ADVERTISEMENT

State economies

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 4, 2001
37,525
24,218
113
A ranking was made of state economies. I don't know if there is any bias in it for politics, I see both liberal and conservative states toward the top (UT and MA are 2 and 3). An all too-brief description of the methodology:

By several measures, the national economy is the strongest it has been in decades. The U.S. monthly unemployment rate now sits comfortably below 4%, and we are in the second longest period of GDP growth since World War II. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed economic growth, poverty, unemployment, job growth, and college attainment rates to compare and rank state economies. The best ranked states tend to have fast-growing economies, low poverty and unemployment rates, high job growth, and a relatively well-educated workforce, while the opposite is generally the case among states with the worst ranked economies.
Indiana is #35. We are ahead of Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky and barely behind Illinois. I think what that says is this area of the country just isn't faring too well. The write-up on Indiana basically says other than our unemployment rate, the rest of our economic indicators lag.
 
A ranking was made of state economies. I don't know if there is any bias in it for politics, I see both liberal and conservative states toward the top (UT and MA are 2 and 3). An all too-brief description of the methodology:

By several measures, the national economy is the strongest it has been in decades. The U.S. monthly unemployment rate now sits comfortably below 4%, and we are in the second longest period of GDP growth since World War II. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed economic growth, poverty, unemployment, job growth, and college attainment rates to compare and rank state economies. The best ranked states tend to have fast-growing economies, low poverty and unemployment rates, high job growth, and a relatively well-educated workforce, while the opposite is generally the case among states with the worst ranked economies.
Indiana is #35. We are ahead of Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky and barely behind Illinois. I think what that says is this area of the country just isn't faring too well. The write-up on Indiana basically says other than our unemployment rate, the rest of our economic indicators lag.
This kind of says it all: "In Indiana, barely one in four adults has a bachelor's degree, one of the lowest shares in the country." Why is that? This is a red state, so where's all the personal responsibility and such? For that matter, why is the top of the list dominated by blue states?
 
This kind of says it all: "In Indiana, barely one in four adults has a bachelor's degree, one of the lowest shares in the country." Why is that? This is a red state, so where's all the personal responsibility and such? For that matter, why is the top of the list dominated by blue states?
Neither Colorado nor Utah are blue states. I think you need to change your approach to engaging here. Your caricatures of conservatism aren’t going to add value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
Neither Colorado nor Utah are blue states. I think you need to change your approach to engaging here. Your caricatures of conservatism aren’t going to add value.
I would say that a pot-legal state that favored the Democrat by at least five points in each of the last three presidential elections is quite blue.

I'd also say that seven of the top eight is pretty dang dominant.

I don't think my "caricatures" of conservatism are inaccurate. If it looks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, and it VOTES like a duck...
 
Neither Colorado nor Utah are blue states. I think you need to change your approach to engaging here. Your caricatures of conservatism aren’t going to add value.

While I don't agree with mainway's assessment of conservatives, it's hard to quibble with his assessment that the top of the list is dominated by blue states. I think you'd find more traction criticizing the metrics of the list than that tact.
 
A ranking was made of state economies. I don't know if there is any bias in it for politics, I see both liberal and conservative states toward the top (UT and MA are 2 and 3). An all too-brief description of the methodology:

By several measures, the national economy is the strongest it has been in decades. The U.S. monthly unemployment rate now sits comfortably below 4%, and we are in the second longest period of GDP growth since World War II. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed economic growth, poverty, unemployment, job growth, and college attainment rates to compare and rank state economies. The best ranked states tend to have fast-growing economies, low poverty and unemployment rates, high job growth, and a relatively well-educated workforce, while the opposite is generally the case among states with the worst ranked economies.
Indiana is #35. We are ahead of Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky and barely behind Illinois. I think what that says is this area of the country just isn't faring too well. The write-up on Indiana basically says other than our unemployment rate, the rest of our economic indicators lag.

I'd rather be in Indiana than the other surrounding states. It may be that Indiana' educational attainment ranking suffers from migration of degree holders leaving the state. Some other rankings for the states mentioned in your post:

State GINI Coef, Education, Debt/Capita, RTW?, Fiscal Health
Utah lowest 15th 36th, Yes 4th
Indiana 16th 42nd 31st Yes 16th
Michigan 23rd 34th 27th Yes 36th
Ohio 25th 37th 35th No 13th
Illinois 37th 12th 6th No 49th
Kentucky 38th 47th 15th Yes 47th
Massachusetts 47th 1st 2nd No 48th

Note on rankings:
GINI - low is good, high is bad
Education - low is good, high is bad
Debt/Capita - low is bad, high is good
Fiscal Health (from Mercatus Center) - low is good, high is bad

Utah also has a high net positive migration rate, while Massachusetts and Illinois are among states having highest net negative migration rates.
 
I would say that a pot-legal state that favored the Democrat by at least five points in each of the last three presidential elections is quite blue.

Denver is blue. The rest of CO, including the suburbs is not. It's no different than many cities and states.
 
Indiana is #35. We are ahead of Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky and barely behind Illinois. I think what that says is this area of the country just isn't faring too well. The write-up on Indiana basically says other than our unemployment rate, the rest of our economic indicators lag.

How much of it is due to failure to embrace technology and adapt?
 
How much of it is due to failure to embrace technology and adapt?

I think that plays a big role. Too much of Indiana has the motto "leading back to the 1950s". I think some of that is we were so dependent on manufacturing that we were slow to move to other employers. So what trained people our colleges turn out, leave.

We still have some old school thinking in a lot of areas. I had a buddy, a deeply conservative friend, complain that when he tried to get Hoosier businesses to pay him to submit grants he was told things like "cousin Jim is a good writer, I can just have him do it for free". My buddy gave up and moved to a blue state, which he hates passionately. But he's written millions of dollars of grants and the people that pay him for it love his work.

Indiana is slow to adapt. I think it is from our deeply southern roots. Except, unlike places like Atlanta and the Research Triangle Park, we don't bring in outsiders to counter that old school thought. I mean let's recall how slow we were to adopt to Gene Hackman's coaching, it took more than half the movie.
 
A ranking was made of state economies. I don't know if there is any bias in it for politics, I see both liberal and conservative states toward the top (UT and MA are 2 and 3). An all too-brief description of the methodology:

By several measures, the national economy is the strongest it has been in decades. The U.S. monthly unemployment rate now sits comfortably below 4%, and we are in the second longest period of GDP growth since World War II. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed economic growth, poverty, unemployment, job growth, and college attainment rates to compare and rank state economies. The best ranked states tend to have fast-growing economies, low poverty and unemployment rates, high job growth, and a relatively well-educated workforce, while the opposite is generally the case among states with the worst ranked economies.
Indiana is #35. We are ahead of Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky and barely behind Illinois. I think what that says is this area of the country just isn't faring too well. The write-up on Indiana basically says other than our unemployment rate, the rest of our economic indicators lag.
There are several of these rankings annually - maybe even dozens. In some you'll find Indiana rated in the top 5, in some like this in the middle or low middle. The outcome is based entirely on what categories are valued by the producer of the list and how they weigh the categories.
 
Here's a CNBC model with Indiana's economy ranked 20th.
Infrastructure rank - 2nd
Cost of Business - 5th
Technology - 28th (this is similar to Citylab's ranking)
Quality of Life - 46:eek: (Don't they know there's more than corn in Indiana?:D)
Workforce - 40 (this is similar to 24/7 Wall Street ranking)

Looks like they don't realize how good life can be at Nick's.
 

Some of the ranking systems that our mean ranking is composed of focus on aspects that may not be directly associated with output or employment, but are still likely to significantly impact a state’s business climate. For example, some of the rankings focus more exclusively on a state’s corporate tax structure or its legal climate. Some of the rankings that our mean ranking is comprised of focus on measuring a state’s position with regard to very specific variables while ignoring others that appear to be important. Because of the narrow focus of many rankings, a composite ranking using data from a good number of sources is likely to be more reliable.

Does any of that matter if the state isn't producing as much per capita or employing as many people?
 
Manufacturing does is not holistic. Isn't that part of the problem with the states Marvin mentioned?
I don't understand the question. However, Indiana is the #1 manufacturing state in the country by these measure - percentage of GDP contributed by mfg, percentage of wages of the state contributed by mfg, percentage of employment provided by manufacturing. We have seriously high tech manufacturing throughout the state. In 89 of 92 counties mfg is the #1 or #2 employer. Its the engine of our economy. If it fails the states is lost economically. Thankfully, mfg grows and grows. Its biggest challenge is not finding workers. Avg wage in the state is $44K, in mfg its $74K
 
I don't understand the question. However, Indiana is the #1 manufacturing state in the country by these measure - percentage of GDP contributed by mfg, percentage of wages of the state contributed by mfg, percentage of employment provided by manufacturing. We have seriously high tech manufacturing throughout the state. In 89 of 92 counties mfg is the #1 or #2 employer. Its the engine of our economy. If it fails the states is lost economically. Thankfully, mfg grows and grows. Its biggest challenge is not finding workers. Avg wage in the state is $44K, in mfg its $74K

That's good news... if people are demanding more stuff. They aren't though. That's precisely the point. Indiana is all in on manufacturing, which is cyclical and trending lower over time. That isn't a smart move.
 
Indiana is emblematic of the general issue in this country. We are at full employment and wages still stink. Indiana is a wage earner state. Now, Indiana has a lot of working poor. There are jobs, but they are just not very good ones.
 
Indiana is emblematic of the general issue in this country. We are at full employment and wages still stink. Indiana is a wage earner state. Now, Indiana has a lot of working poor. There are jobs, but they are just not very good ones.

Automation is a problem, and it is going to keep worse. To make sure the conservatives don't think I am cherry-picking, this is National Review:

In the 1980s, American steelmakers needed 10.1 man-hours to produce a ton of steel; now they need 1.5 man-hours, says Joe Innace of S&P Global Platts.

...

Most American steel is now made at super-efficient mini mills, which use electric arc furnaces to turn scrap metal into steel. (Traditional integrated steel mills make steel from scratch, feeding iron ore and coking coal into blast furnaces.) Some mini-mills need just 0.5 man-hours to produce a ton of steel, Innace says.

This explains why steel employment peeked in 1953 at 650,000 and stands at 143,000 today.
That is just steel, but it is happening in a lot of industries besides steel. We tried to pretend we could be high tech, that hasn't worked too well. We need something besides manufacturing. Not that we can't have manufacturing, but it is like betting on blacksmiths over auto mechanics.
 
That's good news... if people are demanding more stuff. They aren't though. That's precisely the point. Indiana is all in on manufacturing, which is cyclical and trending lower over time. That isn't a smart move.

The South Bend/Elkhart/Mishawaka economy provides good example of cyclical demand: RV manufacturing. Indiana's economy is heavily reliant on automotive manufacturing from the likes of Subaru, Honda, Toyota, GM, and suppliers. There is a strong presence, though, in life sciences with Roche, Eli Lily, Zimmer, DePuy, Biomet, Cook, Abbott, and a bunch of lower tier suppliers. That space represents about 20% of Indiana's economic output.
 
We tried to pretend we could be high tech, that hasn't worked too well.

I'm curious what you mean by that statement. While Indiana doesn't compete with California or Massachusetts or Texas in the scale of high tech jobs, it does have a growing presence of high tech companies - which just means more automation (big data, internet, and business solutions software), albeit of a different type than your steel mill example.
 
I'm curious what you mean by that statement. While Indiana doesn't compete with California or Massachusetts or Texas in the scale of high tech jobs, it does have a growing presence of high tech companies - which just means more automation (big data, internet, and business solutions software), albeit of a different type than your steel mill example.
Not only are we gaining steadily in producing high tech products, perhaps even more importantly, we're making all products using high tech processes and equipment. That is the high tech we've been talking about here for more than 30 years.
 
State rankings can be interesting.

However,I would argue local area information within each state offers more important information for anyone wanting to consider moving to a particular location. Take the rise in unemployment from 2007-2017 both nationally and within the state of Indiana by geographical location for example.

Nationally employment has improved by 7.4% over the ten year period or .71% per year. Indiana has improved by 4.6% or ,45% per year. Indianapolis by comparison has done better than the national or state average with a 12.2% or 1.16% average increase per year. South Bend, on the other hand, has declined over the past ten years by a minus .3 %. Other declining Indiana areas being Gary, Bloomington, Terre Haute, and Michigan City. Areas joining Indianapolis with positive figures include Columbus, Lafayette, and Elkhart.

So it isn't necessary the state figures which tell the story. It is the specific geographical area which is important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CradleofBasketball
I'm curious what you mean by that statement. While Indiana doesn't compete with California or Massachusetts or Texas in the scale of high tech jobs, it does have a growing presence of high tech companies - which just means more automation (big data, internet, and business solutions software), albeit of a different type than your steel mill example.

It is true, Indy is growing. The rest of the state does not seem to be. You mention some huge states, we also do not compete with North Carolina or Virginia.

But I would suggest this, if Indiana is doing so great why are our leaders fighting a tech brain drain?
 
It is true, Indy is growing. The rest of the state does not seem to be. You mention some huge states, we also do not compete with North Carolina or Virginia.

But I would suggest this, if Indiana is doing so great why are our leaders fighting a tech brain drain?

They're fighting a tech brain drain (for the last 25-30 years?) because there is a perceived and actual lack of high paid information technology jobs here versus some other areas of the country. There also is no mountain range or ocean or 5MM person MSA or temperate climate.

I'm not suggesting that Indiana is doing great on the tech front; however, there is evidence that Indiana is improving and attracting tech companies. In some cases perception doesn't match reality. You're right, though, overall state job growth in recent years has been tied to certain localities, and would be flat if Indy MSA numbers are excluded.
 
How do you combat this if you live in Midwestern and Plains states? How can you attract talent to boring, agricultural land?

Talk to the Oracle to figure out why he stayed in Omaha. :) At the very least we need to benchmark and leverage what has worked for other states/areas in a similar situation. How has Pittsburgh, for example, transformed itself from being synonymous with steel manufacturing to now being a thriving tech hub?

We also need to continue exploiting our strengths. Indiana has a highly rated infrastructure and is geographically positioned in an optimal area for supply chain fulfillment activities. That's why FedEx has a national hub in Indy and the UPS world hub is in Louisville and XPO Logistics recently opened a regional hub in Fort Wayne.
 
Talk to the Oracle to figure out why he stayed in Omaha. :) At the very least we need to benchmark and leverage what has worked for other states/areas in a similar situation. How has Pittsburgh, for example, transformed itself from being synonymous with steel manufacturing to now being a thriving tech hub?

We also need to continue exploiting our strengths. Indiana has a highly rated infrastructure and is geographically positioned in an optimal area for supply chain fulfillment activities. That's why FedEx has a national hub in Indy and the UPS world hub is in Louisville and XPO Logistics recently opened a regional hub in Fort Wayne.

Pittsburgh is no more a tech hub than Indy (both are on the short lists for tech hubs to watch). Pitt does have the competitive advantage of Carnegie Mellon, which phenomenal for tech-enabled analytics and broader data analysis.

I think Indy has some good things going for it. The rest of the state is the problem outside of the college towns. That being said, IN is positioned better than other states, I think.

I still think it is an uphill battle to get good, young talent to Midwestern cities.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT