfizer site is being redeveloped as an incubator; hopefully enough of those pharma people will stick around to regain the strength that used to be here---after all, Lipitor was invented here.

Skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been. :)

You bring up a work-versus-talent pool thing I guess I haven't thought much about. The reason I was able to exponentially increase my salary was because I got into something so in demand here, due to the shallow talent pool. That wasn't on purpose, mind you, but I'm happy about the way it turned out. It reinforces the point that opportunity is everywhere, you just need to look for it.

Jeff, I didn't ask "why" the new jobs weren't created in Detroit or Cleveland. Living where I live, I already knew the answer. I'm just pointing out that looking at job growth countrywide depicts an inaccurate picture. No, globalization hasn't benefitted everyone equally.

Flying Scooter-- PA leaves you waaay back in the dust when it comes to subsidizing pro sports teams. Last count, 2 football stadiums, 2 baseball stadiums, and now we're diverting money from the slots (which was supposed to be used for property tax relief) to build a new hockey arena.

The problem with Philly/Pittsburgh and most cities across the state is the "leadership" all suffer from the social welfare syndrome. Growth should come from the amount of money the government spends, not from innovation or creativity. As we just saw with the latest budget battle, the mayor of Philly gets on TV and whines that Philly's problems are the result of those greedy selfish 11 million other people in the state who won't give all their money to Philly. Then just for good measure, mention they're all white.

Funny thing is in my area, a lot of people I know who moved away-- and lots of people others know who moved away-- say they would move back in a heartbeat if only there were decent professional jobs.

Who cares if it hasn't benefited everyone equally? Shall we start creating tariffs for interstate commerce too? Protectionism doesn't work.