2018 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking Report · of Michigan’s economic competitiveness...
Transcript of 2018 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking Report · of Michigan’s economic competitiveness...
2018 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking ReportData to Support a Stronger Michigan
About Business Leaders for MichiganBusiness Leaders for Michigan, the state’s business roundtable, is dedicated to making Michigan a “Top Ten” state for jobs, personalincome and a healthy economy. The organization is composed exclusively of the chairpersons, chief executive officers, or most seniorexecutives of Michigan’s largest companies and universities. Our members drive nearly one-third of the state’s economy, provide390,000 direct jobs in Michigan, generate over $1 trillion in annual revenue and serve nearly half of all Michigan public universitystudents. Find out more at www.businessleadersformichigan.com.
Copyright © 2018 Business Leaders for Michigan. All Rights Reserved.
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
4 Key Findings
9 Output Metrics
20 Input Metrics
76 Michigan’s Regional Performance
84 Business Leaders for Michigan Board of Directors
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
1
Introduction
Business Leaders for Michigan is pleased to provide you with this year’s fact-based assessment
of Michigan’s economic competitiveness relative to other states. We compare Michigan’s
performance on key output (e.g., employment, personal income) and input (e.g., taxes,
education) metrics annually to that of “traditional,” “new economy,” and “Top Ten” benchmark
states. These metrics provide multiple reference points for evaluating Michigan’s performance.
The conclusions included in this report are used by Business Leaders for Michigan and
policymakers alike to help develop strategies for making Michigan a “Top Ten” state for jobs,
personal income, and a healthy economy.
If Michigan were performing like a “Top Ten” state today, there would be:
36,000more Michigan people working
$10,000more income per person
$12,500more GDP per person
Research for the 2018 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking Report was
conducted by Anderson Economic Group, a research and consulting firm with
expertise in economics, public policy, finance, and industry analysis.
Methodology
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
RANK
Leve
l
344.63%
3.88%
th
Tren
dTo
p 1
0 A
vg.
How To Read This Report
In this report, we use a series of common measuresto determine the economic strength of states andregions. The measures are divided into twocategories: outputs and inputs.
•Output indicators like jobs, income,population and GDP show us the impact of policydecisions. They are the end result of ongoingeconomic development and policy changes.
• Input indicators measure the factorsbusinesses look at when deciding where to locate.
In this report, Michigan’s input metrics are dividedinto two categories: cost indicators and valueindicators. When deciding whether to locate orexpand in a region, job providers evaluate the costs(e.g., taxes, fees, utilities) of doing business in aregion relative to the value (e.g., talent,infrastructure) it provides. Ultimately, areas that offermore value for equal or lower cost encouragebusiness growth and attraction, which leads to morejobs, higher incomes and a stronger economy.
Factors like the cost of doing business, theincentives available, the pool of talent, and thenecessary infrastructure to support companyoperations are considered. When these indicatorsare positive, they greatly influence site selectiondecisions and, ultimately, lead to stronger outputs.
The correlation between inputs and outputs isimportant to keep in mind when reading thisreport. Ultimately, the inputs are the factors overwhich state leaders have the greatest amount ofcontrol. This year’s benchmarking results can offercontinuing direction as we collectively evaluatethe next crucial decisions for our economy.
With all this in mind, readers of this benchmarkingreport can see at a glance what progress has beenmade, where Michigan ranks relative to the rest ofthe U.S., and which direction we’re moving. Thekey below shows you how.
Michigan’srank amongthe 50 states, with #1 being topperformance and#50 being worstperformance inthe category.
Michigan’s level ofperformance for themost recent year
One-year trend
Average performanceof the “Top Ten” states
Positive Negative Holding
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
2
3
STATE
MassachusettsNorth DakotaCaliforniaNew YorkWashingtonTexasPennsylvaniaMinnesotaNebraskaNew Hampshire
OVERALLRANK
123456789
10
4182
22137
17235
21
3114303212365
712179
2014153
23
211649
251614207
12639
1316121417
1018
121574
202
13
154714
1325
213741
EMPLOYMENTGROWTH
RANK
EMPLOYMENTLEVELRANK
PER CAPITAINCOME
GROWTH RANK
PER CAPITAINCOME
LEVEL RANK
PER CAPITAGDP LEVEL
RANK
PER CAPITAGDP GROWTH
RANK
POPULATION LEVELRANK
POPULATIONGROWTH
RANK
255
163782
41232240
“Top Ten” States
WA
OR
NV
UT
AZNM
CO
ID
MT
KS
OK
MN
MO
AR
LA
ILIN
OH
KY
TN
MS AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VAWV
ME
NH
NJ
DE
MDDC
CTRI
MAWI
MI
HI
VT
Traditional Benchmarks
New Economy Benchmarks
Peer States
WA
OR
NV
UT
AZNM
WY
ID
MT ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
KY
MS
FL
SC
WV
PA
NY
ME
NH
NJ
DE
MDDC
CTRI
MAWI
MI
AK
IA
HI
VT
ND
TX
AK
NY
CA COIL
OH
TN
AL GA
NC
TX
IN
VA
WY
PA
CA
SD
NE
Methodology, continued
Michigan’s performance on economic output and inputmetrics is compared to selected traditional and neweconomy peers and the “Top Ten” states.
Peer States were selected based on traditionaland new economy benchmarks.
Traditional Benchmarks• Alabama • Indiana• Georgia • Ohio• Illinois • Tennessee
New Economy Benchmarks• California • North Carolina• Colorado • Texas• Massachusetts • Virginia
“Top Ten” States were selected based on their averagerankings on key job, economic, personal income, andpopulation indicators (2008–2017). See chart below.
• California• Massachusetts• Minnesota• Nebraska• New Hampshire
“Top Ten” States for Job and Economic Growth (2008–2017)
Over the last ten years, these states averaged the highest ranking across four basic indicators of jobs,income, GDP, and population. In the report, “Top Ten” refers to this group of states and Michigan'sperformance relative to their average performance. The table below looks at a weighted average rank forboth level and ten-year growth for these four categories.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Employment is measured per capita to control for state size.
• New York• North Dakota• Pennsylvania• Texas• Washington
Key Findings
Michigan’s economic growth continued to outpacemost other states during 2017. Our growth hasbegun slowing, however, and our absolute resultsagainst most economic measures remainedaverage or below. It is more important than everfor Michigan to be aggressive with fresh, boldstrategies that help us outperform the competitionand become a “Top Ten” leader.
Where our economy is concerned, complacencyremains the enemy.
Output Indicators
Despite reaching a 10-year low, Michigan’s annualunemployment rate still lags the average of peersand “Top Ten” states. Private sector employmenthas exceeded the average growth in “Top Ten”states for three out of the last four years, butMichigan's labor force participation rate, whileimproved over the last year, remains below the “TopTen” and peer state averages.
Michigan’s per capita personal income levelscontinue to grow, but remain well below peers and“Top Ten” states. Michigan per capita incomegrowth has outpaced the average of “Top Ten”states in recent years, but Michigan's 2017 percapita personal income level remained more than$4,000 less than the peer state average and over$10,000 less than “Top Ten” states.
Michigan’s per capita GDP levels, while stillgrowing, remain well behind those of peer and “TopTen” states. Michigan per capita GDP growth hasgenerally outpaced both the peer and “Top Ten”averages in recent years. However, the average percapita GDP of peer states in 2017 was over $5,000
higher than Michigan’s, while “Top Ten” per capitaGDP was more than $12,500 higher.
Michigan’s population has stabilized, but peersand the “Top Ten” are growing faster. After losingpopulation in 2009, 2010 and 2011, Michigan hashad six straight years of positive growth. Duringthat same period, however, peer and “Top Ten”average population growth has been as much as10 times higher than Michigan’s.
Input indicators — Cost
Michigan continued to do well during 2017 whenit comes to affordability for employers seeking tolocate or expand. As competing states and nationscontinue to become more affordable, however,Michigan must work to hone and retain itscompetitive edge where costs are concerned.
Input indicators — Value
The state’s value inputs improved somewhatduring 2017, but its talent and infrastructure gapscontinue to pose significant long-term challenges.The state’s talent pipeline continues to be injeopardy as educational results lag most otherstates, and it’s possible— even likely—thatMichigan could face a critical shortage of skilledworkers in the years ahead.
Michigan’s relatively weak infrastructure alsoremains a concern. While the state does havemany competitive strengths—including a wealthof new and emerging technologies, intellectualproperty, and strong exports—Michigan’s valueproposition must increase to impact site selectiondecisions over the long term.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
4
Michigan—Competitive on CostsMichigan‘s average ranking on cost factorscompares favorably with “Top Ten” and peer states,and is stronger than both where tax andgovernment measures are concerned.
The perception of Michigan's overall businessclimate has been holding steady, but requiresimprovement. Michigan’s business climate wasconsidered the worst of all 50 states in 2009. In2017, Michigan’s average ranking among the majorbusiness climate indices was 24—the same asduring the prior year.
Michigan’s tax climate is among the best in thenation. Michigan’s corporate tax climate continuesto be ranked among the 10 best in the U.S., and theoverall business tax climate is ranked 12th.
State and local government in Michigan isgenerally smaller and more affordable. State andlocal government taxes increased slightly during2015, but remain lower than the “Top Ten” averageand on par with the peer state average. Michiganhas fewer government employees per capita andlower government payroll spending than nearly all“Top Ten” and peer states.
However, unfunded OPEB liabilities remain aproblem. Michigan's unfunded other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities are nearly 16percent higher than peers and more than 24percent higher than the “Top Ten.”
Michigan—Lagging on ValueMichigan’s average ranking is well behind boththe “Top Ten” and peer states on factors measuringtalent, infrastructure, and place.
Michigan must continue to focus on workforcedevelopment. In 2017, Michigan ranked in thebottom 10 of all states with respect to career andcollege readiness, the number of students enrolledin career and technical education classes, and thenumber of out-of-state students enrolled at ourcolleges and universities. Michigan also ranked inthe bottom half of states for the percentage of 4thand 8th graders testing proficient in reading andmath, respectively, the number of critical skillsdegrees and certificates awarded by our collegesand universities, and the percentage of working agepopulation with an associate's degree or higher.
Several aspects of Michigan’s infrastructure rankednear the bottom of all states. Michigan ranked30th for the percentage of households with high-speed internet. We ranked 39th for the percentageof bridges and urban roads in poor condition.
Innovation shows strength as well as areas forimprovement. Michigan ranked among the topstates for the value of goods exported (6th) andresearch and development investment byuniversities (6th). On the other hand, we rank only30th for the share of population 25-34 with abachelor’s degree or higher.
5
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
In 2017, Michigan was improving or holding steady in 37 (nearly 70 percent) of the 54 indicators used tomeasure the cost of locating here and the value provided. However, Michigan's overall ranking remained inthe bottom half of states on nearly 60 percent of the measures.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
6
Average Rankings on Cost Measures, 2018
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
All
Business Climate
TaxesLabor
Energy
Government
Aver
age
Rank
Michigan “Top Ten” Peers
Average Rankings on Value Measures, 2018
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
All
Talent
Infrastru
cture
Innovatio
n
Economic Dev.
Key Assets
Place
Aver
age
Rank
Michigan “Top Ten” Peers
Where Michigan Stands Today
Michigan’s fiscal environmentremains stronger thancompetitor states; however, itslabor and business climateperception indices still lag.
Michigan’s value propositionstill trails that of other states;however, there are promisingareas of growth in keyinvestment sectors(engineering, geographic trade,higher education, life sciences,automotive, and naturalresources).
7
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Absolute Rankings: Cost and Value Indicators 2017
Trends: Cost and Value Indicators 2017
Michigan's Growth Trends vs. Absolute Rankings
Michigan continues toexperience improvement in keyinput areas; however, moreareas of instability arebeginning to appear. The shareof declining cost and valueindicators increased in 2017,while the number of improvingcost indicators fell.
Michigan is mostly aboveaverage on cost metrics, butbelow average on valueindicators.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
8
2009Trend1
1
Top 102
2017 2009 2017
Taxes
Labor
Energy
Government
Talent
Infrastructure
Innovation
Key Assets
Place
OU
TPU
TIN
PUT
- Co
stIN
PUT
- Va
lue
Compete
Invest
Grow
Jobs, Income & the Economy
Trend ComparisonsAs measured by key outputs,Michigan’s economy continuesto experience “Top Ten” growth,but that growth is beginning toslow. Michigan must safeguardits improvement where costinputs are concerned, and makemuch more progress on keyvalue inputs.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
9
Output Metrics
Economic output metrics help show how well Michigan’s economy isperforming. They reflect the impact of key policies, investments, andleadership at all levels. By tracking major output indicators—employment, income, GDP, and population—over time, analysts cangauge the state’s progress toward prosperity.
Michigan continued to enjoy relatively solid growth in jobs, personalincome and productivity during the past year. However, the state’s growthhas begun to show signs of slowing, and the absolute levels of mosteconomic measures remained average or below. Michigan can’t afford tobecome complacent as competitor states and nations continue to drivedown costs and add value.
output
25thinPer Capita Personal
Income Growth
34thin Unemployment
Rate
30thin Per Capita
Personal Income
20thin Employment
Growth
in
32ndin Per Capita
GDP
7thPer Capita
GDP Growth
What it is:Average share of labor force that is lookingfor work but does not have a job.
Why it matters:A lower unemployment rate indicates thatmore residents are able to findemployment.
Michigan’s annualunemployment rate hasdropped by nine points since2009, from 13.6 percent to4.6 percent, and is now only0.7 percentage points higherthan the “Top Ten” averageand 0.4 percentage pointshigher than peer states.
Unemployment Rate Standings
Unemployment Rate
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
10
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
RANKLe
vel
344.63%
3.88%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Unemployment Rate Trends
11
output
Employment Growth Trends
What it is:Year-over-year change in the number ofresidents with a private-sector job.
Why it matters:Higher levels of private employmentindicate both economic strength andprosperity among the state’s residents.
Michigan ranked 20th in
private sector employment
growth from 2016 to 2017,
down from the 15th fastest
growth rate the prior period.
Michigan’s private sector
employment growth
matched the “Top Ten”
average, but trailed the peer
state average.
Employment Growth Standings
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages)
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
RANK
Leve
l
201.35%
1.29%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Employment Growth
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Labor Force Participation
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
12
Labor Force Participation Trends
What it is:The share of the population age 16 andolder, not including residents who are onactive duty or institutionalized, that isemployed or looking for work.
Why it matters:Members of the working-age populationcan stop looking for work and drop out ofthe labor force for many reasons, includingdisability, old age, or discouragement.Higher labor force participation is a sign ofa healthier economy and workforce.
Labor force participationincreased in Michigan from2016 to 2017, marking thesecond straight year ofincreased participation. Thelabor force participation ratein Michigan is 4.2 percentagepoints less than the “Top Ten”average and 1.7 percentagepoints less than the peer stateaverage. Michigan’s laborforce participation rate in2017 was lower than that ofall peer states except forAlabama and Tennessee.
Labor Force Participation Standings
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION
RANKLe
vel
3761.48%
65.71%
Tren
dTo
p 1
0 A
vg.
th
What it is:The share of the population age 16 andolder, not including residents who are onactive duty or institutionalized, that isemployed or looking for work.
Why it matters:Members of the working-age populationcan stop looking for work and drop out ofthe labor force for many reasons, includingdisability, old age, or discouragement.Higher labor force participation is a signof a healthier economy and workforce.
The Michigan labor force
grew by 0.9 percent from
2016 to 2017, and now
stands at nearly 4.9 million
participants. This growth
rate exceeded the “Top Ten”
average of 0.7 percent but
trailed the peer state
average of 1.2 percent.
Labor Force Growth Standings
Labor Force Growth
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Personal Income Summary),Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
13
output
LABOR FORCE GROWTH
RANKLe
vel
210.85%
0.71%
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Labor Force Growth Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Per Capita Personal Income
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
14
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH
RANK
Level 0.47%
0.35%
th
Trend
Top
10 A
vg.25
Per Capita Personal Income Trends
What it is:Personal income (2017 dollars) divided bypopulation. Personal income includessalaries, wages, and bonuses fromemployment; dividends and interest frominvestments; rental income; pensions, etc.
Why it matters:Income is an indicator of prosperity andaverage standard of living in a state.
Michigan’s per capita incomegrew by 0.5 percent from2016 to 2017, exceeding the“Top Ten” growth rate of 0.3percent. Per capita incomegrowth in Michigan laggedbehind the peer state averageof 0.7 percent.
Per Capita Personal Income Standings
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Personal Income Table SA5),Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
RANKLe
vel
30$45,255
$55,613
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
What it is:Total amount of goods and servicesproduced by private industries in thestate, adjusted for inflation and changesin relative prices, divided by population.
Why it matters:Higher private sector GDP per capita isone of the primary measures of a region’seconomic strength.
Michigan’s per capita GDPgrowth of 2.4 percentbetween 2016 and 2017ranked seventh in the nation.Per capita GDP growth washigher than the “Top Ten”average of 1.7 percent, andhigher than all peer statesother than California,Colorado, and Massachusetts.
Per Capita GDP Standings
Per Capita GDP
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP in 2009 Chained Dollars)
15
output
Per Capita GDP TrendsPER CAPITA GDP
RANKLe
vel
32$39,725
$52,301
ndTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
PER CAPITA GDP GROWTH
RANK
Leve
l
72.36%
1.69%
th
Tren
dTo
p 1
0 A
vg.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
16
What it is:Total amount of goods and servicesproduced in the state, as a share of allgoods and services produced in theUnited States.
Why it matters:A high share of United States GDP meansthat much of the country's production isoccurring in that state, and can result inhigher incomes for state workers.
Michigan’s share of U.S. GDP
has remained flat since
2011, at approximately 2.7
percent.
Michigan GDP/U.S. GDP Standings
Michigan GDP/U.S. GDP
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP in 2009 Chained Dollars)
Michigan GDP/U.S. GDP TrendsMICHIGAN GDP/U.S. GDP
RANKLe
vel
122.68%
4.41%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Population
POPULATION GROWTH
RANK
Leve
l
340.29%
0.67%
th
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.
Population Trends
What it is:Total number of residents.
Why it matters:Growth in population is an indicator forhow well a state attracts and retainsresidents. It also affects a state’s ability tosupport shared responsibilities such asmaintaining infrastructure and providingeducation.
Michigan’s population
increased slightly from 2016
to 2017, but population
growth was slower than all
of its peers except Illinois
and Ohio. Michigan remained
the 10th most populated
state in 2017, but its
population level is about
2.5 million fewer than the
“Top Ten” average.
Population Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
POPULATION
RANKLevel
10 9.96 M
12.40 M
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
17
output
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
18
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
19
output
Output Conclusions
Michigan needs to remain focused, energized and disciplinedwhen it comes to achieving lasting economic results.
The state’s output indicators continue to remain relativelystable, but they have softened relative to past years. It is moreimportant than ever for Michigan to pursue dynamic, proventactics that help us become a “Top Ten” economic force forgrowth.
Why is it important to be “Top Ten?”
“Top Ten” states benefit from more jobs, higher incomes,and healthier economies. If Michigan were performing like a“Top Ten” state today, there would be:
36,000 more Michigan people working
$10,000 more income per person
$12,500 more GDP per person
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
20
Input Metrics
Employers generally use common indicators when deciding where to createnew jobs:
• Cost indicators like taxes, fees, and energy prices allow site selectors todetermine the costs associated with locating in a particular region.
• Value indicators such as talent and infrastructure help site selectorsknow the value a region can offer for the business costs to be paid.
Locations that offer more value for equal or lower costs are more attractiveto businesses.
States that are not competitive on costs are not seriously considered by siteselectors. When cost indicators are favorable, however, it is value indicatorsthat are capable of helping keep a location competitive. When comparingtwo or more regions with similar cost structures, the region with betterinfrastructure, talent and innovation capabilities will often win.
Ultimately, business site selection decisions have a major impact on jobcreation, income levels, and economic productivity. That is why Michiganmust monitor its own cost/value input indicators to ensure the bestpossible balance for businessattraction, retention andexpansion. Cost Value
Corporate Tax Climate
21
input
cost
Corporate Tax Climate Trends
What it is:Index that compares corporate tax burdensbased on corporate income tax and grossreceipts tax (10 = most favorable, 0 = leastfavorable).
Why it matters:A lower corporate tax burden can improvea state’s attractiveness to both new andexisting businesses.
In 2018, Michigan’s
corporate tax climate was
more business-friendly than
all of the “Top Ten” states,
except New York. Michigan
was ranked the third most
favorable among its peer
states, behind North Carolina
and Virginia.
Corporate Tax Climate Standings
The Tax Foundation (State Business Tax Climate Index)
CORPORATE TAX CLIMATE
RANKLe
vel
85.76
4.59
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
22
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Rankings are based on the overall taxindex and component tax indices(corporate tax, individual income tax,sales tax, unemployment insurance tax,and property tax) (10=most favorable, 0=least favorable).
Why it matters:These measures indicate how attractive astate might be to both businesses andindividuals in terms of common taxburdens.
Michigan had the 12th best
overall business tax climate
in 2018. Michigan’s tax
climate is better than the
average of both the “Top
Ten” and peer states.
Note: Data for corporate and overall business tax climaterankings use different indices.
Overall Business Tax Climate Standings
Overall Business Tax Climate
The Tax Foundation (State Business Tax Climate Index)
OVERALL BUSINESS TAX CLIMATE
RANKLe
vel
125.64
4.91
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Overall Business Tax Climate Trends
23
input
cost
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
State and Local Taxes
State and Local Taxes Trends
What it is:State and local tax revenue as a share ofpersonal income.
Why it matters:Higher state and local taxes reduce take-home pay for residents and mean a highercost of living.
In 2015, state and local tax
revenue amounted to 9.3
percent of statewide
personal income, down
from 10.7 percent in 2009.
Michigan had lower state
and local tax revenues as a
share of personal income
than the “Top Ten” average,
and was on par with the
peer state average.
State and Local Taxes Standings
Tax Policy Center
STATE & LOCAL TAXES
RANKLe
vel
219.31%
11.04%
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
24
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Days Required to Pay Taxes
Days Required to Pay Taxes Trends
What it is:The number of days a year that representthe portion of the year's earnings that arepaid in federal, state, and local taxes.
Why it matters:Lower tax burdens mean more take-homeincome for state residents.
Michigan’s days to pay taxes
is slightly less than the
“Top Ten” average, and
commensurate with the
peer state average.
Days Required to Pay Taxes Standings
The Tax Foundation
DAYS REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES
RANKLe
vel 105
113
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.24th
Unit Cost of Labor
Unit Cost of Labor Trends
What it is:Private industry compensation, divided byprivate sector GDP.
Why it matters:The share of output that is paid to workersindicates the “value proposition” foremployers. Lower unit labor costs make astate a more attractive environment inwhich to operate.
Michigan’s unit cost of labor
has declined slightly over
the last five years but
remained higher than the
“Top Ten” average in 2017.
The unit cost of labor in
Michigan was higher than all
of its peer states except
Massachusetts.
Note: GDP is nominal for all private industries.
Unit Cost of Labor Standings
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP by State, Compensation ofNonfarm Private Employees Table SA6N - Private Industries)
UNIT COST OF LABOR
RANKLe
vel
44$0.53
$0.49
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
25
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
input
cost
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
26
COMPETE INVEST GROW
CEO Magazine (Best and Worst States for Business),CNBC (Top States for Business), Forbes (Best States for Business)
Business Climate Rankings
Business Climate Rankings Trends
What it is:Average of three major business climateindices that account for several factorssuch as business costs, business leaders’perceptions, regulatory climate, quality oflife, etc. (1 = best, 50 = worst).
Why it matters:This measure is an indicator for howattractive a state might be for businesses.
Michigan’s average ranking
across three major business
climate indices increased
slightly from 2016 to 2017,
putting the state at 24th out
of 50. Since 2009, Michigan's
aggregate ranking has
improved 26 spots; however,
Michigan’s average rank still
lags behind the “Top Ten”
average and the peer state
average.
Business Climate Rankings Standings
BUSINESS CLIMATE RANKINGS
RANKLe
vel
2425.0
22.2
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
27
input
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:Real private industry GDP, divided byaverage annual non-farm employment.
Why it matters:Worker productivity supports increasedincome and economic activity.
While value added per
worker in Michigan has
steadily improved over the
last several years, it was
12.5 percent lower than the
“Top Ten” average in 2017,
and the state ranked below
all of its peers except for
Alabama, North Carolina,
and Tennessee.
Value Added Per Worker Standings
Value Added Per Worker
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP by State),Bureau of Labor Statistics (State and Metro Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings)
VALUE ADDED PER WORKER
RANKLe
vel
27$90.50
$106.97
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Value Added Per Worker Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
28
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Union Representation
Union Representation Trends
What it is:Employees represented by a union (as apercentage of those employed).
Why it matters:An indicator of labor market bargainingpower, labor flexibility, and pro-businesssentiments in the state. For someemployers, lower union membership makesa state a more attractive place to operate.
Michigan had the 8th
highest union representation
among all states in 2017.
Michigan’s rate was 2.9
percentage points higher
than the “Top Ten” average
and higher than all peer
states except California.
Union Representation Standings
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Population Survey)
UNION REPRESENTATION
RANKLe
vel
4216.80%
13.93%
ndTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
29
input
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:Price per kilowatt-hour (kwh) ofelectricity for commercial users.
Why it matters:Maintaining competitive energy costscontributes to a state’s attractiveness tobusinesses.
In 2018, Michigan’selectricity costs forcommercial customers werelower than the “Top Ten”average, but higher thanthose in all peer statesexcept Alabama, California,and Massachusetts.
Note: 2018 figures are calculated using data throughMarch 2018.
Electricity Costs - Commercial Standings
Electricity Costs - Commercial
Energy Information Administration (Electricity Data Interactive)
ELECTRICITY COSTS: COMMERCIAL
RANK
Leve
l
3811.11¢
11.53¢
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Electricity Costs - Commercial Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
30
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Price per kilowatt-hour (kwh) ofelectricity for industrial users.
Why it matters:Maintaining competitive energy costscontributes to a state’s attractiveness tobusinesses.
In 2018, Michigan’s
electricity costs for industrial
users were 17 percent lower
than the “Top Ten” average,
and slightly below the
average of peer states.
Note: 2018 figures are calculated using data throughMarch 2018.
Electricity Costs - Industrial Standings
Electricity Costs - Industrial
Energy Information Administration (Electricity Data Interactive)
ELECTRICITY COSTS: INDUSTRIAL
RANKLe
vel
317.35¢
8.78¢
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Electricity Costs - Industrial Trends
31
input
cost
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:A weighted average of the price perthousand cubic feet of natural gas forindustrial and commercial users,weighted by the proportion ofconsumption from each sector.
Why it matters:Maintaining competitive energy costscontributes to a state’s attractiveness tobusinesses.
Michigan’s natural gas
prices have fallen by 40
percent since 2008, and
are slightly lower than the
“Top Ten” average. Despite
significant price declines,
Michigan natural gas prices
in 2016 were higher than
the peer state average.
.
Natural Gas Costs Standings
Natural Gas Costs
Energy Information Administration (Natural Gas Data Interactive)
NATURAL GAS COSTS
RANKLe
vel
13$6.30
$6.35
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Natural Gas Costs Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
32
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:The price per gallon of fuel for all users,converted from price per BTU.
Why it matters:Maintaining competitive energy costscontributes to a state’s attractiveness tobusinesses.
Between 2015 and 2016,
the average price for a
gallon of gas in Michigan
fell by 25 cents. Michigan’s
average gasoline price was
lower than the “Top Ten”
and peer state averages.
Gasoline Costs Standings
Gasoline Costs
Energy Information Administration (SEDS Estimates)
GASOLINE COSTS
RANKLe
vel
13$1.96
$2.11
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Gasoline Costs Trends
33
input
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
State Unfunded Pension Liabilities
State Unfunded Pension Liabilities Trends
What it is:State government pension benefitunfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL)divided by population.
Why it matters:This measure indicates the burden ofunfunded retiree benefits on taxpayers.Payments for high unfunded liabilities maycrowd out spending for competing needs,such as infrastructure and education.
Michigan’s unfunded
pension liability per capita
increased slightly from 2015
to 2016, but was 22nd
lowest in the nation and
lower than both the “Top
Ten” and peer state averages.
Note: Unfunded liabilities are measured in UAAL, orunfunded actuarial accrued liabilities.
State Unfunded Pension Liabilities Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Census of Governments), Pew Center on the States
STATE UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITIES
RANKLevel
$3,182
$3,769
Trend
Top
10 A
vg.22nd
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
34
COMPETE INVEST GROW
State Unfunded OPEB Liabilities Trends
What it is:State government unfunded otherpostemployment benefit liability (OPEB)divided by population.
Why it matters:This measure indicates the burden ofunfunded retiree benefits on taxpayers.Payments for high unfunded liabilitiesmay crowd out spending for competingneeds, such as infrastructure andeducation.
Michigan’s unfunded OPEB
liability per capita has
decreased each year since
2013, but remains higher
than the average of “Top
Ten” and peer states.
Note: “Top Ten” average for OPEB excludes Nebraska due todata availability. Cannot make inter-year comparisons forOPEB due to use of a different data source for 2012.
State Unfunded OPEB Liabilities Standings
State Unfunded Non-Pension (OPEB) Liabilities
U.S. Census Bureau (Census of Governments), Pew Center on the States
STATE UNFUNDED OPEB LIABILITIES
RANKLevel
38$1,977
$1,600
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
35
input
cost
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Local Debt Service
Local Debt Service Trends
What it is:Local government interest payments ondebt, divided by local government directexpenditures (both in current dollars).
Why it matters:Maintaining debt service at low levels is anindicator of fiscal sustainability.
Local government interest on
debt in Michigan accounted
for 3.8 percent of direct state
expenditures in 2015. The
state ranked on par with the
average of “Top Ten” states
and slightly better than the
peer state average.
Note: This measure does not include debt service on principalsince the Census of Governments does not report a direct debtservice measure.
Local Debt Service Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances)
LOCAL DEBT SERVICE
RANKLe
vel
273.75%
3.89%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
36
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Total State & Local Spending
Total State & Local Spending Trends
What it is:Total state and local governmentexpenditures (2017 dollars) divided bypopulation.
Why it matters:State and local government expendituresare made in important areas such aseducation, infrastructure, and public safety.However, high government expendituresmay mean less private sector economicactivity by redirecting dollars andemployees for public sector use.
Michigan’s state and localgovernment spending was20 percent lower than the“Top Ten” average in 2015,and four percent lower thanthe average of peer states.
Total State & Local Spending Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances)
TOTAL STATE & LOCAL SPENDING
RANKLe
vel
$9.72
$12.19
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.20th
37
input
cost
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:The number of full-time equivalent stateand local government employees per1,000 people.
Why it matters:High levels of government employmentcan contribute to quality governmentservice, but can also lead to high taxes,administrative burden, and higher legacycosts.
Michigan’s number of
government employees per
capita increased slightly
between 2015 and 2016.
Still, the state has fewer
government employees per
capita than any “Top Ten” or
peer state other than
Pennsylvania.
Government Employees Standings
Government Employees
U.S. Census Bureau (Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll)
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
RANKLe
vel
44.20
53.43
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.5th
Government Employees Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
38
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Local Government Payroll Spending
Local Government Payroll Spending Trends
What it is:Local government payroll spending perresident.
Why it matters:Government payrolls are an indicator ofthe expanse and quality of governmentservices offered. However, high payrollfigures can also indicate largeadministrative costs and inefficiency.
Local governmentadministrative spending inMichigan is 28 percent lessthan the “Top Ten” averageand 19 percent lower thanthe peer state average..
Local Government Payroll Spending Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances)
LOCAL PAYROLL SPENDING
RANKLe
vel
$1,539
$2,155
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.12th
4th Grade Reading
39
4th Grade Reading Trends
What it is:The percentage of 4th grade students whoattained a proficient level for reading.
Why it matters:This provides an indicator of how wellschools are meeting competitive academicstandards.
Michigan 4th grade readingperformance lags behindboth the “Top Ten” and peerstate averages.
Note: Data are only released every two years.
4th Grade Reading Standings
National Center for Education Statistics (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
4TH GRADE READING
RANKLe
vel
3731.81%
38.04%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
input
value
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
40
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:The percentage of 8th grade studentswho attained a proficient level for math.
Why it matters:This provides an indicator of how wellschools are meeting competitiveacademic standards.
Michigan 8th graders areperforming below both the“Top Ten” and peer stateaverages. Although thepercentage of studentsattaining math proficiencygrew by 2.7 percentagepoints between 2015 and2017, over eight percentfewer students achieved the“proficient” level relative to“Top Ten” states.
Note: Data are only released every two years.
8th Grade Math Standings
8th Grade Math
National Center for Education Statistics (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
8TH GRADE MATH
RANKLe
vel
3231.24%
39.74%
ndTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
8th Grade Math Trends
Career & Technical Education Enrollment
Career & Technical Education Enrollment Trends
What it is:The average number of career-orientedand/or technical education classes in whichpublic high school students are enrolled.
Why it matters:Serves as a measure of how well highschool students are being prepared forhighly-skilled technical professions.
Fewer than one in four
students in public high
schools in Michigan was
enrolled in a career or
technical education class in
2016. This is less than one-
half the enrollment rate for
both “Top Ten” and peer
states.
Career & Technical Education Enrollment Standings
National Center for Education Statistics (Table 203.10 Enrollment in Public Elementaryand Secondary Schools, by Level and Grade), Perkins Collaborative Resource Network
CAREER & TECH ENROLLMENT
RANKLe
vel
420.22
0.51
ndTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
41
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
42
COMPETE INVEST GROW
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
2017
Pass
ing
stud
ents
(bot
h su
bj.)—
%
Michigan Top Ten States Peer States
What it is:The share of students who took the SATand met benchmark standards for bothreading and math.
Why it matters:Well-prepared high school graduateshelp a state maintain a strong talentbase.
Michigan’s share of SAT testtakers who scored proficienton both reading and math is21 percentage points lowerthan the “Top Ten” averageand 19 percentage pointsbelow the peer state average.Michigan's overall SATperformance trails that ofother states, due in part to its100% student participationrate—a much higher ratethan most states.
Note: Michigan began administering the SAT to all studentsin 2016; 2017 is the first year for which complete data areavailable.
Career & College Readiness Standings
Career & College Readiness
College Board SAT Assessment Reports
CAREER & COLLEGE READINESS
RANKLe
vel
4736%N.A.
57%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Career & College Readiness Trends
43
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:The number of total active apprenticesper 1,000 working age people (ages 20through 64, inclusive).
Why it matters:A higher number of apprentices indicatesstates where skilled workers are receivingvaluable on-the-job training.
In 2017, Michigan made
great strides in increasing
its number of active
apprenticeships, rising eight
spots in its overall rank.
Michigan's active
apprenticeship rate is on
par with the “Top Ten”
average and exceeds the
peer state average.
Active Apprentices Standings
Active Apprentices
U.S. Department of Labor
ACTIVE APPRENTICES
RANKLevel
163.03
3.12
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Active Apprentices Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
44
Out-of-State Enrollment
Out-of-State Enrollment Trends
What it is:Percentage of first-year undergraduatesfrom out of state.
Why it matters:This measure indicates how well highereducation institutions are attractingstudents from out of state to provide aninfusion of talent and capital. This shouldbe compared with in-state enrollment toensure that states are maintaining in-stateenrollment.
The rate of out-of-stateenrollment at highereducation institutions inMichigan was less than halfof the “Top Ten” average in2016. Michigan out-of-stateenrollment trailed all peerstates except for Californiaand Texas.
Note: Data are only available every two years.
Out-of-State Enrollment Standings
National Center for Education Statistics (Residence and Migration ofFirst-Time Degree-Seeking Undergraduates)
OUT-OF-STATE ENROLLMENT
RANKLe
vel
4513.16%
28.47%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
COMPETE INVEST GROW
45
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:Total associate, bachelor’s, master’s, anddoctorate degrees conferred per 10,000residents by public and privateinstitutions.
Why it matters:Educational attainment is a factor inassessing the quality of a state's talentpool.
The number of degrees
conferred by higher
education institutions in
Michigan decreased from
2015 to 2016, and remains
below the “Top Ten” average.
Michigan was near the
middle of its peers in terms
of the number of degrees
conferred per 10,000 of
population.
Note: Degrees include associate, bachelor's, andgraduate/professional degrees. Higher education institutionsinclude all public and private degree-granting institutions.All years are consistent in their inclusion of degrees, whetherfirst or second majors.
Degrees Conferred Standings
Degrees ConferredAssociate+ Per 10,000
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
DEGREES CONFERRED
RANKLe
vel
26200.49
232.08
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Degrees Conferred Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
46
What it is:Total critical skills degrees andcertificates conferred divided by theworking age population (ages 20 through64, inclusive).
Why it matters:These degrees especially preparestudents for high-skilled occupations,particularly in the STEM fields, which arethe types of jobs Michigan expects toincrease in the future.
Michigan ranks 33rd in
terms of critical skills
degrees and certificates
awarded. The state lags
behind the “Top Ten” and
peer state averages.
Note: Higher education institutions include all public andprivate degree-granting institutions. Differences in this year’sdata reflect revisions as a result of newer data beingcollected.
Technical Education Standings
Technical EducationCritical Skills Degrees & Certificates
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated Postsecondary EducationData System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
RANKLevel
3387.02
103.23
rdTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Technical Education Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
47
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:Share of residents aged 25 to 64 with anassociate degree or higher.
Why it matters:The availability of highly educated talentcan promote future growth of theeconomy, particularly in highly skilledprofessions. More education alsocorrelates strongly with higher wages.
Michigan ranks 32nd
nationally in terms of
educational attainment—
only slightly lower than the
peer state average but more
than six percentage points
lower than the “Top Ten”
state average.
Note: No new update is available in this category.Performance reflects that shown in prior year benchmarkingreport.
Educational Attainment Standings
Educational Attainment Population age 25-64 with Associate+
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey)
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
RANKLe
vel
3239.74%
45.92%
ndTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Educational Attainment Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
48
Talent Migration Adults with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Talent Migration Trends
What it is:Immigrants with a bachelor’s degree orhigher minus emigrants with a bachelor’sdegree or higher.
Why it matters:This measure indicates how well a stateattracts and retains highly educatedindividuals to live in the state.
Michigan ranked 14th for
talent migration in 2016.
The total net migration for
the state exceeded that of six
“Top Ten” states, and five peer
states.
Note: This measure does not take into account emigrants whohave moved to another country.
Talent Migration Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey)
TALENT MIGRATION
RANKLe
vel
11,453
28,156
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.14th
COMPETE INVEST GROW
49
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Median Age
Median Age Trends
What it is:Median age of state residents.
Why it matters:Increase in the median age is an indicatorof an aging population, where thepopulation growth rate of middle-agedand older residents outpaces that ofchildren and young adults. States with ahigh median age among residents may begood at attracting retirees, but this alsocan be a sign that younger people areseeking out other places to work and raisea family.
Michigan was the eleventh-oldest state in 2016, with amedian age of 39.7 years.Michigan’s median age washigher than all of its peersand all of the “Top Ten”states except Pennsylvania.
Median Age Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey)
MEDIAN AGE
RANKLe
vel
4039.7
37.9
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Urban Roads in Poor Condition
Urban Roads in Poor Condition Trends
What it is:Share of urban roads in poor condition, bylength.
Why it matters:A strong, reliable transportation systembenefits both businesses and individuals.Poor road quality imposes many tangiblecosts and reduces productivity.
The number of poor-quality
urban roads in Michigan
declined by 1.2 percent
between 2015 and 2016.
Urban road quality was
worse in Michigan than the
“Top Ten” and peer state
averages. Michigan ranks
39th among all states.
Among peers, only California
and North Carolina have a
greater percentage of urban
roads in poor condition.
Note: Includes interstate highways, freeways, expressways, andmajor arterial roads in urban areas. Some values missing dueto data reporting issues.
Urban Roads in Poor Condition Standings
U.S. Department of Transportation (Length by Pavement Roughness)
URBAN ROADS IN POOR CONDITION
RANKLevel
3924.83%
23.41%
thTrend
Top
10
Avg
.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
50
COMPETE INVEST GROW
51
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
U.S. Department of Transportation (Highway Bridge by Wearing Surface)
What it is:Percentage of bridges in deficientcondition, by area.
Why it matters:A strong, reliable transportation systembenefits both businesses and individuals.Poor bridge quality imposes manytangible costs and reduces productivity.
The share of bridgescategorized as poor inMichigan decreased by 0.4percent between 2016 and2017. Michigan trails the“Top Ten” average, and hasa higher proportion ofdeficient bridges than allpeer states except forIllinois, Massachusetts, andNorth Carolina.
Deficient Bridges Standings
Bridges in Poor Condition
BRIDGES IN POOR CONDITION
RANKLe
vel
398.60%
7.09%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Deficient Bridges Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:The percentage of drinking waterfacilities in the state with a seriousviolation, according to EPA standards.
Why it matters:Clean drinking water prevents diseaseand can have life-long positive impactson cognition and health.
Michigan ranks among the
top states for drinking water
quality nationwide. The
state’s performance exceeds
eight of the “Top Ten” states
in 2017.
Drinking Water System Conditions Standings
Drinking Water System Conditions
Environmental Protection Agency (Drinking Water Dashboard)
DRINKING WATER SYSTEM CONDITIONS
RANKLe
vel
9.81%
2.2%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Drinking Water System Conditions Trends
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
52
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Duration of power outage per customer(in hours).
Why it matters:An unreliable power grid can signal lowquality infrastructure, and discouragebusinesses from locating in a state.
Michigan ranks 37th
nationwide in terms of
average outage duration per
customer. The average
outage duration in Michigan
has fallen by 65 percent
since 2013, but remains
significantly longer than the
“Top Ten” average and longer
than average rates in many
peer states.
Energy Grid Reliability Standings
Energy Grid Reliability
U.S. Energy Information Administration
ENERGY GRID RELIABILITY
RANKLe
vel
374.46
2.72
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Energy Grid Reliability Trends
53
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Akami (Internet Connection Speeds)
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
54
Broadband Speed
Broadband Speed Trends
What it is:Average speed for downloading anduploading information, in kilobits persecond (kbps).
Why it matters:Strong telecommunicationsinfrastructure can improve productivityand is attractive for businesses.
Michigan ranks 12th
nationally in terms of
broadband connection
speed, just below the
average of “Top Ten” states
and higher than the peer
state average.
Broadband Speed Standings
BROADBAND SPEED
RANKLe
vel
16,650
16,687
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.12th
COMPETE INVEST GROW
55
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:The percentage of households with high-speed internet connections, based onhousehold survey data.
Why it matters:Access to internet at home makes iteasier and more affordable for students,workers, and entrepreneurs to stayconnected.
Michigan ranked 30th
nationwide in terms of the
number of households with
access to quality internet
service in 2016. The state
had a lower broadband
penetration rate than both
the “Top Ten” and peer state
averages.
Broadband Penetration Standings
Broadband Penetration
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey)
BROADBAND PENETRATION
RANKLe
vel
3080.5%
83.4%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Broadband Penetration Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Total value of goods originating in astate that were shipped out of thecountry, as a share of total GDP.
Why it matters:Exports help support jobs and grow thestate's economy.
Michigan had the sixth-highest value of exports(scaled by GDP) in 2017 intotal goods. The level ofexports from Michiganexceeded the “Top Ten”average and those of allpeer states except Texas.
Exports Standings
ExportsPer $100,000 of GDP
Department of Commerce (TradeStats Express),Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP in Current Dollars - Private Industries)
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
56
EXPORTS
RANKLevel
6$13,256
$9,027
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Exports Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
57
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
University R&D ExpendituresPer $1M of GDP
University R&D Expenditures Trends
What it is:Research and development expendituresby higher education institutions, as a shareof total GDP.
Why it matters:Research and development expendituresby universities improve the state’sattractiveness to out-of-state students andtalent, and provide an important source ofinnovation and entrepreneurship in thestate.
Research and development
expenditures at universities in
Michigan were sixth in the
nation in 2016, and were
higher than all of the
“Top Ten” states except
Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania. Michigan
universities’ research and
development expenditures
were greater than those of
all of its peers except
Massachusetts and North
Carolina.
University R&D Expenditures Standings
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (Higher Ed R&D Expenditures),Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP in Current Dollars - All Industries)
UNIVERSITY R&D EXPEND
RANKLe
vel
6 $5,070
$4,317
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
58
What it is:The share of residents ages 25 to 34 witha bachelor’s degree or higher.
Why it matters:Young, educated residents have thepotential to promote innovation andinnovation-driven economic growth foryears to come.
Michigan’s share of young,
educated residents
increased by 4.7 percent
from 2007 to 2016;
however, the state still lags
behind the “Top Ten” and
peer state averages.
Highly Educated Young People Standings
Highly Educated Young People
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey)
HIGHLY EDUCATED YOUNG PEOPLE
RANKLevel
3031.79%
39.33%
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Highly Educated Young People Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Number of U.S. patents awarded per100,000 residents.
Why it matters:Patents provide an incentive forinnovators and entrepreneurs to improvetechnology. The states whose residentsare the source of this innovation have anadvantage in reaping the economicbenefits derived from them.
Michigan ranked 9th in the
nation in the number of
patents issued, matching
the “Top Ten” average. On a
per capita basis, Michigan
inventors were more prolific
than those in all of its peer
states except Massachusetts
and California.
U.S. Patents Standings
U.S. PatentsPer 100,000 Residents
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (Statistics), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
59
input
value
U.S. PATENTS
RANK
Leve
l
964.32
64.25
th
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.U.S. Patents Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
60
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Venture Capital InvestmentPer $100,000 of GDP
Venture Capital Investment Trends
What it is:Total capital infusions by venture capitalfunds and investors per $100,000 innominal GDP.
Why it matters:This measure indicates a state’s leadershipin innovation and entrepreneurship andability to attract funding for high-risk firms.
This is a volatile indicator.
Venture capital investment
in Michigan grew by 12
percent from 2016 to 2017.
Venture capital investment
in Michigan remains lower
than in all “Top Ten” states
except North Dakota, and
lagged all but four peer
states in 2017.
Venture Capital Investment Standings
PWC/Moneytree Historical Trend Data
VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT
RANKLe
vel
29 $63.82
$475.40
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:Kauffman Index of EntrepreneurialActivity (the share of individuals age 20to 64 who previously did not own abusiness and subsequently started abusiness with 15 or more hours workedduring the year).
Why it matters:This measure indicates the number ofentrepreneurs in the state. Greaterentrepreneurship, in the rightenvironment, can lead to moreinnovation and more successfulbusinesses.
Entrepreneurial activity in
Michigan declined slightly
from 2015 to 2016 and
trailed the “Top Ten” and
peer state averages.
Entrepreneurial activity in
the state has recovered,
however, after ranking near
the bottom nationwide in
2012.
Entrepreneurial Activity Standings
Entrepreneurial Activity
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity)
61
input
value
ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY
RANKLe
vel
0.26%
0.30%
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.34th
Entrepreneurial Activity Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
62
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Net New Establishments
Net New Establishments Trends
What it is:The number of new businesses openedduring the year less the number ofbusinesses closed.
Why it matters:Independent of employment, new businesscreation can provide economic growth, amore stable economic foundation, and amore diverse economy.
Michigan ranked 27th in
2016 in terms of net new
business establishments—a
significant improvement
from 2007 when the state
ranked last in the nation.
However, Michigan’s new
establishment rate still falls
far below the “Top Ten” and
peer state averages.
Net New Establishments Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey, County Business Patterns)
NET NEW ESTABLISHMENTS
RANKLe
vel
27785
3,760
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:The number of new, privately ownedhousing units authorized for constructionper 1,000 residents.
Why it matters:This measure indicates how quickly newhousing stock is being created in thestate—a proxy for growing populationand household formation, and a source ofeconomic growth.
Permits for new construction
in Michigan improved for the
third straight year in 2017.
However, there were fewer
new construction permits
issued per capita in
Michigan than in all “Top
Ten” states but Pennsylvania
and New York. Michigan also
lagged behind all peer states
except Illinois and Ohio.
New Construction Permits Standings
New Construction Permits
U.S. Census Bureau (Building Permits Survey)
NEW CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
RANKLe
vel
412.37
3.75
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
New Construction Permits Trends
63
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
64
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Business Churn
Business Churn Trends
What it is:The sum of establishments born andexiting a state within the last 12 months,per 100,000 people.
Why it matters:Higher levels of business churn indicate amore innovative and vibrant economy.
In 2015, Michigan had one
of the lowest levels of
business churn in the nation,
trailing behind both the
“Top Ten” average and peer
state averages.
Business Churn Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Business Dynamics Statistics)
BUSINESS CHURN
RANKLevel
41336.24
423.03
stTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
65
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Number of companies per 1,000,000people that are among the 5,000 fastest-growing companies in the country.
Why it matters:Being home to the fastest-growingcompanies nationwide is a sign that astate is fostering an environment wherestartup companies can thrive.
Michigan’s share of the
nation’s fastest-growing
companies has dropped over
the past five years. Michigan
lags behind both the “Top
Ten” and peer state averages.
Fastest-Growing Companies Standings
Fastest-Growing Companies
Inc. and MAQ Software
FASTEST-GROWING COMPANIES
RANKLe
vel
3010.14
15.62
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Fastest-Growing Companies Trends
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
66
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:State and local government expenditureson economic development programs andincentives (2017 dollars), divided bypopulation.
Why it matters:This measure indicates the total scale ofpublic spending on economic developmentprograms and incentives in a state. Well-targeted incentives can attract businessesand increase employment in a state.
Michigan’s economic
development expenditures
per capita ranked 25th in the
nation in 2017, and exceeded
both the “Top Ten” and peer
state averages.
Economic Development Expenditures Standings
Economic Development Expenditures
Council for Community and Economic Research (State Economic DevelopmentExpenditures Database), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
ECON. DEV. EXPENDITURES
RANKLe
vel
25$25.54
$22.81
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Economic Development Expenditures Trends
67
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Key Assets —Share of National Employment
Key Assets - Share of National Employment Trends
What it is:Employment as a share of working-agepopulation in the engineering, geographictrade, higher education, life sciences,automotive, and natural resources sectors.
Why it matters:These six sectors represent majoropportunities crucial for growingMichigan's economy and moving it forwardin the new global marketplace. The threemajor indicators presented (GDP,employment, and earnings) show howthese sectors are contributing to a state'sproduction and to residents' well-being.
Michigan’s share of the
working-age population
employed in key opportunity
industries increased by 0.2
percent between 2016 and
2017, and is on par with the
“Top Ten” state average.
Michigan also exceeds the
peer state average by nearly
one percent.
Key Assets - Share of National Employment Standings
AEG analysis using base data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census ofEmployment and Wages and the U.S. Census Bureau (spreadsheets)
EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGE
RANK
Leve
l
1514.69%
14.65%
th
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
68
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Key Assets —Average Earnings
Key Assets – Average Earnings Trends
What it is:Average annual earnings (in 2017 dollars)in the engineering, geographic trade,higher education, life sciences, automotive,and natural resources sectors.
Why it matters:These six sectors represent majoropportunities crucial for growingMichigan's economy and moving it forwardin the new global marketplace. The threemajor indicators presented (GDP,employment, and earnings) show howthese sectors are contributing to a state'sproduction and to residents' well-being.
Earnings in Michigan’s keyindustries grew by 2.2 percentbetween 2016 and 2017. Thestate’s key industry earningslag behind the “Top Ten”average, and are on par withthe peer state average.
Key Assets – Average Earnings Standings
AEG analysis using base data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census ofEmployment and Wages, the American Association of Railroads, and the IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (spreadsheets)
AVERAGE EARNINGS
RANKLe
vel
11$67,841
$71,050
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
69
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
What it is:Real GDP in the engineering, geographictrade, higher education, life sciences,automotive, and natural resourcessectors.
Why it matters:These six sectors represent majoropportunities crucial for growingMichigan's economy and moving itforward in the new global marketplace.The three major indicators presented(GDP, employment, and earnings) showhow these sectors are contributing to astate's production and to residents' well-being.
Real GDP among keyindustries in Michigan fell by1.4 percent between 2015and 2016. This decline wasless than the 3.6 percentdecline among "Top Ten"states and less than the2.0 percent decline amongpeer states.
Key Assets – Real GDP Per Capita Standings
Key Assets —Real GDP Per Capita
AEG analysis using base data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
GDP PER CAPITA
RANK
Leve
l
16 $8,396
$9,646
th
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.Key Assets – Real GDP Per Capita Trends
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
70
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Population Age 25–34
Population Age 25–34 Trends
What it is:The percentage of a state's populationbetween the ages of 25 and 34.
Why it matters:Growth in prime working-age populationis an indicator for how well a stateattracts and retains workers. This affectsa state’s ability to grow, attractbusinesses, and maintain publicinfrastructure and programs.
The percentage of young
working-age people in
Michigan has increased by
0.8 percentage points since
2013. However, Michigan
has the lowest percentage of
population age 25–34
among all of its peers and
second lowest among all
“Top Ten” states.
Population Age 25–34 Standings
Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Age for States 2000-2010Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age by Sex 2010-2015
POPULATION AGE 25-34
RANKLe
vel
4312.73%
14.05%
rdTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
71
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
What it is:The average number of minutes it takesfor a worker to travel to and from work.
Why it matters:A shorter commute time means easieraccess to jobs for workers and lessproductive time wasted duringcommutes.
Michigan ranks in the
middle of all states for
commute time, and slightly
less than the “Top Ten” and
peer state averages.
Commute Time Standings
Commute Time
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey—Commuting Characteristics by Sex)
COMMUTE TIME
RANKLe
vel
2624.5
26.0
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Commute Time Trends
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
72
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Violent Crime Rate
Violent Crime Rate Trends
What it is:The number of violent crimes per100,000 residents.
Why it matters:Lower violent crime means a safer livingand working environment, making thestate a more attractive place to live andstart a business.
Violent crime rates in
Michigan increased by 10
percent from 2015 to 2016.
Michigan’s violent crime
rate in 2016 was 42
percent higher than the
“Top Ten” average and 13
percent higher than the
peer state average.
Violent Crime Rate Standings
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Uniform Crime Reporting)
VIOLENT CRIME RATE
RANKLe
vel
38459
323
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:An estimation of the differences in theprice levels of goods and services acrossstates.
Why it matters:A higher cost of living means businessesand households must pay more for anidentical good or service. This canindicate a high desire to live in an area,but can also prevent businesses andhouseholds from purchasing necessaryitems.
Michigan was the 29th most
affordable state in 2016.
The average of “Top Ten”
states was about $9 lower
and among peer states
about $3 lower for the
same basket of goods.
Cost of Living Standings
Cost of Living
Bureau of Economic Analysis
COST OF LIVING
RANKLevel
29$107.18
$98.31
thTrend
Top
10
Avg
.
Cost of Living Trends
73
input
value
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
COMPETE INVEST GROW
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Avg.
met
ro a
rea
rank
am
ong
all la
rge
met
ro a
reas
Michigan Top Ten States Peer States
1
What it is:The average ranking of large (300,000+)metropolitan areas in each state asmeasured by population, GDP, andpersonal income; and by population, GDP,and personal income growth over a 10-year period.
Why it matters:Metropolitan areas act as engines ofeconomic growth. Thriving metrosindicate a healthy, growing state economy.
In 2016, Michigan’s large
metropolitan areas had an
average ranking of 63rd out
of 161 metro areas
nationwide on key economic
indicators. This represents a
significant improvement in
metropolitan area
performance since 2011. The
performance of Michigan’s
large metropolitan areas is
now on par with the peer
state average, but still trails
the “Top Ten” average.
Note: North Dakota has no metropolitan areas with300,000+ population.
Thriving Metropolitan Areas Standings
Thriving Metropolitan Areas
AEG analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Census Bureau data
THRIVING METROPOLITAN AREAS
RANKLevel
2263.18
44.68
ndTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Thriving Metropolitan Areas Trends
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
74
COMPETE INVEST GROW
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
75
input
Input Conclusions
Michigan continued to do well during 2017 when it comes toemployer affordability. However, other states and nations—many withsuperior value inputs to offer—are catching up.
Although the state continued to improve its value-add during 2017,Michigan continues to struggle with talent and infrastructure gaps.Lagging educational outcomes and weak infrastructure posechallenges when it comes to attracting and keeping employers.Michigan must work to leverage its competitive strengths and investin its own value proposition if site selectors are to be positivelyinfluenced to choose the state in the future.
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
76
KEWEENAWW
ONTONAGON
GOGEBICIRON
BARAGA
MARQUETTE
DICKINSON
MENOMINEE
DELTA
ALGERSCHOOLCRAFT
LUCE
MACKINACCHIPPEWA
EMMETCHEBOYGAN
PRESQUE ISLECHARLEVOIX
ALPENA
MONTMORENCYOTSEGANTRIM
LEELANAU
BENZIEGRAND
TRAVERSKALKASKA CODA ALCONA
IOSCOOGEMAWROSCOMMONUKEEWEXFORMANISTEE
MASON LAKE OSCEOLA CLARE GLADWINARENAC
HURON
MIDLAND
TUSCOLA SANILAC
LAPSHIAWASSEE
GRATIO AGINAW
GENESEE
MECOSTANEWAYGOOCEANA
OTTAWA
MONTCALM
IONIA CLINTON
EATO LIVINGSTONALLEGAN
VAN BUREN JACKSON
BERRIEN CAS JOSEPH BRANCH HILLSDALE WEE MONROE
HOUGHTON
ISABELLA
MUSKEGON
KENT
GHAM
KALAMAZOO CALHOUN WASHTENAW WAYNE
OAKLANDMACOMB
ST. CLAIR
BAY
CRAWF
BARRY
1
SEKALKA
MISMISSMISSAURD2
MGO
OSCORD3
KENT
4MIDLAND
OT SA5 A SAN
PEER S
6CLINTON
ON ING7
ON
LENAW
W
9WAYNE
10SS ST. J
KALA
8
1
5
9
3
7
2
6
10
4
8
Upper Peninsula region
InvestUP
UPWARD Talent Council
Northwest region NWMCOG dba/Networks Northwest
Northeast region
NEMCOG
West Michigan region
Lakeshore Advantage
The Right Place
East Central Michigan region
Middle Michigan Development Corporation
Saginaw Future
East Michigan region
Flint and Genesee Chamber of Commerce
Tuscola County Economic Developmen
South Central region
LEAP
Southwest region
Cornerstone Alliance
Southwest Michigan First
Southeast Michigan region
Ann Arbor SPARK
Detroit Metro region
Detroit Economic Growth Corp
Detroit Regional Chamber
Macomb County PED
Oakland County PCD
Wayne County EDGE
REGIONS
Michigan’s Regional PerformanceMichigan is not one economy; rather it is multiple economies identified by commonregional assets. This section illustrates the economic performance of Michigan'sregions over the last five years.
OutputUnemployment RateEmployment GrowthLabor Force GrowthPer Capita Personal IncomePopulation
InputOut-of-State EnrollmentDegrees ConferredTechnical EducationPatents Per CapitaNew Construction PermitsPopulation Age 25–34Educational Attainment
What it is:Year-over-year change in the number of residents
with a private-sector job.
Why it matters:Higher levels of private employment indicate both
economic strength and prosperity among the state’s
residents.
Employment Growth
What it is:Average share of labor force that is looking for
work but does not have a job.
Why it matters:A lower unemployment rate indicates that more
residents are able to find employment.
Unemployment Rate
77
regional
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
2017 Unemployment Rate
2012-17 Employment Change
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
78
What it is:The share of the population age 16 and older, not
including residents who are on active duty or
institutionalized, that is employed or looking for
work.
Why it matters:Members of the working-age population can stop
looking for work and drop out of the labor force for
many reasons, including disability, old age, or
discouragement. Higher labor force participation is
a sign of a healthier economy and workforce.
Labor Force Growth
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Personal Income Summary),Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
2012–17 Labor Force Change
What it is:Percent of first-year undergraduates from out of
state.
Why it matters:This indicates how well higher education
institutions are attracting students from out of
state to provide an infusion of talent and capital.
This should be compared with in-state enrollment
to ensure that states are maintaining in-state
enrollment.
Note: Data are only available every two years.
Out-of-State Enrollment
NCES Residence and Migration of First-time Degree Seeking Undergraduates
2012-2016 Regional Out-of-State Enrollment
79
regional
What it is:Personal income (2017 dollars) divided by
population. Personal income includes salaries,
wages, and bonuses from employment; dividends
and interest from investments; rental income;
pensions, etc.
Why it matters:Income is an indicator of prosperity and average
standard of living in a state.
Per CapitaPersonal Income
2016 Per Capita Personal Income
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Personal Income Table SA5),Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
2011-16 Per Capita Personal Income Change
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
80
What it is:Total number of residents.
Why it matters:Growth in population is an indicator for how
well a state attracts and retains residents. It
also affects a state’s ability to support shared
responsibilities such as maintaining
infrastructure and providing education.
Population
U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2017 Population
2012-17 Population Change
81
regional
What it is:Total associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate
degrees conferred per 10,000 residents by public
and private institutions.
Why it matters:Educational attainment is a factor in assessing the
quality of a state's talent pool.
Note: Degrees include associate, bachelor's, and graduate/professionaldegrees. Higher education institutions include all public and privatedegree-granting institutions. All years are consistent in their inclusion ofdegrees whether first or second majors.
Degrees Conferred
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2016 Degrees Conferred
What it is:Total critical skills degrees and certificates
conferred divided by the working age population
(ages 20 through 64, inclusive).
Why it matters:These degrees especially prepare students for high-
skilled occupations, particularly in the STEM fields,
which are the types of jobs Michigan expects to
increase in the future.
Note: Higher education institutions include all public and private degree-granting institutions. Differences in this year's data reflect revisions as aresult of newer data being collected.
Technical EducationCritical Skills Degrees and Certificates
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2017 Technical Education
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
82
What it is:Number of U.S. patents awarded per 100,000
residents.
Why it matters:Patents provide an incentive for innovators and
entrepreneurs to improve technology. The states
whose residents are the source of this innovation
have an advantage in reaping the economic
benefits derived from them.
Patents Per Capita
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2015 Patents Per Capita
What it is:Share of residents aged 25 to 64 with an associate
degree or higher.
Why it matters:The availability of highly educated talent can
promote future growth of the economy, particularly
in highly skilled professions. More education also
correlates strongly with higher wages.
Note: Regional data represent the average attainment during the specifiedtime period, rather than the change between years.
Educational Attainment
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey)
2012–16 Educational Attainment
What it is:The percent of a state’s population between the
ages of 25 and 34.
Why it matters:Growth in prime working-age population is an
indicator for how well a state attracts and retains
workers. This affects a state’s ability to grow, attract
businesses, and maintain public infrastructure and
programs.
Population Age 25–34
Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Age for States 2000-2010
2017 Population Age 25–34
83
regional
What it is:The number of new, privately owned housing
units authorized for construction per 1,000
residents.
Why it matters:This measure indicates how quickly new housing
stock is being created in the state—a proxy for
growing population and household formation,
and a source of economic growth.
New Construction Permits
U.S. Census Bureau (Building Permit Survey)
2012–17 New Construction Permits Change
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2018 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
18 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
84
BLAKE W. KRUEGERCHAIR OF THE BOARDWolverine Worldwide, Inc.
DARYL M. ADAMSSpartan Motors, Inc.
RICHARD E. ALLISON, JR.Domino’s
KEITH J. ALLMANMasco Corporation
G. MARK ALYEAAlro Steel Corporation
GERARD M. ANDERSON DTE Energy
JOSEPH B. ANDERSON, JR.TAG Holdings, LLC
LINDA H. APSEYITC Holdings Corp.
DAVID W. BARFIELD The Bartech Group
MARY T. BARRAGeneral Motors Company
MARK BASSETTHemlock Semiconductor Group
ALAN S. BATEYGeneral Motors Company
ALBERT M. BERRIZ McKinley, Inc.
MARK J. BISSELLBISSELL Inc.
JOHN C. CARTERChase
TIMOTHY P. COLLINSComcast
GREGORY J. CRABBAmerisure Insurance Companies
MATTHEW P. CULLENRock Ventures LLC
MARY CULLERFord Motor Company
WALTER P. CZARNECKIPenske Corporation
KURT L. DARROWLa-Z-Boy Incorporated
DAVID C. DAUCH American Axle & Manufacturing
MARK A. DAVIDOFFDeloitte LLP
RICHARD L. DeVOREThe PNC FinancialServices Group
DOUG DeVOSAmway
ALESSANDRO P. DiNELLOFlagstar Bank
STEFAN O. DOERRBASF Corporation
MATTHEW B. ELLIOTT Bank of America
JOHN ENGLERMichigan State University
PHIL EYLERGentherm
WILLIAM CLAY FORD, JR. Ford Motor Company
TRACY GALLOWAYMicrosoft Corporation
DAN GILBERTQuicken Loans Inc. &Rock Ventures LLC
DAVID F. GIRODATFifth Third Bank-Eastern Michigan
KAREN GODWINGoogle, Inc.
DAN GORDONGordon Food Service, Inc.
PHILIP R. HAGERMANDiplomat
RONALD E. HALL, JR. Bridgewater Interiors, LLC
MATTHEW R. HAWORTHHaworth, Inc.
DENNIS HOEGNexteer Automotive
CHRISTOPHER ILITCH Ilitch Holdings, Inc.
MICHAEL J. JANDERNOA42 North Partners
MILES E. JONESDawn Food Products, Inc.
HANS-WERNER KAAS McKinsey & Company
ALAN JAY KAUFMANH.W. Kaufman Group
JAMES P. KEANESteelcase Inc.
JOHN C. KENNEDYAutocam Medical
RICK KEYESMeijer, Inc.
STEPHEN M. KIRCHERBoyne Resorts
WILLIAM L. KOZYRATI Automotive
BRIAN K. LARCHEEngineered MachinedProducts, Inc.
KEVIN A. LOBOStryker Corporation
DANIEL J. LOEPP Blue Cross Blue Shield ofMichigan
EVAN D. LYALL Roush Enterprises, Inc.
BEN C. MAIBACH III Barton Malow Company
RICHARD A. MANOOGIAN Masco Corporation
FLORINE MARK The Weight Watchers Group, Inc.
CHARLES G. McCLUREMichigan Capital Advisors
DAVID E. MEADORDTE Energy
Business Leaders for Michigan - 2018 Board of Directors
HANK MEIJERMeijer, Inc.
FREDERICK K. MINTURNMSX International
PAUL J. MUELLERThe Hanover Insurance Group
JAMES B. NICHOLSONPVS Chemicals, Inc.
JON NOBISTwo Men And A Truck®/International, Inc.
D. JEFFREY NOELWhirlpool Corporation
WILLIAM U. PARFETNorthwood Group
CYNTHIA J. PASKY Strategic Staffing Solutions
ROGER S. PENSKE Penske Corporation
JIM PETERSWhirlpool Corporation
WILLIAM F. PICKARD, Ph.D. Global AutomotiveAlliance, LLC
SANDRA E. PIERCE Huntington Bank
PATRICIA K. POPPECMS Energy &Consumers Energy
BILL PUMPHREY Cooper Standard
JOHN RAKOLTA, JR.Walbridge
MICHAEL T. RITCHIE Comerica Bank
DOUG ROTHWELL Business Leaders for Michigan
ANDRA M. RUSHRush Group
JOHN G. RUSSELLEmeritus Member
JAMES R. SCAPAAltair
MARK S. SCHLISSELUniversity of Michigan
RAYMOND E. SCOTTLear Corporation
DAVID M. STAPLESSpartanNash
SPENCER S. STILESStryker Corporation
ROBERT S. TAUBMAN Taubman Centers, Inc.
RAMESH (RAY) TELANG PricewaterhouseCoopers
JAMES J. TOBINMagna International Inc.
GARY TORGOWChemical Financial Corporation
HOWARD UNGERLEIDERThe Dow Chemical CompanyDowDuPont
SAMUEL VALENTI III TriMas Corporation
STEPHEN A. VAN ANDELAmway
S. EVAN WEINEREdw. C. Levy Co.
THOMAS G. WELCH, JR.Fifth Third Bank-Western Michigan
FRANKLIN C. WHEATLAKEUtility Supply andConstruction Company
M. ROY WILSONWayne State University
WILLIAM C. YOUNG Plastipak Holdings, Inc.
Herman Miller, Inc.
Kelly Services, Inc.
Perrigo Company
This list represents the board members at the time of printing. For a current list, visit www.BusinessLeadersforMichigan.com.
www.BusinessLeadersforMichigan.com