In working with public policy makers over the years, I have always tried to achieve the Goldilocks standard: “Not too cold, not too hot, but just right.” The problem in public policy, unfortunately, is that there is no common definition of temperature, no accepted and reliable means to measure it and no simple stove to produce it.

Cooking the porridge of public policy is far more complicated. Nowhere is that more evident than in the challenges to public policy makers in the Portland area to find the right balance between the growth (or decline) of employment, population and housing.

Consider for a moment the question of employment. After reviewing employment data derived from businesses’ payroll reports, the Maine Department of Labor found that the number of employees working for businesses located in Cumberland County increased by 3,810 from 2013 to 2015.

Yet over the same time period, the number of Cumberland County residents holding a job (a number derived from surveys of households) fell by 1,639, and the civilian labor force in Cumberland County dropped by 4,846.

You may say: “How could employment in the county increase by over 3,800, while the number of county residents with jobs fell by over 1,600 and while the county’s labor force declined by nearly 5,000?”

Before shouting, “Well, goes to show you can find statistics to prove anything you want!” consider what could play a part in this phenomenon: a drop in the unemployment rate, a change in participation in the labor force and/or an increase in the number of people employed in Cumberland County who live outside the county.

In the case of Cumberland County, all three elements are involved. Between 2013 and 2015, the number of unemployed people dropped by 3,477. While there aren’t figures available on county-level labor force participation, in Maine as a whole it dropped from 65 percent to 62 percent overall, and fell in every age group except the 45-to-54 and 65-plus categories.

Over the past several years, a smaller proportion of the state population over age 16 is working or even looking for work. While Cumberland County most likely did not experience the same degree of disengagement from the labor force, it is highly unlikely that the county reversed the state trend.

More importantly, over the foreseeable future, Cumberland County cannot escape the statewide demographic reality of the lower labor force participation that comes from an aging population – which is accentuated by a puzzling disengagement among younger age groups.

It seems clear, therefore, that in order to have experienced an increase in employment, the county must have attracted a growing number of workers who commute from beyond its borders. More importantly, it must continue to attract such workers if it is to continue to experience the employment growth it has seen over the past several years.

And this need for workers leads naturally to the need for housing – which, in turn, leads back to the prickly problem of demography. What age groups want what type of housing, and how much money do they have to pay for it? Here, the actual demand from those leaving the labor market and bringing equity into the county from homes (and other assets) sold elsewhere competes directly with the theoretical demand from workers considering taking jobs in the county.

Sorting out these competing demands in the housing market is precisely where the Goldilocks principle of getting it “just right” is so important. Without some effort to accommodate the housing needs of younger workers businesses in the county need to attract, the region as a whole puts its economic future at risk.

According to the latest Department of Labor employment forecast, Maine as a whole will see about 17,600 job openings a year from 2014 to 2024. Of these positions, over 15,500 will not be new jobs but replacement jobs. To the extent that businesses cannot attract workers to fill them, we face the prospect of business closure, relocation or expansion in other areas.

In short, it is clear that the key to our future economic prosperity is expanding the quality of our labor force. To allow it to continue to decline, both through natural aging and through failure to engage younger people and potential migrants, is, in effect, to consume our seed corn, watch our future collapse before us.

It is equally clear that there is no single solution to this problem. To get our public policy “just right,” we have to find a way to integrate business development, education and talent attraction and housing development. These are the considerations state and municipal leaders must bring to their deliberations on budgets, zoning and economic development.

Charles Lawton is chief economist for Planning Decisions, Inc. He can be contacted at:

clawton@planningdecisions.com