Minnesota s Economics & Demographics Looking To 2030 & Beyond. Tom Stinson, State Economist Tom Gillaspy, State Demographer July 2008

Transcription

1 Minnesota s Economics & Demographics Looking To 2030 & Beyond Tom Stinson, State Economist Tom Gillaspy, State Demographer July 2008

2 Minnesota Has Been Very Successful (Especially For A Cold Weather State at the End of the Road) Our economic growth rate has exceeded the national average Our population growth rate leads the frost belt We rank with the leaders on many social and economic indicators Education has been a key contributor to the state s success

3 Minnesota s Economy Has Changed Since the 1960s % of GSP Res Based Mfg Adj Const TCU Trade Services Financial Govt 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

4 Minnesota s Per Capita Personal Income Exceeds the U.S. Average by 6 Percent Minnesota ranked 14 th in personal income per capita in In 1960 Minnesota ranked 25 th Personal income per capita grew at an average annual rate of 6.8 percent between 1960 and 2005 Since 1960 per capita personal income has grown faster in Minnesota than in most states outside the Southeast

5 Minnesota s GDP Growth Rate Exceeded the US Average, Annual % Change US MN Total Per Capita

6 1997=100 Minnesota Private Industry Has Generally Matched National Growth Index Of Private Industry GDP BEA. Before 1997 based on SIC. Since 1997 NAICS US Mn

7 BEA 2007 Minnesota Per Capita GDP Is 8.8% Above The National Average

8 Payroll Employment Growth % 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% MN US

9 Payroll Employment in Minnesota Has Grown Faster than the US Average Index 1972 = US MN

10 Manufacturing Employment = Minnesota United States

11 Minnesota s Unemployment Rate Has Been Well Below the US Average Unemployment Rate US MN

12 Minnesota Per Capita Income Has Grown Faster Than The Nation s 110% 105% Per Capita Income Per Capita Disposable Income 100% 95% 90% 85% p

13 Minnesota A Leader Among Northeast and North Central States In Population Growth Since 1990, Slightly Slower Than The National Average BEA from Census. US=1.1%, Mn 1.0% per year

14 Minnesota Ranks Highly in Many Social/Economic Indicators 2 nd percent of employed (76.9%) 2 nd cost of living adjusted per capita income (OK DOC) 8th lowest poverty rate 1 st percent with health insurance ave 9 th median family income in nd Kids Count th most livable state (Morgan Quinto Press) 4 th lowest rate of disability among people age st with at least high school degree (90.7%) 12 th with at least a bachelor s degree 1 st home ownership 2 nd United Health Foundation ranking of state healthiness 2007 Updated July 2008

15 Past Performance Does Not Ensure Future Results

16 From 2004 to 2007 Minnesota Underperformed the US Averages Personal income growth US 6.2% MN 4.4% Per capita personal income growth US 16.6% MN 13.5% GDP growth US 8.4% MN 4.8% GDP per capita growth US 5.4% MN 2.6%

17 Minnesota Payroll Employment Has Struggled Since Early 2006 Percent Change From February Jan 01 July Jan 02 July Jan 03 July Jan 04 July Jan 05 July Jan 06 US July Jan 07 MN July Jan 08

18 Minnesota s Unemployment Rate Now Is Similar to the US Average Unemployment Rate MN US

19 US Manufacturing Employment Fell Faster Than MN, Index: 2000= US MN

20 Nevada Wyoming Arizona Idaho Utah Florida Montana New Mexico Hawaii Alaska Texas North Dakota Washington South Dakota Oregon Virginia D.C. Maryland North Carolina Oklahoma Nebraska Colorado Georgia South Carolina California United States New Hampshire Delaware Arkansas Alabama Rhode Island Minnesota Vermont West Virginia Iowa Tennessee Kansas Maine Kentucky New Jersey Pennsylvania Missouri Wisconsin New York Connecticut Louisiana Mississippi Indiana Illinois Massachusetts Ohio Minnesota Ranked 30 th in Employment Growth, % 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10%

21 North Dakota D.C. New York Louisiana Montana Vermont Hawaii Oregon Maryland South Dakota Iowa Alabama Wyoming Nebraska Rhode Island Florida Oklahoma Virginia Kansas California Arkansas New Mexico Idaho Pennsylvania Connecticut Minnesota New Jersey Nevada Tennessee United States Kentucky Arizona Massachusetts North Carolina Texas Utah Maine West Virginia Mississippi Washington Delaware Wisconsin New Hampshire Illinois Alaska Ohio Missouri South Carolina Colorado Indiana Georgia Michigan 30% Minnesota Ranked 24 th in Real Per Capita GDP Growth, % 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5%

22 Real Per Capita GDP Growth Compared to Neighboring States % 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% North Dakota South Dakota Iowa Minnesota United States Wisconsin

23 20% Real Per Capita GDP Growth Compared to Midwestern States % 10% 5% 0% -5%

24 Real Per Capita GDP Compared to High Tech States % 15% 10% 5% 0%

25 Difference in growth rate 12 8 Difference in Per Capita GDP Growth (MN - US),

26 Diference in Growth Rate Difference in Per Capita Mfg GDP Growth (MN - US),

27 But What About Tomorrow?

28 Economic Fact of Life #1 First Principle of Economic Growth Standard of Living depends on output per resident Output = Output per Hour * Hours Worked

29 Four Mega-Forces Will Shape Minnesota s Economy Globalization Technology Energy prices Demography

30 The Three Big Demographic Trends Growth and suburbanization Increased diversity Aging

31 By 2020 Minnesota will add about ¾ Million People & 1/3 Million Households 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, State Demographer projection revised 2007

32 Suburban & Exurban Growth Coupled With Rural Declines Central Cities Have Stabilized Projected population change 2005 to 2015 State: 518,000-8,779 to -1 0 to 999 1,000 to 4,999 5,000 to 65,348

33 Upper Midwest Becoming More Diverse But Still Less Than The Nation United States Wisconsin South Dakota North Dakota Minnesota Hennepin Cnty Iowa 14.3% 8.7% 13.4% 8.8% 9.6% 5.8% 14.1% 6.3% 11.4% 9.0% 4.1% 24.4% 23.9% 33.6% % 10% 20% 30% 40% Percent Population of Color Note: Population except white alone, not Hispanic, 2006 Census Bureau estimate. Hennepin in 2005

34 In 2006, Minnesota s Foreign Born Workforce Was 240,000 or 8% Of The Total Workforce Advanced Degree Bachelor's Degree Some College High School Less Than High School 2006 ACS

35 From 2010 to 2020, Minnesota Will See Large Increases Age 50s and 60s ,310-63,650-2,680-30,680-9,980 Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center Numbers are rounded 16,500 8,440 41,400 54,240 61,920 47,950 5,050 47,330 36,190 20,150 91, , ,960

36 Worked Within Past 5 years The Number of Workers Turning Age 62 Will Jump 30 Percent in ,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, /05 to 7/06 7/06 to 7/07 7/07 to 7/08 7/08 to 7/09 7/09 to 7/10 7/10 to 7/11 7/11 to 7/ ACS Year Turning Age 62

37 Childless Couples And 1-person Households Projected To Grow Other Households 24,000 Living Alone, ,800 Living Alone Under 55 6,400 Married No Kids, ,700 Married No Kids, under 55-7,200 Single Parents 29,000 Married with Kids -24,500 Projected change, 2005 to 2015 Minnesota State Demographic Center projections

38 Percent Change Competition For The Future Workforce Will Increase 14% 13.0% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 6.8% 4.5% US Mn -2% -4% -6% -1.2% -1.6% -2.2% -3.5% -3.0% Census Bureau US Proj, Mn State Demographer revised 2007

39 Ave Annual Change Labor Force Growth Is About To Slow Sharply 1.6% 1.52% 1.4% 1.2% 1.12% 1.0% 0.8% 0.75% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.43% 0.10% 0.13% 0.27% 0.0%

40 Migration Increases in Importance as Labor Force Growth Slows Net Labor Force Growth 500, ,000 Total Natural Part Rate Migration 300, , , , State Demographer projection revised 2007

41 The Three Most Important Factors For Future Economic Success 1. Productivity 2. Productivity 3.Productivity

42 Economic Fact of Life #2 Productivity depends on The stock of physical capital The stock of human capital Education Health status The stock of infrastructure Advancements in technology

43 Academic Research Is a Key Factor in State Economic Growth the lags between R&D and economic outcomes are quite long (at least years, and more likely decades) The state may do well for a while by drawing upon its existing stock of knowledge capital How the state of Minnesota will fare in the future will crucially depend on its recent and future investment in R&D *Long Gone Lake Wobegone, Pardey, Dehmer and Beddow, 2007

44 R&D Spending Slowed in the Early 90s We Are No Longer Above Average Rank 1972 Rank 2004 Total Academic R&D Academic R&D per capita Academic R&D per dollar of GSP

45

46 2 Yr Ave Rate Education Is The Key To Productivity Minnesota High School Graduation Ratio 100% 90% 85% 89% 85% 80% 70% 60% 57% 60% 62% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% American Indian Asian Hispanic Black White Total through graduates. Based on 10 th grade enrollment three years earlier.

47 Managing State Finances Will Be Challenging

48 Minnesota s Population Will Change The Three Largest Cost Drivers In The State Budget 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , , Census counts & State Demographer projection, revised 2007

49 Health Care Spending Jumps After 55 U.S. Health Care Spending By Age, 2004 $12,000 $10,000 $9,017 $9,914 $8,000 $6,000 $6,694 $4,000 $2,000 $1,855 $1,074 $1,445 $2,165 $2,747 $3,496 $3,571 $0 < Average Source: Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, data for per capita spending by age group in the Midwest. Excludes spending for long-term care institutions.

50 State Taxes Paid by a Married Couple Before and After Retirement Income Income Tax Sales Tax Total Change Pct Working $35,000 $1,236 $782 $2,018 $65,000 $3,387 $1,295 $4, % $25,000 $0 $559 $559 -$1,459-72% $45,000 $1,091 $896 $1,987 -$2,695-58%

51 State/Local Government s Share of Personal Income Has Declined Price of Government 20% 17.9% 17.4% 15% 15.9% 15.4% 16.3% 10% Calendar Year Mn Dept of Finance

52 Estimating the Volatility of a System of Taxes Markowitz s modern portfolio theory used as a guide: The expected growth rate in revenues is the weighted sum of the individual growth rates Portfolio volatility is the square root of the weighted sum of the variances and covariances of the individual components

53 Portfolio Theory Suggests Using a Tax System that Minimizes Volatility for a Given Growth Rate Given the trend growth rate, variance and covariance of each major tax, an Efficiency Frontier Line (EFL) can be estimated The EFL shows combinations of taxes that provide the lowest volatility for each growth rate Points below the frontier are suboptimal. The EFL is determined using quadratic programming to minimize state tax revenue volatility, σ 2 T, given growth rates g T

54 10% Estimated EFL for Minnesota's General Fund Tax Revenue Portfolio, FY Portfolio Trend Growth Rate One-Year Post MVST Phase-Out 9% Efficiency Frontier Line 8% 7% 6% MN's Actual One-Year GF Tax Mix (Post MVST Phase-Out) 7.7% Trend Growth Rate & 3.26% Standard Deviation 5% 1.75% 2.25% 2.75% 3.25% 3.75% 4.25% 4.75% Portfolio Volatility

55 Actual vs. Efficient MN One-Year Tax-Mix Given the Current Trend Growth Rate Actual FY Portfolio Efficient Tax Mix Portfolio Difference: (Efficient Less Actual) Trend Growth Rate 7.70% 7.70% 0.00% Volatility (Standard Deviation) Share of Total Tax Revenue 3.26% 3.09% -0.17% General Sales 31.2% 60.3% +29.2% Corporate Income 7.4% 13.1% +5.6% Individual Income 48.1% 9.2% -39.0% Other Revenues 13.3% 17.4% +4.2% Total 100.0% 100.0%

56 Summary Minnesota has been very successful We are in a period of rapid and critical change What we do today will shape our future for the next quarter century Productivity increases will be the key to further growth throughout Minnesota