Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 19, 1993 TAG: 9309210254
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: F-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DWAYNE YANCEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Myth No. 1: Roanoke, in recent years, has economically fallen behind the other big cities in Virginia and North Carolina.
Why it's a myth: It's not recent. The roots of Roanoke's sluggish economic growth may reach back two decades or more.
Myth No. 2: It's not valid to compare Roanoke with those cities anyway. After all, we were never in their league to start with.
Why it's a myth: That's true, we weren't in their league. We used to be in a higher-paying one.
You're out of work, and can't find a job here. Or you have a job, but it doesn't pay much and your long-term prospects for making more are dim because the high-paying jobs in your field or with your company are in another city.
Or you're retired, but wish your kids or grandkids could live here. Trouble is, they can't find the kind of jobs they want here. So they're in Charlotte, instead.
In many ways, jobs are the overarching issue confronting the Roanoke Valley.
A poll last fall by Roanoke College's Center for Community Research found "lack of job opportunities" to be the biggest gripe people had about the Roanoke Valley.
Yet unemployment's not our problem. We typically have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state. Instead, the problem appears to be underemployment - specifically, a lack of high-wage jobs in the region. There's the lack of opportunity.
It's not just a case, though, of people here feeling disgruntled because they're not getting paid enough. One reason our unemployment rate is so low is that, when people can't find the jobs they want here, they simply move someplace where they can. A recent analysis of the 1990 census by University of Virginia demographers found an accelerating exodus of young adults from the Roanoke Valley; some 5 percent of the kids who were age 15 to 19 in 1980 had left by the time they were 25 to 29 in 1990, and weren't replaced by others their same age moving in.
Why is this?
And how much should we make of it?
Put another way: Is Roanoke's economic plight unusual?
That's tougher to answer, because Roanoke's economic angst is complicated by its geography and by a philosophical divide that cleaves the Roanoke Valley as plainly as any mountain.
On one side of this debate are those who look out on a string of fast-growing Sun Belt cities just two to three hours' drive away - the Richmonds, the Raleighs, the Greensboros, the Charlottes - and wonder why Roanoke isn't enjoying the same economic growth. This group bemoans that Roanoke is falling behind the cities we once considered our equals.
On the other side are those who agree, yes, the lack of high-wage jobs in the Roanoke Valley is a problem. But they contend the Roanoke Valley shouldn't be compared with the hyper-growth Sun Belt cities, that we don't want to become - get ready, here it comes - "another Charlotte."
But the viewpoints of both camps evade a key question: Just who should Roanoke be compared with?
If Charlotte's not the right benchmark for measuring our economic fortunes, then who should be? Is there an objective way to determine whether Roanoke is really falling behind economically?
To help answer this question, the Roanoke Times & World-News turned to David Rusk, a Washington-based urban consultant with a voluminous computer database of economic and census figures.
His assignment: To identify the cities most like Roanoke in 1950, and then plot their economic fortunes over the four decades since.
This is what he found:
Part I: The world in 1950
Roanoke used to be pretty well-off. That's because, from an economic standpoint, Roanoke wasn't a Southern city. The places most like Roanoke in 1950 were industrial cities in the Midwest, then the most affluent part of the country.
If you want to trace the rise and fall of U.S. cities, 1950 makes a good starting point, Rusk believes. World War II was over, American industry was at its height worldwide, and two great trends that would re-shape the economic landscape of North America through the last half of the century were just beginning: The rise of the suburbs, and the migration of jobs - and people - from the industrial North and Midwest to the South.
To find the places most like Roanoke in 1950, Rusk used two main characteristics - population and income.
He looked for metro areas within 33 percent of the Roanoke Valley's population, and within 10 percent of Roanoke's median family income.
He found 14 sister cities, mostly in the industrial Midwest.
Roanoke's peer cities in 1950
Saginaw, Mich. (153,515)
Jackson, Mich. (107,925)
Decatur, Ill. ( 98,853)
Anderson, Ind. (103,911)
Muncie, Ind. ( 90,252)
Springfield, Ill.(131,484)
Lubbock, Texas (101,048)
Topeka, Kan. (105,418)
Evansville, Ind. (160,422)
ROANOKE (133,407)
Muskegon, Mich. (121,545)
Wichita Falls, Texas ( 98,493)
Durham, N.C. (101,639)
Lynchburg ( 96,936)
Austin, Tex. (160,980)
Of these 14 sister cities, 11 had median family incomes above the national average. The only three that didn't were in the South - Durham, Lynchburg and Austin.
Here's each metro area's median family income and how much it differed from the national average:
1950 median family income compared with national average
Saginaw, Mich. $3,421 +13.5
Jackson, Mich. $3,404 +12.9
Decatur, Ill. $3,375 +11.9
Anderson, Ind. $3,369 +11.7
Muncie, Ind. $3,301 + 9.4
Springfield, Ill. $3,298 + 9.3
Lubbock, Tex. $3,283 + 8.8
Topeka, Kan. $3,255 + 7.9
Evansville, Ind. $3,249 + 7.7
ROANOKE $3,224 + 6.9
Muskegon, Mich. $3,185 + 5.6
Wichita Falls, Tex. $3,173 + 5.2
National average $3,015 ----
Durham, N.C. $2,960 - 0.2
Lynchburg $2,949 - 2.1
Austin, Texas $2,933 - 2.7
Why weren't more of Roanoke's Southern neighbors considered our economic equals in 1950? Because we were richer than they were.
Let's compare Roanoke with the other big metro areas in Virginia and North Carolina. (We'll leave out Northern Virginia, because the economic conditions there are just too unusual. Lots of cities might be railroad towns or high-tech centers; but there can only be one national capital at a time.)
These are the cities Roanoke psychologically competes with - and their metro population in 1950.
Roanoke's regional competitors and population
Richmond (328,050)
ROANOKE: (133,407)
Charlotte: (197,052)
Greensboro: (191,057)
Norfolk: (446,200)
Durham (101,639)
Lynchburg: ( 96,936)
Winston-Salem: (146,135)
Raleigh (136,450)
And here's how they stacked up in terms of median family income:
1950 mdeian family income compared with national average
Richmond $3,383 +12.2
ROANOKE: $3,224 + 6.9
Charlotte: $3,180 + 5.4
Norfolk: $3,074 + 2.0
Greensboro: $3,045 + 0.9
(national average) $3,015 -----
Durham $2,960 - 0.2
Lynchburg: $2,949 - 2.1
Winston-Salem: $2,760 - 8.4
Raleigh $2,737 - 9.2
That's right. In 1950, Roanoke had the second-highest median family income of the major metros in Virginia and North Carolina. Only Richmond, which had the advantage of being both the state capital and the state's banking center, was more affluent.
On the whole, the economic pattern of Virginia and North Carolina was pretty mixed. Of Roanoke's eight neighbors, four were above the national average; four below. For the most part, Roanoke's neighbors were about the same size in 1950. But some were a lot poorer. Let's find out why.
What was the key to the Midwestern cities' affluence in 1950? Heavy industry.
Here's what percentage of the jobs in each metro area were in manufacturing in 1950:
Percentage of jobs in manufacturing in 1950
Saginaw 42%
Jackson 36%
Decatur 26%
Anderson 51%
Muncie 43%
Springfield 20%
Lubbock 7%
Topeka 14%
Evansville 36%
Roanoke 20%
Muskegon 51%
Wichita Falls 9%
Durham 18%
Lynchburg 33%
Austin 6%
Notice how for the Midwestern cities there's a correlation between the size of a city's manufacturing base and its median family income: The more industrialized a city was, the higher its income tended to be. That's because in 1950 there were still plenty of well-paying blue-collar jobs.
Generally speaking, these mid-sized Midwestern cities were heavily industrialized and made pretty good money in 1950. Roanoke, on the strength of railroad jobs and manufacturing plants such as American Viscose, was one of the few Southern cities able to muscle its way into their class.
Note the places that don't seem to fit the pattern, though. The extenuating circumstances are harbingers:
Lubbock and Wichita Falls had small industrial bases but fairly high incomes because they were in the Oil Patch.
Topeka had a relatively small industrial base for its day but still had high income for another reason: It's a state capital, and state capitals - even small ones in the middle of the Farm Belt - tend to attract high-paying jobs.
The presence of a state capital probably was the major reason why Austin, another city with an even tinier industrial base, snuck onto the bottom of the list.
Pay attention, too, to the other two Southern cities that ranked as Roanoke's economic equals in 1950: Durham and Lynchburg. Both boasted good-sized manufacturing bases, and Lynchburg's was especially large. Yet while both made the list, they were below the national average in terms of median family income. There's a reason for that.
Most Southern cities weren't nearly as industrialized as their Midwestern counterparts. But even those that were found their incomes were a lot lower. That's because the Midwest had the high-wage industries, such as auto-making; the South had the low-wage industries, such as textiles.
That's why Roanoke was so unusual: Here was a Southern city with high-wage industries.
Percentage of jobs manufacturing in 1950: Cities ranked by income
Richmond 23%
Roanoke 20%
Charlotte 39%
Norfolk 18%
Greensboro* 40%
Durham* 18%
Lynchburg 33%
Winston-Salem* 40%
Raleigh 18%
But notice what happened.
Part II: The world changes in the Rust Belt, 1950-1990
Over the next 40 years, the Midwestern industrial cities lost economic ground. So did Roanoke.
There are two quick ways to measure the changes the cities underwent - population and income. But folks in the Roanoke Valley seem uncomfortable equating population growth with progress. In fact, last year's Roanoke Valley Poll showed two-thirds of the citizens surveyed think the valley's population is the perfect size now.
Not surprisingly then, they're also happy that the valley's population didn't grow much during the past decade. Some 56 percent said the valley's 2 percent population gain was about right; another 13 percent thought even that was too much. Add them together and that's clearly a mandate against using population growth as a yardstick for economic progress.
So we won't.
But since 70 percent of those same folks said the valley's biggest problem is the lack of job opportunities . . .
And since 66 percent said the current rate of economic growth in the Roanoke Valley is too slow . . .
And since 65 percent said their children would have to leave the valley to find good jobs . . .
And since 54 percent said the valley as a place to work was getting worse . . .
And since 54 percent said it would be hard to find a job with another employer for the same income and fringe benefits they have now . . .
Then there does seem to be a mandate to use income growth as a yardstick for economic progress.
So here's how Roanoke's economic equals from 1950 matched up in 1990 in terms of median family income. As always, we're measuring entire metro areas, not just the central city:
1990 median family income compared with national average
Durham $41,572 +21.8
Springfield $37,373 + 9.5
Austin $36,325 + 6.2
Topeka $35,987 + 5.4
ROANOKE $34,942 + 2.4
Decatur $34,861 + 2.1
Saginaw $34,727 + 1.0
National average $34,130 ---------
Jackson, Mich. $33,967 - 0.4
Evansville $33,523 - 1.8
Anderson, Ind. $33,332 - 2.3
Muncie $31,724 - 7.0
Lynchburg $31,163 - 8.7
Lubbock $30,380 -10.9
Muskegon $30,152 -11.6
Wichita Falls $28,799 -15.6
Notice how most of these cities slumped in terms of where they stood against the national average in 1950.
Then, 11 of Roanoke's 14 sister cities were above the national average. By 1990, only six were.
Even some of the six cities still above the national average were, relatively speaking, losing economic ground. Roanoke was one of them.
In 1950, Roanoke's median family income was 6.9 percent above the national average.
By 1990, it was only 2.4 percent above.
Here's another way to look at what happened economically to Roanoke and its peer cities from 1950 to 1990:
The nation's median family income was rising, but Roanoke couldn't keep pace.
Here's how much real incomes in each city grew over the past four decades. ("Real" income growth is an economist's fancy way of saying how much incomes rose in relationship to inflation. Therefore, a 0% change means staying even with inflation. But that's easy, believe it or not. What you really want to do is at least keep pace with the national average for real income growth - and perhaps exceed it).
Durham 195%
Austin 140%
Springfield 120%
National average 120%
Topeka 115%
ROANOKE 110%
Lynchburg 105%
Decatur 100%
Evansville 100%
Saginaw 97%
Jackson 94%
Anderson 92%
Muncie 87%
Muskegon 84%
Lubbock 80%
Wichita Falls 76%
Only two of Roanoke's peer cities from 1950 saw their real incomes grow faster than the national average over the past forty years. Roanoke - along with most of the others - started falling behind. Sometimes, way behind.
In this company, Roanoke did better than most of its Rust Belt peers. And the two Oil Patch cities, subject to the boom and bust of energy cycles, did worst of all.
Note the cities that did best, though. Durham (well, Raleigh/Durham, in the census bureau's mind) and Austin have three things in common that have helped drive their incomes upward: Both are state capitals, both are home to major universities, both are home to major research center (the Research Triangle in North Carolina; the new Sementech computer chip center in Texas).
Note, too, the other two cities that did better than Roanoke and hugged the national average: Springfield and Topeka. Both are state capitals.
There's another way of visualizing this uneven income growth. Imagine cities as stocks on a stock market.
Sure, you want to know what a stock's value is. But you also want to know whether that value is rising or falling. A stock may be expensive, but if it's losing value, that may be a sign of trouble. And a cheap stock gaining rapidly may be a sign that it's a good investment.
Likewise, one key here is whether a city's real income is rising or falling relative to the national average. If these cities were on Wall Street, here's a way of measuring which ones would have been good investments over the past 40 years:
We looked at where each city's median family income stood relative to the national average in 1950, then looked at where it stood in 1990, and computed the difference. For instance, if a city was 5 percent below the national average in 1950, and 5 percent above in 1990, that's a position change of 10 percent:
Income change compared to the national average, 1950-1990\ Median family income
Durham +22.0%
Austin + 9.9%
Springfield + 0.2%
Topeka - 2.5%
ROANOKE - 4.5%
Lynchburg - 6.6%
Evansville - 9.5%
Decatur - 9.8%
Jackson -13.3%
Anderson -14.0%
Saginaw -14.5%
Muncie -16.4%
Muskegon -17.2%
Lubbock -19.7%
Wichita Falls -20.8%
The moral to this story: As a Rust Belt city, Roanoke has done pretty well. It's avoided the economic collapse that ravaged many Midwestern industrial towns when their major employers were gutted by foreign competition or technological obsolescence.
Unfortunately, those Rust Belt cities aren't the ones Roanoke competes with every day for jobs, and they aren't the cities its young people are going to when they can't find jobs here. Those cities are next door. And when it comes to Roanoke competing with its Southern neighbors, that's a different story.
Part III: The world changes in the Sun Belt, 1950-1990
Even though Roanoke was losing economic ground from 1950 to 1990, most of Roanoke's neighbors were gaining.
Recall that in 1950 Roanoke had the second highest median family income of any major metro we looked at in Virginia and North Carolina. Fully half of Roanoke's neighbors were below the national average then.
By 1990, all except Lynchburg were above the national average.
Income change compared to the national average, 1950-1990\ Median family income
Raleigh/Durham $41,572 + 21.8
Richmond $40,195 + 17.8
Charlotte $36,307 + 6.4
Greensboro/Winston-Salem $35,119 + 2.9
ROANOKE $34,942 + 2.4
Norfolk $34,785 + 1.9
National average $34,130 --------
Lynchburg $31,163 - 8.7
Clearly, Roanoke's neighbors - especially those in North Carolina - have become more affluent over the past 40 years. To get a sense of just how fast their incomes have been rising, check out their growth in terms of real income over the past 40 years:
Real income growth, 1950-1990\ compared to national average
Raleigh/Durham 195%
Richmond 131%
Greensboro/Winston-Salem 124%
Charlotte 122%
Norfolk 120%
National average 120%
ROANOKE 110%
Lynchburg 105%
Just in case the point's not clear enough, let's use the stock market analogy we used earlier. Here's the percentage change, relative to the national average for median family income, for each metro area since 1950:
Income change compared to the national average, 1950-1990\ median family income
Raleigh: +31.0%
Durham +22.0%
Winston-Salem +11.3
Richmond + 5.6
Greensboro + 2.0
Charlotte + 1.0
Norfolk - 0.1
ROANOKE - 4.5
Lynchburg - 6.6
These numbers cover 40 years, which can mask plenty of ups and downs. To get a better sense of what's happening lately, who's got economic momentum and who doesn't, let's look just at the 1980s:
The income gap between Roanoke and its Southern neighbors increased during the past decade.
Growth in per capita income during the 1980s:
Raleigh/Durham +31%
Charlotte +23%
Richmond +23%
Greensboro/Winston-Salem +22%
Norfolk +17%
ROANOKE +15%
Lynchburg +10%
We talk about the Sun Belt and the Star City. But what we've really got here looks more like a crescent moon - there's a string of cities along Interstates 95 and 85 where incomes have either kept pace with the national average, or in some cases, exceeded it. But there's a pocket of cities in the Blue Ridge - namely, Roanoke and Lynchburg - where income growth hasn't kept up with the national average. What gives? Why haven't those cities been able to attract, or create, the high-paying jobs that the other cities have?
Are we somehow in the wrong place geographically? (For more discussion of that, see the accompanying story.)
Part IV: Why the world changed
Roanoke has lost ground economically because the valley is losing its high-wage industrial jobs - and isn't replacing them with other high-wage jobs.
OK, we've seen the economic decline of Roanoke and its peer cities in 1950, and the economic rise of Roanoke's neighbors in the Sun Belt.
What's behind that?
First, we need to remember what helped make Roanoke and its peer cities so affluent in 1950: high-paying manufacturing jobs.
They're now disappearing. We can even pinpoint when that started to happen: The early 1970s.
Through the 1950s and 1960s, Roanoke and its peer cities were still creating manufacturing jobs.
Percentage change in number of manufacturing jobs, 1950 to 1973:
Austin +254%
Lubbock +248%
Lynchburg +108%
Decatur +104%
ROANOKE +96%
Durham* +87%
Wichita Falls +86%
Topeka +78%
Jackson +43%
Saginaw +41%
Evansville +37%
Anderson +34%
Muncie +12%
Muskegon + 7%
Springfield - 7%
Generally speaking, the Midwestern cities were starting to slow down during the '50s and '60s. Nevertheless, they were still increasing the number of manufacturing jobs, just as a slower rate than elsewhere. Only Springfield, Ill., which had the buffer of being a state capital, saw its industrial base erode.
Roanoke's rate of creating manufacturing jobs during the 1950s and 1960s looked good, no matter who you compared Roanoke with.
The American Viscose plant in Southeast Roanoke closed, sending shock waves through the valley already trying to adjust to the railroad's switch from labor-intensive steam to more automated diesel engines. But General Electric opened a plant in Salem, Roanoke Electric Steel was founded, and, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Roanoke mounted an aggressive industrial recruitment drive that resulted in a wave of factories opening up shop here. Among them, such big names as ITT, Mohawk Rubber, Ingersoll-Rand and Diamond Plastics (now Elizabeth Arden).
As a result, Roanoke's rate of creating manufacturing jobs compared favorably both with its Midwestern peers, but also with its Southern neighbors. Indeed, a new era of industrialization was beginning throughout the South, and the major metro areas in Virginia and North Carolina were now rivaling the Midwestern cities when it came to creating manufacturing jobs.
Let's see what happens when we match Roanoke's neighbors to the list:
Percentage change in number of manufacturing jobs, 1950 to 1973:
Austin +254%
Lubbock +248%
Richmond +115%
Lynchburg +108%
Decatur +104%
ROANOKE +96%
Raleigh/Durham +87%
Wichita Falls +86%
Greensboro/Winston-Salem +83%
Topeka +78%
Charlotte +63%
Norfolk +48%
Jackson +43%
Saginaw +41%
Evansville +37%
Anderson +34%
Muncie +12%
Muskegon + 7%
Springfield - 7%
But in the 1970s and 1980s, the Rust Belt cities began hemorrhaging those high-paying industrial jobs. So did Roanoke.
Percentage change in number of manufacturing jobs, 1973 to 1988:
Austin +150%
Wichita Falls + 61%
Durham* + 58%
National average - 2%
Lynchburg - 9%
Topeka - 10%
ROANOKE - 11%
Evansville - 18%
Lubbock - 19%
Muskegon - 22%
Saginaw - 27%
Jackson - 30%
Decatur - 32%
Muncie - 34%
Anderson - 40%
Springfield - 56%
Roanoke didn't lose as much of its industrial base as its peer cities did, but it still lost industrial jobs - and at a faster rate than the national average.
Note that the only cities on this list that actually gained industrial jobs during the 1970s and '80s were in the South. Even though the nation was losing industrial jobs, Southern cities - benefitting from lower wages, few unions, and aggressive industrial recruitment efforts - tended to run counter to national trends.
Here's where the disparity between Roanoke and its Southern neighbors really opens up.
During the 1970s and '80s, Roanoke lost industrial jobs faster than any of its neighbors. In fact, many of its neighbors actually increased their number of manufacturing jobs.
Percentage change in number of manufacturing jobs, 1973 to 1988:
Raleigh/Durham +58%
Norfolk + 6%
Charlotte + 4%
Greensboro/Winston-Salem + 3%
Richmond - 5%
Lynchburg - 9%
ROANOKE -11%
But there's another reason, besides the loss of industrial jobs, why Roanoke and the Rust Belt cities lost economic ground while Roanoke's Southern neighbors gained economic ground.
By now, you may have noticed a difference between how the Rust Belt cities and the Sun Belt cities accepted the demise of America's industrial might.
The Rust Belt cities lose their manufacturing jobs, and their incomes plummet.
Meanwhile, the Sun Belt cities haven't increased their number of manufacturing jobs that much (Raleigh/Durham excepted). Yet they show huge income gains. And Richmond managed to post big income gains even though it lost manufacturing jobs.
The answer must be that these Southern cities are creating other types of high-wage jobs to take the place of manufacturing jobs and drive their economies. Roanoke and the Rust Belt cities didn't.
Let's zero in on the 1970s and 1980s, when those industrial jobs started disappearing, and see how these two groups of cities did at creating jobs of all types. First, Roanoke's 1950 peers:
Percentage change in total number of jobs, 1973-1988
Austin +112%
Durham +81%
National average +37%
Lubbock +32%
ROANOKE +31%
Springfield +29%
Topeka +26%
Evansville +25%
Lynchburg +24%
Wichita Falls +15%
Saginaw +11%
Muncie +10%
Muskegon +10%
Decatur + 3%
Jackson + 1%
Anderson - 4%
Roanoke's rate of job creation ran below the national average, although it was still better than most of its peer cities from 1950. As a rule, the Rust Belt cities had trouble creating jobs as their manufacturing bases eroded.
Now let's see what happens when we add Roanoke's neighbors to that list:
Percentage change total number of jobs, 1973-1988
Austin +112%
Raleigh/Durham +81%
Charlotte +51%
Norfolk +48%
Richmond +46%
Greensboro/WS +39%
National average +37%
Lubbock +32%
ROANOKE +31%
Springfield +29%
Topeka +26%
Evansville +25%
Lynchburg +24%
Wichita Falls +15%
Saginaw +11%
Muncie +10%
Muskegon +10%
Decatur + 3%
Jackson + 1%
Anderson - 4%
While Roanoke might have fared better than its Rust Belt cousins, it had the second lowest rate of job creation of any major metro area in Virginia and North Carolina. Once again, only Lynchburg fared worse.
The conclusion: Whether the measure is income growth, or job creation, or the fate of its industrial base, Roanoke's economic profile over the past 40 years looks like that of a Rust Belt city, not a Sun Belt city.
"Roanoke was a Rust Belt city and didn't know it," Rusk observes.
Part V: The world today
If the places most like Roanoke in 1950 were Rust Belt cities, what are the places most like Roanoke today?
They're still Rust Belt cities.
After plotting the rising and falling economic fortunes of Roanoke's economic equals in 1950, Rusk was asked to use the same criteria to identify the places most like Roanoke today.
Here's what he found:
Roanoke's 1993 peer cities
Asheville, N.C. 174,821
Champaign, Ill. 173,025
Hamilton, Ohio 291,479
Evansville, Ind. 278,990
Kalamazoo, Mich. 223,411
Racine, Wis. 175,034
Roanoke 224,477
Rockford, Ill. 283,719
South Bend, Ind. 247,052
Springfield, Ill. 189,550
Topeka, Kan. 160,976
Keep in mind, though, that an economic survey like this is much like a political survey: It's a snapshot of where cities stand at a certain moment in time. At the moment the picture's taken, all the cities, like runners in a race, are bunched together. But the snapshot can't convey who's moving slower or faster than others.
Rusk points out that, of these 10 sister cities, the only one exhibiting fast growth is Asheville, N.C. It started out much poorer than Roanoke 40 years ago, but now is catching up rapidly, as it has built an economy based on tourism and retirees. The others tend to be slow-growth cities, both in population and income. Notice that Evansville, Springfield and Topeka were Roanoke's equals 40 years ago, and remain so today.
But Rusk also points out some of these other cities enjoy economic advantages Roanoke doesn't have. For example, he says, midsized cities with major universities tend to do better economically than midsized cities without universities: That's because universities have replaced factories as engines of economic growth. As we've seen, state capitals are natural magnets for attracting high-wage jobs. And midsized cities in the shadow of a major metro area - say, an hour away - tend to benefit from "spillover" growth.
Here's how Roanoke matches up on those counts:
Major college? State capital? Big city nearby?
Asheville --- -- --
Champaign Univ. of Ill. -- --
Hamilton --- -- Cincinnati
Evansville Univ. of Evansville -- --
Kalamazoo Western Mich. U. -- --
Racine --- -- Milwaukee, Chicago
ROANOKE --- -- --
Rockford --- -- Chicago
South Bend Notre Dame -- Chicago
Springfield ---- Yes --
Topeka ---- Yes Kansas City
Of Roanoke's 10 economic equals today, only one - Asheville - is in the same position of lacking an obvious engine for economic growth. That's why Rusk says Roanoke, since it can't build a state capital or re-locate near a major city, should latch onto Virginia Tech and build closer economic ties to the state's largest research university.
Yet when the Roanoke Valley Poll asked both citizens and elected leaders last year what they thought the valley's most important economic development strategy should be, establishing closer ties with Tech ranked last.
"In effect," Rusk says, "Roanoke has no mechanism for tapping into the wealth of a larger region. To be a state capital means part of the local economy is tapping into the tax base of the entire state. To have a federal installation [such as a military base] means tapping into the tax base of the entire nation. If you have a major tourist attraction, you're tapping into the wealth of the entire nation. Not being within hailing distance of a great metropolitan city, you're out in the hinterlands."
In short, Rusk says, when it comes to creating a new economic base, Roanoke is on its own.
Memo: ***CORRECTION***