Glimmers of Hope?

 
 

 

The Sunday Seattle Times offers a page full of graphs to support a rather grim view of the state's economic future. But that pessimistic view isn't necessarily supported by the graphs on the page. Economics is all about trends, and if you look at the trendlines over the past year, conditions look substantially brighter. We are clearly beginning to emerge from that deep hole in which the financial crisis buried us.

  1. Leading economic indicators for Washington have climbed to 116.3 by September, up solidly from 110.3 a year ago, suggesting we should expect slow but steady economic growth ahead.
  2. There are 4.27 online adds for every 100 workers in our labor force. That's up about 30% from 3.26 jobs per 100 workers a year ago. Maybe not enough to quickly bring down state unemployment which remains stubbornly high at 9 percent. But unemployment in the state is significantly lower than that national rate of 9.6%. And the jobs available are much higher than the 2.79 average for the nation as a whole.
  3. Boeing employment has been on a steady climb since hitting a bottom in May. Recent increases are small, but with the new 787 beginning delivery in the first quarter of 2011 and the 747-8 soon afterward, hiring should start to pick up.  
  4. The purchasing managers' index is 59.2, up solidly from 52.6 a year ago, and substantially higher than 54.4 for the nation as a whole..
  5. Retail sales showed a year-to-year gain of 4.2% compared to a 6% decline the year before.
  6. Cargo volumes at the Port of Seattle were up about 20 percent.

The stubbornly persistent bad news is in housinig, where sales are down and inventories remain high. Housing problems are likely to plague us for a long time. But even here there is a glimmer of hope. Net new drivers licenses granted, which tends to be a good proxy for migration into the state, shot up to 12,100 in September, nearly twice the level of last September. New arrivals in the state help to create new demand for all that excess housing we built during the boom years.

Final Analysis: Flying Higher

Final Analysis: Flying Higher

How a certain local airline could strike a blow for fairer treatment of college athletes.
FROM THE PRINT EDITION |
 
 
Here’s a thought: While Alaska Air Group spends $2.6 billion swallowing up Virgin America, it should wield some of its new clout — Alaska will soon be the nation’s fifth-largest air carrier — on becoming the college athlete’s best friend.
 
Alaska already showers upon the University of Washington nearly $5 million a year for naming rights to the football field at Husky Stadium and the basketball court at Hec Edmundson Pavilion. It also has sponsorship arrangements with athletic programs at the University of Oregon and Oregon State University. It even paints some of its airplanes in the colors of 11 Western universities, including the UW.
 
On the weekend that news of Alaska’s acquisition of Virgin America broke, the UW women’s basketball team was completing its improbable and exhilarating run to the Final Four of the NCAA women’s basketball tournament. It occurred to me that there’s an opportunity here for Alaska CEO Brad Tilden to start lobbying the NCAA on behalf of student-athletes everywhere, but particularly in Alaska Airlines’ own backyard.
 
Alaska’s Husky Stadium agreement — 10 years, $41 million — already earmarks half of the money for scholarships and “student-athlete welfare.” Last year, for the first time, the NCAA started allowing Division I schools to pay athletes a stipend for incidental living expenses — things like late-night snacks, student fees, incidental travel — that aren’t covered by athletic scholarships for tuition, room and board. 
 
The UW’s annual stipend for athletes is $3,085, or roughly $11.40 a day during a nine-month academic year. It’s not a lot, but it’s enough for a couple of cheeseburgers and a chocolate shake when the dining halls are closed.
 
Alaska’s naming-rights money goes into the pot that helps provide those stipends, which the NCAA instituted as a means of closing the gap between what an athletic scholarship provides — tuition, room, board, books and fees — and the “real” cost of attending college.
 
The problem is that this “cost of attendance” stipend has made a  playing field that’s not level even less fair. Some schools pay stipends of more than $5,000, which is totally permissible under the NCAA guidelines. So if you’re a poor kid being recruited by several universities, which school would you choose — the one offering no stipend, the one offering $3,000 or the one offering $5,000?
 
This is where a corporate CEO has the opportunity to say to the NCAA, “We are a major employer who believes in treating its workers equitably. As a huge supporter of our local university’s athletics program, we think it’s time you paid your athletes a little bit more than cheeseburger money — and paid them fairly acros the board.”
 
It doesn’t have to be a quid-pro-quo situation, as in “pay these athletes or we’ll take our sponsorship money elsewhere.” But airlines have become adept at squeezing travelers for every last dime via baggage fees, boarding fees, legroom fees, beverage fees and the like. I imagine an airline executive could be pretty persuasive suggesting the NCAA assess itself a “fairness fee” and pay student-athletes a decent wage from its enormous piggy bank.
 
The NCAA can still call it a stipend if it wants. Regardless, it should finally admit that scholarships are meant to provide an education but don’t begin to acknowledge that an athlete’s contribution to an institution’s bottom line — not to mention its reputation in the media and its perception by the public — deserves considerably more than free tuition. 
 
JOHN LEVESQUE is the managing editor of Seattle Business magazine.