Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier
I would say that "jobs" is a bad metric -- how many times is it used to justify massive subsidies with the expected benefits either unrealized or slower to realize than anticipated?
But of course that begs the question of which metric(s) would be more appropriate to gauge economic development. I would augur that net startup formation would be a halfway decent metric here, because if you're getting a lot of startups and they're surviving a decent period of time, that's symptomatic of strong bottom-up economic activity (i.e. your average person is able to find the resources to turn their ideas into reality). But startups are necessarily small shops, and it takes time for them to turn into major employers ... which ultimately the consumer class whose primary demand is for stable employment.
|
Startups need capital (private equity or venture capital, even rich investors) and failure rates can be high. Re-locating mid-size to large companies that want to expand is a better option if we are talking about a choice.
Ideally, having both is ideal and realistic for Philly. One can be an impetus for the other, like how CTC or CC invests in a start up or buys smaller firms and integrates it into its business plan. One day the start up grows up and employs more people because it can sell more products and/or services. Symbiotic relationships.