Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Business Commons

Transcription

1 University of South Florida Scholar Commons College of Business Publications College of Business The status of south central Florida's regional economy : an update / : an analysis performed by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida University of South Florida. Center for Economic Development Research Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Business Commons Scholar Commons Citation University of South Florida. Center for Economic Development Research, "The status of south central Florida's regional economy : an update / : an analysis performed by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida" (2001). College of Business Publications. Paper 5. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Business at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Business Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu.

2 The Status of South Central Florida's Regional Economy: An Update Prepared for Central Florida Regional Planning Council By CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration University of South Florida US.. Downtown Crntrr 1101 Channelside Dr., 2Jl(\ Floor N., Tampa, Florida Office: (813) or Fax: (813) May, 2001

3 Preface The Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) is a planning and public policy agency that works with public and private leadership in the Central Florida Region to achieve a healthy and sustainable future. CFRPC serves DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee and Polk Counties. The CFRPC is located at 555 East Church Street, Bartow, FL This study was commissioned by the CFRPC and performed by the Center for economic Development Research (CEDR), College of Business Administration, University of South Florida (USF). The study is intended as a basis for the CFRPC to formulate a comprehensive economic development strategy in conjunction with the update of its Strategic Regional Policy Plan. A preliminary report of the findings was edited by the CEDR staff to produce this final report. CEDR provides information and conducts research on issues related to economic growth and development in the Nation, in the state of Florida, and particularly in the central Florida region. The Center serves the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Business Administration, the University, and individuals and organizations in the University's service area. Activities of CEDR are designed to further the objectives of the University and specifically the objectives of the College of Business Administration. Robert Anderson, Ph.D., Dean, College of Business Administration (COBA), USF Kenneth Wieand, Ph.D., Director, CEDR, COBA, USF M. J. Murray, Ph.D., Economist and Principal Investigator, CEDR, COBA, USF

4 THE STATUS OF SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA'S REGIONAL ECONOMY: AN UPDATE OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) commissioned the University of South Florida's Center for Economic Development Research (USF CEDR) to update economic and demographic indicators, including population, labor force and employment, education and income, as a basis for the CFRPC's preparation oftheir Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). In addition, and for the larger purpose of developing a strategic plan or vision of future economic activity in the region (Strategic Regional Policy Plan), USF-CEDR and CFRPC agree to work jointly to develop and execute an implementation plan to involve the individuals and groups concerned with economic and community development in the region. Concerned parties include area experts, economic development professionals, representatives from principal industries in the area, chambers of commerce and community developers, and elected officials. This update of the economic and demographic data provides the basis for modeling and execution of the implementation plan, and serves as a construct for future plans. This joint effort envisions two reports. One is this update of the state of the county economies in CFRPC's region, specifically DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk Counties. In addition, for comparison, the metro areas that bracket the northern part of this region, Hillsborough and Orange Counties, are included, as is the state of Florida. A previous report for CFRPC, prepared by the predecessor organization to USF-CEDR, ended in the mid-1990s, with most of the data from a couple ofyears before that. So this update spans the entire decade, , both to bring the information up to the present, and to provide continuous series of data, linking the old period to the new. The second report, to be completed jointly between CFRPC and USF-CEDR, is a documentation of the implementation process, involving the various interested parties in the formulation of an economic development plan for the region. A major outcome of these two principal efforts and reports is a summit on the regional economy and its future prospects. This may serve as a model for an annual event, a "State of the Region" type report and forum, to highlight and showcase the economic development efforts and aspirations of the numerous individuals and organizations from the five-county South Central Florida region. Hopefully, it will serve further to link and integrate the many and disparate efforts of these committed participants, for a greater good of all who are invested in this region of the state. An outline of this economic update is provided on the next page.

5 UPDATE OF SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA'S ECONOMY The report is organized into five sections, including this overview. It begins with an analysis of population growth and its characteristics, and leads to labor force participation and employment. Employment by industry introduces the structure of these economies, and the past is then linked to projection ofthe future. The role and productivity of the education systems are analyzed next. And finally, a complete assessment of each county's economy is detailed with an array of income sources and measures, with historical detail, in seven appendices. POPULATION Overview Population Growth Population Characteristics Population, Labor Force and Employment Longer-Term Growth Trends STRUCTURE OF AREA ECONOMIES Overview Industry Structure Growth and Change in Industry Structure Approach to Projecting Industry Structure Projected County-Level Employment Growth EDUCATION Overview Education Measures Trends and County Comparisons SOURCES OF COUNTY INCOME Overview Personal Income Sources Average Wages Major Industry Employers Earnings by Industry Structure ofarea Economies APPENDIX A: PERSONAL INCOME SOURCES APPENDIXB: AVERAGEANNUALWAGES APPENDIX C: AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE RATES APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY STRUCTURE APPENDIX E: EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY APPENDIX F: COMPOSITION BY TOTAL WAGES APPENDIX G: COMPOSITION BY INCOME 2

6 POPULATION OVERVIEW A healthy and growing economy requires a vibrant work force, and population follows expanding job opportunities. Thus, both net natural growth and net inmigration respond to such economic incentives, and populations swell in areas with the strongest employment and income prospects. But through its combination of weather, water, and historically a favorable cost of living, among other things, Florida offers the additional lure of the good life in retirement. As such, population change in Florida counties is a complex phenomenon. For example, in the state as a whole, population grew by almost 23 percent between the Census years 1990 and Of that growth, 85 percent was net in-migration, and perhaps surprisingly, the senior population, age 65+, grew at a slightly lesser rate than the overall population. As a percent of total population, seniors began the 1990s decade at 18.2 percent, rose gradually to 18.5 percent as late as 1996, but now stands at 18.0 percent. Florida's economy drives its growth, as exhibited by employment growth of about 25 percent during that period. The regional economy will be examined in greater detail in the following sections. With the 2000 Census of Population now being released, the headcount in all counties, but especially rural counties, apparently becomes more reliable than the intercensus estimates. For 2000, the error rates in estimating population were 30.0 percent in DeSoto County, 27.5 percent in Hardee, 16.4 percent in Highlands, 8.5 percent in Okeechobee, and 4.6 percent in Polk. In Hillsborough and Orange Counties they were 4.8 and 7.3 percent, respectively. And for the state, the population was underestimated by 4.2 percent. Underestimation is typical offaster growing states such as Florida. POPULATION GROWTH In Table 1, the 2000 Census counts are given for each of the five counties which make up the Central Florida region: DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee and Polk. Table 1 also includes the comparison areas of nearby Hillsborough and Orange, representing metropolitan economies, and the state of Florida. In addition to each county's growth over the decade, the percentage ofthat growth which is attributable to net natural and to net in-migration is provided. There is wide variation in all of these, as is explained next. Table 2 reports the age distribution of each county's population and its race and ethnic composition. Population growth in the individual counties over the decade appear to be directly related to the size of the underestimate in those counties. For example, compared to the state average of 22.8 percent growth, DeSoto and Hardee Counties grew 34.6 percent and 37.8 percent, respectively, on 2000 Census counts that were, again, 30.0 percent and 27.5 percent higher than previously estimated. (The tenyear growth rates for these counties under the pre-census 2000 population estimates would have been 3.5 percent and 8.1 percent.) Note that population 3

7 growth in each county is above average, or around 20 percent, equivalent to the state average. By comparison, growth rates of the metro areas bracketing the northern edge of this five-county region were 19.5 percent for Hillsborough County, and a robust 31.0 percent in Orange County. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The groupings chosen for this analysis of age distribution were 0-24, 25-64, and 65+. The age cohorts were selected to focus in particular on the primary labor force age group, those Although clearly younger people do participate in the work force, many are pursuing some type of post-secondary education or training, parttime if not full-time. But the emphasis is more toward preparation for their work careers. And a similar case could be made for seniors, in this instance, 65+. Some do work, often part-time, for a variety of reasons. But for the majority of these individuals, their prime work years are behind them. So to focus on the age group, they average about fifty percent of the population in Florida. It is interesting that they are only slightly more numerous in the metro counties of Hillsborough and Orange, at just over 52 percent. For the rural counties in Central Florida, the prime labor force age cohorts (25-64) of their populations are a significantly lower percentage. It may seem a slight difference, for example, to be at only 44 percent rather than 52 percent, but this represents only 85 percent of what would be an available workforce in Hillsborough and Orange Counties (44/52). Age distributions are provided in Table 2. These vary from just under 40 percent in more senior-oriented Highlands County, to a high of 47.6 percent in the more metropolitan Polk County. On race and ethnicity, the percent White ranges from about 70 to 80 percent in the five counties, while the Hispanic component of their populations varies from 9.5 percent in Polk County to over 35 percent in Hardee County. There are some historical patterns and explanations to these variations, but these five counties have noticeable differences in ethnic composition in spite ofwhat seems like their inherent similarities based on geography. 4

8 TABLE 1 POPULATION GROWTH KEY POPULATION GROWfH MEASURES AREA POPULATION GROWTH SOURCE OF GROWTH Census % Net % Net % Change Natural In-Migration De Soto County 23,938 32, % 13% 87% Hardee County 19,542 26, % 33% 67% Highlands County 68,957 87, % -17% 117% Okeechobee County 29,756 35, % 28% 72% Polk County 407, , % 21% 79% Hillsborough County 835, , % 38% 62% Orange County 684, , % 32% 68% State of Florida 13,018,365 15,982, % 15% 85% SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Census, FL. Department of Health 5

9 TABLE 2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS KEY RACE, ETHNIC, AND AGE MEASURES 2000 AREA POPUlATION RACE, ETHNICITY AGE DISTRIBUTION Census % White % Hispanic 2000 (Any Race) De Soto County 32, % 24.9% 33.8% 46.0% 20.2% Hardee County 26, % 35.7% 4O.~AJ 44.4% 15.3% Highlands County 87, % 12.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% Okeechobee County 35, % 18.6% 38.7% 45.0% 16.3% Polk County 483, % 9,5% 33.4% 47.6% 19.0% Hillsborough County 998, % 18.0% 35.2% 52.3% 12.6% Orange County 896,344 68,6% 18.8% 37.0% 52.4% 10.6% State of Florida 15,982, % 16.8% 31.8% 50.2% 18.0% SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research 6

10 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Table 3 compares population, labor force (LF) and employment. The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) runs the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. This labor force data set is prepared monthly and describes labor force participation, employment, unemployment, and unemployment rate by place of residence. Note from Table 3, for example, that 46.0 percent of DeSoto County's population of 32,209 is in the LF age cohort. And, 8,442 DeSoto County residents, or 57.0 percent of the LF cohort, were employed. The other four counties ofthe region had greater percentages of the LF cohort employed. Okeechobee County had the highest percentage of labor force participation at 95.0 percent. By comparison, Hillsborough and Orange Counties both had more employed residents than the number of persons in their respective age cohorts. This is indicative of a larger number of employed persons, whose ages are outside the prime cohort. Table 3 also includes two measures of employment, the unemployment rate and the percentage of those employed in goods-producing sectors of the economy. The goods-producing sectors are Agriculture, Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, and Utilities. Goods-producing industries historically have been thought of as forming a base of exporting activity to other regions. Goods-producing industries are generally cyclical in nature and may contribute to economic volatility. For recently, goodsproducing sectors are recognized as being composed of slow growth industries in terms of both output and employment. Note here that the unemployment rates in these Central Florida counties are high, both relatively and absolutely. By this measure, they are economically disadvantaged. Compared to just over 2.5 percent in the metro counties, and under 4 percent for the state overall, these rural, interior counties have unemployment rates of 6-7 percent, 9.5 percent in Hardee County. Only Polk is close to the metro counties, at 5.0 percent. On the percentage of employment in goods-producing industries, the state and metro counties are percent. The five Central Florida counties range from just under 30 percent, to almost 40 percent. This does not bode well for the future. Some implications of these numbers are provided in a subsequent section of this report. In summary, while population growth in rural Central Florida seems to have kept pace with the rest of the state, it has not been as high in labor force ages of as the rest of the state and of metro counties in particular, and thus not as high in labor force participation. With lesser economic opportunity, labor force aged individuals will be less attracted to these areas and thus the labor force may grow more slowly. 7

11 LONGER-TERM GROWTH TRENDS In Tables 4-11 that follow, annual estimates of population, labor force and employment are provided for each of the five Central Florida counties, and the comparison areas of nearby metro counties and the state. The tables show estimates of population, population by age, labor force, labor force participation, employment and unemployment. The purpose is to track annually the progress of these economies, and to observe trends, particularly in the latter half of the decade. These counties have experienced very different patterns of change especially in recent years. Actual population counts are available only once every ten years, but intercensal estimates are provided through a state-federal cooperative program, and also as a separate series of estimates by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The estimates, published by BEBR, differ from those published by the U.S. Bureau ofthe Census. The argument for the U.S. numbers are that they are the result of a consistent methodology across all states and counties while the demographers at BEBR feel they are closer to developments in Florida and offer a superior methodology. The point of this discussion is that rates of change over the last few years must be gauged in terms of some series of intercensal yearly estimates - the U.S. Bureau of the Census or the BEBR numbers. Here, we use population estimates for the intercensus years of 1991 through 1999, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, but scaled to the actual population changes, as measured by the official 1990 and 2000 Census counts. The decade long growth rates for these five counties in Central Florida average 21.3 percent, about the same as the state. Specifically, they are: DeSoto, 34.6%; Hardee, 37.8%; Highlands, 26.7%; Okeechobee, 20.7%; and Polk, 18.8%; with Polk accounting for almost three-fourths of the population in the region. During the second half of the decade, , a different growth pattern emerges. The five year growth rates were: DeSoto, -6.9%; Hardee, -4.3%; Highlands, 1.5%; Okeechobee, 17.6%; Polk, 8.5%; and Central Florida (the five counties), 6.6%. Florida's growth rate was 10.2% during the same period. Population growth patterns alone suggest a very different conclusion regarding the relative progress of the individual counties in this region in recent years. Employment changes, from 1995 to 2000, were: DeSoto, -14.9%; Hardee, -17.4%; Highlands, -4.2%; Okeechobee, 3.0%; Polk, 8.6%; and the region, 4.9%. All five counties in the Central Florida region have above - state - average senior (65+) populations, and below average labor force aged (25-64) populations. The latter averages are not excessively lower than the statewide average, but they are lower. But, when compared to metro areas like Hillsborough and Orange Counties, the labor force aged population is much lower. Highlands County in particular has a relatively large senior population and a disproportionately lower labor force aged population. When comparing actual labor force to the labor force aged populations, it should be about equal, or 100 percent. Metro counties, like Hillsborough and Orange actually have greater than 100 percent labor force to labor - force - aged populations. 9

12 TABLE 3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT KEY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT MEASURES 2000 AREA POPULATION LABOR FORCE EMPLOYMENT 2000 % LF Age LAUS %ofl.f. %oflf %in Goods Census Estimate Population Unemploye; Producing De Soto County 32, % 8, % 5.9% 31.9% Hardee County 26, % 8, % 9.5% 37.4% Highlands County 87, % 25, % 5.9% 27.2% Okeechobee County 35, % 15, % 7.0% 29.3% Polk County 483, % 205, % 5.0% 27.1% Hillsborough County 998, % 570, % 2.7% 18.8% Orange County 896, % 513, % 2.6% 17.8% Stat~ -&f Florida 15,982, % 7,593, % 3.7% 19.5% SOURCES: U.s. Bureau of Census, U.F. BEBR, U.S. Bureau of Lahor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor 8

13 Comparing residence - based estimates (LADS) of the labor force with establishment - based estimates (ES-202) in Hardee and Okeechobee Counties, one finds that residence - based estimates are consistently below establishment - based estimates in Hardee and Okeechobee Counties. The difference indicates the presence of out - commuting. That is county residents are on a net basis working in nearby counties. Okechobee County's economic orientation is toward the counties to its east. Hardee is oriented toward Hillsborough and Manatee Counties to its west. Orange County and Hillsborough County, by contrast, have smaller residencebased workforces, indicating that, on net, employees travel from surrounding counties for employment. In DeSoto County, for example, labor force as a percentage of labor force population dropped continuously, from over 80 percent in 1990, to 57 percent in The same has been true, but to a lesser extent, in the remaining counties. There are two possible reasons for the drop. One, the composition of the population is growing in the labor force age cohort. But this is not true in any of the counties. Two, the residents in these counties simply may be choosing to participate less in work or have had less access to employment with recent difficulties in the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector. There is also a smaller presence of the fast-growing service sector, particularly advanced business services. Two final summary observations are, first, the dueling unemployment rates in these more counties are still more than twice that of metro areas. And second, the percentage of employment in goods-producing industries (agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing and utilities) in these counties, are between fifty and almost a hundred percent higher than the state and metro areas. That has accounted for a lot of the downturn in these economies in the last year or so. But so has a lack of growing, service-producing employment that metro areas have enjoyed. These kinds of activities are not typical in non-metro areas. Details of population, labor force and employment patterns over the last decade, are included for each county in Central Florida, and the comparison areas, in Tables Employment is provided both from the household survey (LADS - place of residence) and from employers (ES place of work). 10

14 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT De Soto County POPULATION 23,938 29,201 27,876 30,656 33,109 34,593 31,744 31,902 31,556 30, Total Persons ,124 9,840 9,401 10,393 11,238 11,728 10,761 10,807 10,673 10,436 10, ,187 13,782 13,033 14,19D 15,276 15,970 14,584 14,670 14,523 14,185 14, ,627 5,579 5,442 6,072 6,595 6,895 6,400 6,425 6,360 6, Percentage % 33.7% 33.7% 33.90Al 33.9% 33.9% 33.9% 33.9% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% % 47.2% 46.8% 46.3% 46.1% 46.2% 45.9% 46.0"A> 46.0% 46.0% 46.0% to-' % 19.1% 19.5% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 20.2% 2f}.1% 20.2% 20.2% 20.2% to-' LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 9,670 10,050 9,909 9,933 9,842 9,991 9,899 9,752 8,967 8,590 8,442 ~ % Participation 40.4% 34.4% 35.5% 32.4% 29.7% 28.9% 31.2% 30.6% 28.4% 27.90A. 26.2% % Partie. of LF Ages 86.4% 72.9% 76.0% 70.0% 64.4% 62.6% 67.9% 66.5% 61.7% 60.6% 57.0% t;; EMPLOYMEN'l' (RshId) 8,995 9,326 8,926 8,934 9,071 9,337 9,187 9,075 8,328 8,025 7,944 % Employed 93.0% 92.8% 90.1% 89.9% 92.2% 93.5% 92.8% 93.1% 92.9% 93.4% 94.1% % Unemployed 7.0% 7.2% 9.9% 10.1% 7.8% 6.5% 7.2% 6.9% 7.1% 6.6% 5.9% COVERED EMPLOY. 7,994 8,377 7,975 8,083 8,343 8,878 8,869 9,010 8,934 8,840 8,576 % Hshld Employment 88.9% 89.8% 89.3% 90.5% 92.0% 95.1% 96.5% 99.3% 107.3% no.2% 108.0% SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

15 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Hardee County POPULATION 19,542 21,587 25,952 27,031 27,556 28,151 26,255 26,599 26,510 26,399 26,938 Total Persons ,805 8,576 10,278 10,758 10,957 11,179 10,366 10,557 10,563 10,575 10, ,772 9,725 11,836 12,236 12,386 12,664 11,746 11,875 11,831 11,748 11, ,965 3,286 3,839 4,037 4,213 4,308 4,142 4,167 4,116 4,076 4,127 Percentage % 39.7% 39.6% 39.8% 39.8% 39.7% 39.5% 39.7% 39.8% 40.1% 40.2% % 45.1% 45.6% 45.3% 44.9% 45.0% 44.7% 44.6% 44.6% 44.5% 44.4% % 15.2% 14.8% 14.9% 15.3"-1> 15.3% 15.8% 15.7% 15.5% 15.4% 15.3% LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 9,185 9,515 9,552, 10,166 10,814 11,076 11,029 10,647 9,405 9,148 8,800 ~ % Participation 47.0% 44.1% 36.8% 37.6% 39.2% 39.3% 42.0% 40.0% 35.5% 34.7% % t"4 N % Partie. of LF Ages 104.7% 97.8% 80.7% 83.1% 87.3% 87.5% 93.9% 89.7% 79.5% 77.9% 73.5% l':i EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 8,135 8,493 8,145 8,600 9,262 9,644 9,524 9,294 8,296 8,205 7,962 % Employed 88.6% 89.3% 85.3% 84.6% 85.6% 87.1% 86.4% 87.3% 88.2% 89.7% 90.5% % Unemployed 11.4% 10.7% 14.7% 15.4% 14.4% 12.9% 13.6% 12.7% 11.8% 10.3% 9.5% Qt COVERED EMPLOY. 6,821 6,895 6,668 7,163 7,790 7,689 7,561 7,718 7,253 7,145 6,895 % Hshld Employment 83.8% 81.2% 81.9% 83.3% 84.1% 79.7% 79.4% 83.0% 87.4% 87.1% 86.6% SOURCES: u.s. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, u.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

16 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Highlands County POPULATION 68,957 72,619 75,542 79,279 82,654 86,060 86,479 87,279 86,938 86,567' 87,366 Total Persons ,274 17,917 18,493 19,465 20,202 20,909 20,950 21,073 20,966 20,869 21, ,692 30,018 30,838 31,926 32,952 34,538 34,198 34,483 34,434 34,400 34, ,991 24,684 26,211 27,888 29,500 30,613 31,332 31,723 31,538 31,298 31,511 Percentage % 24.7% 24.5% 24.6% 24.4% 24.3% 24.2% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% % 41.3% 40.8% 40.3% 39.9% 40.1% 39.5% 39.5% 39.6% 39.7% 39.8% % 34.0% 34.7% 35.2% 35.7% 35.6% 36.2% 36.3% 36.3% 36.2",,0 36.1%... w LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 25,733 26,303 26,591 26,728 27,568 27,676 27,689 27,108 27,141 25,869 25,723 ~ % Participation 37.3% 36.2% 35.2% 33.7% 33.4% 32.2% 32.0% 31.1% 31.2% 29.9% 29.4% t"'" % Partie. of LF Ages 89.7% 87.6% 86.2% 83.7% 83.7% 80.1% 81.0% 78.6% 78.8% 75.2% 73.90,,0 t!j EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 23,487 24,046 23,846 23,992 24,865 25,277 25,367 24,860 24,950 24,116 24,217 % Employed 91.3% 91.4% 89.7% 89.8% 90.2% 91.3% 91.6% 91.7% 91.9% 93.2% 94.1% % Unemployed 8.7% 8.6% 10.3% 10.2% 9.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1% 6.8% 5.9% ~ COVERED EMPLOY. 20,479 20,833 20,885 20,894 22,255 22,460 22,502 24,222 23,160 23,032 22,900 % Hshld Employment 87.2% 86.6% 87.6% 87.1% 89.5% 88.9% 88.7% 97.4% 92.8% 95.5% 94.6% SOURCES: U.8. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, U.8. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

17 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Okeechobee County ~ POPULATION 29,756 30,901 30,998 31,572 31,099 30,545 31,404 31,857 33,820 34,582 35,910 Total Persons ,059 11,381 11,429 11,717 11,512 11,308 11,701 11,865 12,846 13,193 13, ,915 14,513 14,528 14,658 14,334 14,017 14,265 14,427 15,249 15,597 16, ,782 5,007 5,041 5,198 5,253 5,220 5,438 5,565 5,725 5,792 5,863 Percentage % 36.8% 36.9% 37.1% 37.0% 37.0% 37.3% 37.2% 38.0%, 38.1% 38.7% % 47.0% 46.9% 46.4% 46.1% 45.9% 45.4% 45.3% 45.1% 45.1% 45.0% % 16.2% 16.3% 16.5% 16.9% 17.1% 17.3% 17.5% 16.9% 16.7% 16.3% LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 13,659 14,244 14,401 14,953 14,971 15,382 17,016 16,750 16,045 15,819 15,350 ~ % Participation 45.9% 46.1% 46.5% 47.4% 48.1% 50.4% 54.2% 52.6% 47.4% 45.7% 42.7% t"'i % Partie. of LF Ages 98.2% 98.1% 99.1% 102.0% 104.4% 109.7% 119.3% 116.1% 105.2% 101.4% 95.0% trj EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 12,554 12,938 12,753 13,448 13,289 13,865 15,380 15,328 14,717 14,634 14,278 % Employed 91.9% 90.8% 88.6% 89.9% 88.8% 90.1% 90.4% 91.5% 91.7% 92.5% 93.0% % Unemployed 8.1% 9.2% 11.4% 10.1% 11.2% 9.9% 9.6% 8.5% 8.3% 7.5% 7.0% -l COVERED EMPLOY. 7,762 7,850 7,827 8,551 8,715 8,815 9,616 10,022 10,188 9,832 9,705 % Hshld Employment 61.8% 60.7% 61.4% 63.6% 65.6% 63.6% 62.5% 65.4% 69.2% 67.2% 68.0% SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

18 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Polk County POPULATION 407, , , , , , , , , , ,924 Total Persons , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,382 77,938 80,691 83,177 85,439 87,221 89,137 90,478 91,099 91,535 92,026 Percentage % 33.6% 33.4% 33.5% 33.5% 33.4% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.4% % 47.6% 47.5% 47.0% 47.0% 47.0% 47.0% 47.1% 47.3% 47.4% 47.6% % 18.8% 19.1% 19.5% 19.5% 19.6% 19.7% 19.6% 19.4% 19.2% 19.0%... LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 200, , , , , , , , , , ,352 ~ IJl % Participation 49.2% 47.5% 46.1% 45.8% 44.8% 43.5% 43.1% 42.6% 42.2% 42.0% 42.4% ~ % Partie. of LF Ages 103.5% 99.7% 97.1% 97.3% 95.4% 92.5% 91.6% 90.3% 89.1% 88.6% 89.2% trj EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 180, , , , , , , , , , ,124 % Employed 90.1% 90.3% 89.1% 90.3% 91.3% 92.7% 93.4% 93.6% 94.5% 95.2% 95.0% % Unemployed 9.9% 9.7% 10.9% 9.7% 8.7% 7.3% 6.6% 6.4% 5.5% 4.8% 5.0% COVERED EMPLOy. 157, , , , , , , , , , ,900 % Hshld Employment 87.0% 87.3% 88.1% 88.7% 91.1% 92.0% 93.1% 93.1% 94.6% 93.3% 93.2% IX> SOURCES; U.s. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, UB. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

19 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Hillsborough County POPULATION 835, , , , , , , , , , ,948 Total Persons , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,507 Percentage % 35.3% 35.2% 35.3% 35.3% 35.1% 35.00/0 35.0% 35.0% 35.1% 35.2% % 52.3% 52.2% 51.9% 51.9% 52.0% 52.1% 52.1% 52.2% 52.2% 52.3% % 12.4% 12.6% 12.7% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.8% 12.7% 12.7% 12.6% LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 452, , , , , , , , , , ,195 ~ to-' % Participation 54.2% 53.0% 53.0% 53.6% 54.7% 54.6% 54.5% 55.0% 55.3% 55.7% 57.1% t"'i 0\ % Partie. of LF Ages 104.0% 101.5% 101.5% 103.3% 105.4% 105.1% 104.6% 105.5% 106.0% 106.7% 109.2% t!j EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 431, , , , , , , , , , ,720 % Employed 95.3% 93.9% 92.9% 93.6% 94.8% 95.7% 96.2% 96.7% 97.2% 97.4% 97.3% % Unemployed 4.7% 6.1% 7.1% 6.4% 5.2% 4.3% 3.8% 3.3% 2.8% 2.6% 2.7% COVERED EMPLOY. 440, , , , , , , , , , ,832 % Hshld Employment 102.1% 101.5% 101.7% 102.1% 103.2% 104.7% 107.0% 106.2% 107.4% 107.7% 106.7% (C SOURCES: U.s. Bureau of Census, V.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, U.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

20 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Orange County POPULATION 684, , , , , , , , , , ,344 Total Persons , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,136 75,122 77,972 80,831 83,387 85,548 88,131 90,516 92,252 93,624 95,324 Percentage % 37.0% 36.9% 37.0% 37.0% 36.9% 36.8% 36.8% 36.8% 36.9% 37.0% % 52.4% 52.4% 52.1% 52.0% 52.1% 52.2% 52.2% 52.4% 52.3% 52.4% to-' -...J % 10.6% 10.8% 10.9"A! 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 10.8% 10.6% LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 390, , , , , , , , , , ,162 ~ % Participation 57.1% 55.2% 55.0% 54.8% 54.9% 54.4% 54.5% 54.9% 55.3% 56.4% 57.3% % Partie. oflf Ages 109.5% 105.3% 105.0% 105.1% 105.6% 104.4% 104.5% 105.2% 105.5% 107.8% 109.3% r;; ~ EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 369, , , , , , , , , , ,770 <:> % Employed 94.6% 93.2% 92.6% 93.8% 94.3% 95.5% 96.2% 96.7% 97.0% 97.3% 97.4% % Unemployed 5.4% 6.8% 7.4% 6.2"Ai 5.7% 4.5% 3.8% 3.3% 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% COVERED EMPLOY. 429, , , , , , , , , , ,941 % Hshld Employment 116.1% 117.0% 118.2% 119.6% 120.1% 121.5% 123.5% 122.5% 124.3% 123.7% 122.6% SOURCES: U.S. Bur<18u of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

21 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT State of Florida POPULATION 13,018 13,363 13,639 13,905 14,221 14,505 14,813 15,140 15,426 15,685 15,982 Total Persons ,200 4,268 4,348 4,448 4,546 4,624 4,705 4,808 4,901 4,989 5, ,445 6,651 6,788 6,887 7,038 7,194 7,361 7,543 7,706 7,850 8, ,373 2,445 2,503 2,570 2,637 2,687 2,748 2,789 2,820 2,846 2,878 Percentage % 31.9% 31.9% 32.0% 32.0% 31.9% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% % 49.8% 49.8% 49.5% 49.5% 49.6% 49.7% 49.8% 50.0% 50.0% 50.2% % 18.3% 18.3% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.1% 18.0% I-' LABOR FORCE (Hshld) 6,468 6,489 6,559 6,661 6,811 6,851 6,956 7,119 7,230 7,366 7,593 ~ 00 % Participation 49.7% 48.6% 48.1% 47.9% 47.9% 47.2% 47.0% 47.0% 46.9% 47.0% 47.5% t'" % Partie. of LF Ages 100.4% 97.6% 96.6% 96.7% 96.8% 95.2% 94.5% 94.4% 93.8% 93.8% 94.7% tj:j... EMPLOYMENT (Hshld) 6,078 6,009 6,016 6,192 6,363 6,475 6,603 6,780 6,920 7,082 7, % Employed 94.0% 92.6% 91.7% 93.0% 93.4% 94.5% 94.9% 95.2% 95.7% 96.1% 96.3% % Unemployed 6.0% 7.4% 8.3% 7.0% 6.6% 5.5% 5.1% 4.8% 4.3% 3.goA. 3.7% COVERED EMPLOY. 5,407 5,317 5,371 5,593 5,818 6,009 6,182 6,373 6,611 6,837 7,070 % Hshld Employment 89.0% 88.5% 89.3% 90.3% 91.4% 92.8% 93.6% 94.0% 95.5% 96.5% 96.7% SOURCES: U.s. Bureau of Census, U.F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, U.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor

22

23 TABLE 12 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRY 2006 TOTAL TOTAL AREA AGRIC. MANUF. TRADE SEltvICES PRIVATE GOVT. De Soto County 2, , ,849 2,727 Hardee County 2, ,159 1,204 5,196 1,699 Highlands County 3,396 1,218 5,415 6,628 18,933 3,967 Okeechobee County 1, ,553 2,257 7,895 1,810 Polk County 8,211 19,737 50,946 45, ,660 27, _-..-_._-_ _ _....._ _..._ _..._--..._-_.. _..._-_ _-- Central Florida Region 17,985 21,555 61,513 57, ,533 37,443 Hillsborough County 11,946 37, , , ,954 69,878 Orange County 8,729 37, , , ,969 58,972 State of Florida 150, ,000 1,784,000 2,491,000 6,093, ,000 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE 2000 TOTAL TOTAL AREA AGRIC. MANUF. TRADE SERVICES PRIVATE GOVT. De Soto County 30.5% 2.6% 16.8% 11.5% 68.2% 31.8% Hardee County 29.9% 3.0% 16.8% 17.5% 75.4% 24.6% Highlands County 14.8% 5.3% 23.6% 28.9% 82.7% 17.3% Okeechobee County 17.5% 1.7% 26.3% 23.3% 81.3% 18.7% Polk County 4.5% 10.9% 28.0% 25.3% 85.0% 15.0%.._-_..._--_.._--...-_..._---_ _..._-..._---_ _---_ _ _..._ _ Central Florida Region 7.8% 9.4% 26.7% 24.8% 83.7% 16.3% Hillsborough County 2.0% 6.4% 21.9% 39.5% 88.2% 11.8% Orange County 1.4% 6.1% 22.6% 44.5% 90.4% 9.6% State of FlDrida 2.1% 6.9% 25.2% 35.2% 86.2% 13.8% SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, FL. Department of Labor 20

24 Polk County's absolute presence in agriculture is masked somewhat by strong manufacturing and trade (particularly wholesale trade) sectors. On a percentage basis, these observations are even more apparent. Agriculture represents 30 percent of covered employment (and more in total) in DeSoto and Hardee Counties, and between percent in Highlands and Okeechobee. For Florida agriculture it is only 2.1 percent, and even less in Hillsborough and Orange Counties. Manufacturing is well below the state average in all but Polk County. Services, the great engine of growth in the latter 1990s, is significantly underrepresented in all of these counties, in some, grossly so (DeSoto and Hardee Counties). By default, government becomes a disproportionately important player in these economies, with such activities as prison "farms", augmenting that even further in some of these areas. GROWTH AND CHANGE IN INDUSTRY STRUCTURE Tables provide ten-year industry structures for each of the five Central Florida Regional Planning Council counties together with the comparison areas of Hillsborough and Orange Counties and the state of Florida. Each of these counties has exhibited a fairly individualistic growth pattern over the decade, and a very different one for the first and second halves of that ten-year period. For instance, total employment (employment covered by unemployment compensation laws, ES 202 data) in DeSoto County grew by 11.1 percent from , but is minus 3.4 percent from The growth rates for the other areas, for the first and second halves of the decade, respectively, were Hardee County, 12.7 percent and minus 10.3 percent, Highlands, 9.7 and 2.0 percent, Okeechobee, 13.6 and 10.1 percent, and Polk County, 5.2 and 10.1 percent. Hillsborough and Orange Counties and the state of Florida, also experiences differences, with rates of 11.9 and 20.1 percent, 14.1 and 25.2 percent, and 11.1 and 17.6 percent, respectively. Thus, compared to the averages for the state, as well as the metro areas, these five counties have struggled. This was particularly true in the second half of the decade when the state and national economies were especially strong. Okeechobee and Polk Counties have enjoyed decent job growth but still at only half the rate of the state overall. It is within and among the industry groups that the interesting stories lie. And to facilitate this review, industry structure in these tables is also given on a percentage distribution basis. For example, the agricultural industry has not only grown in DeSoto County, it has grown in importance - from just under 20 percent of total employment in 1990, to over 30 percent in Most of the rest of DeSoto's industries have remained fairly flat. The story in Hardee is strong growth in services. In Highlands there has been growth in both, agriculture and services, and in Okeechobee, trade, services and government have grown well. In Polk County, virtually every industry in the service-producing sector has enjoyed healthy expansion. Polk County no doubt benefited from its geography, positioned between Hillsborough and Orange Counties. Polk, like the state and national economy, saw service-producing industries across the board (trade, finance, services and government) growing at the expense of goods-producing activity. 21

25 As noted, details of these and other trends are contained in the county - by county tables that follow (Tables 13-20). Private sector employment can be separated from government employment. And goods-producing industries (agriculture, construction, manufacturing and utilities) are sub-totaled, as are service-producing ones (trade, finance and services, in the private sector, and the total of federal, state and local government of course in the government sector.) 22

26 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE De Soto County COVERED EMPLOY. 7,994 8,377 7,975 8,083 8,343 8,878 8,869 9,010 8,934 8,840 8,576 % Hshld Employment 88.9% 89.8% 89.3% 90.5% 92.0% 95.1% 96.5% 99.3ilA % 1l0.2% 108.0% GOODS-PRODUCING 2,425 2;392 2,230 2,412 2,679 3,060 3,167 3,428 3,522 3,449 3,250 Agriculture 1,555 1,684 1,641 1,983 2,263 2,631 2,634 2,908 2,974 2,857 2,616 Construction Manufacturing Utilities SERVICE-PRODUCING 5,569 5,985 5,745 5,671 5,664 5,818 5,702 5,582 5,412 5,391 5,326 ~ N Trade 1,293 1,399 1,439 1,384 1,422 1,440 1,444 1,468 1,367 1,418 1,440 E;; w Finance Services ,034 1,075 1,025 1,030 1,052 1, ~ Government 3,250 3,525 3,226 3,182 3,052 3,137 3,051 2,904 2,820 2,787 2,727 % GOODS-PRODUCING 30.3% 28.6% 28.0% 29.8% 32.1% 34.5% 35.7% 38.0% 39.4% 39.0% 37.9% % Agriculture 19.5% 20.1% 20.6% 24.5% 27.1% 29.6% 29.7% 32.3% 33.3% 32.3% 30.5% % Construction 3.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 2.1% 2.5% 2.4% 3.1% 3.7% % Manufacturing 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 2.6% 2.5% 2.7% 2.3% 2.6% % Utilities 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% 1.3% 0.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.0% % SERVICE-PRODUCING 69.7% 71.4% 72.0% 70.2% 67.9% 65.5% 64.3% 62.0% 60.6% 61.0% 62.1% % Trade 16.2% 16.7% 18.0% 17.1% 17.0% 16.2% 16.3% 16.3% 15.3% 16.0% 16.8% % Finance 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% % Services 10.5% 10.4% 11.3% 11.8% 12.4% 12.1% 11.6% 11.4% 1l.8% 11.4% 11.5% % Government 40.7% 42.1% 40.5% 39.4% 36.6% 35.3% 34.4% 32.2% 31.6% 31.5% 31.8%

27 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE Hardee County COVERED EMPLOY. 6,821 6,895 6,668 7,163 7,790 7,689 7,561 7,718 7,253 7,145 6,895 % Hshld Employment 83.8% 81.2% 81.9% 83.3% 84.1% 79.7% 79.4% 83.0% 87.4% 87.1% 86.6% GOODS PRODUCING 2,965 3,046 2,833 3,178 3,594 3,339 3,127 3,300 2,994 2,756 2,581 Agriculture 2,350 2,427 2,248 2,579 2,968 2,677 2,482 2,732 2,472 2,212 2,064 Construction Manufacturing Utilities N ~ SERVICE PRODUCING 3,856 3,849 3,835 3,985 4,196 4,350 4,434 4,418 4,259 4,389 4,314 ~ Trade 1,424 1,305 1,258 1,296 1,345 1,413 1,408 1,361 1,271 1,350 1,159 ~ Finance Services ,002 1,061 1, ,067 1, """ Government 1,353 1,601 1,641 1,610 1,670 1,703 1,727 1,771 1,760 1,729 1,699 % GOODS PRODUCING 43.5% 44.2% 42.5% 44.4% 46.1% 43.4% 41.4% 42.8% 41.3% 38.6% 37.4% % Agriculture 34.5% 35.2% 33.7% 36.0" % 34.8% 32.8% 35.4% 34.1% 31.0% 29.9% % Construction 2.4% 2.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%. 4.0% 3.6% 2.5% 2.2% 2.6% 2.6% % Manufacturing 4.7% 4.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 3.0% % Utilities 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% % SERVICE-PRODUCING 56.5% 55.8% 57.5% 55.6% 53.9% 56.6% 58.6% 57.2% 58.7% 61.4% 62.6% % Trade 20.9% 18.9% 18.9% 18.1% 17.3% 18.4% 18.6% 17.6% 17.5% 18.9% 16.8% % Finance 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.7% % Services 12.9% 10.7% 11.0% 12.1% 12.2% 13.0% 14J}% 13.5% 13.6% 14.9% 17.5% % Government 19.8% 23.2% 24.6% 22.5% 21.4% 22.1% 22.8% 22.9% 24.3% 24.2% 24.6%

28 fit' INDUSTRY STRUCTURE Highlands County COVERED EMPLOY. 20,479 20,833 20,885 20,894 22,255 22,460 22,502 24,222 23,160 23,032 22,900 % Hshld Employment 87.20AI 86.6% 87.6% 87.1% 89.5% 88.9% 88.7% 97.4% 92.8% 95.5% 94.6% GOODS-PRODUCING 6,049 6,048 5,889 6,113 6,569 6,557 6,577 6,952 7,124 6,808 6,225 Agriculture 3,079 3,278 3,088 3,182 3,534 3,524 3,518 4,041 4,312 '1,096 3,396 Construction 1, ,016 1,104 1,051 1, Manufacturing 1,250 1,177 1,243 1,305 1,315 1,358 1,387 1,338 1,225 1,127 1,218 Utilities SERVICE-PRODUCING 14,430 14,785 14,996 14,781 15,686 15,903 15,925 17,270 16,036 16,224 16,675 ~ N VI Trade 5,610 5,448 5,493 5,376 5,493 5,758 5,754 5,861 5,420 5,458 t:"'" 5,415 tt.1 Finance 1, jw. Services 3,942 4,147 4,319 4,481 5,480 5,597 5,454 6,682 6,108 6,255 6,628 1«Government 3,845 4,317 4,255 3,985 3,781 3,696 3,759 3,804 3,832 3,857 3,967 % GOODS-PRODUCING 29.5% 29.0% 28.2% 29.3% 29.5% 29.2% 29.2% 28.7% 30.8% 29.6% 27.2% % Agriculture 15.0% 15.7% 14.8% 15.2% 15.9% 15.7% 15.6% 16.7% 18.6% 17.8% 14.8% % Construction 5.4% 4.7% 4.7% 4.9% 5.0% 4.7% 4.6% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% % Manufacturing 6.1% 5.6% 6.0% 6.2% 5.9% 6.0% 6.2% 5.5% 5.3% 4.9% 5.3% % Utilities 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.4% 2.7% 2.6% 2.9% % SERVICE-PRODUCING 70.5% 71.0% 71.8% 70.7% 70.5% 70.8% 70.8% 71.3% 69.2% 70.4% 72.8% % Trade 27.4% 26.2% 26.3% 25.7% 24.7% 25.6% 25.6% 24.2% 23.4% 23.7% 23.6% % Finance 5.0% 4.2% 4.4% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8% 4.3% 3.8% 2.9% 2.8% 2.9% % Services 19.2% 19.9% 20.7% 21.4% 24.6% 24.90k 24.2% 27.6% 26.4% 27.2% 28.9% % Government 18.8% 20.7% 20.4% 19.1% 17.0% 16.5% 16.7% 15.7% 16.5% 16.7% 17.3%

29 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE Okeechobee County COVERED EMPLOY. 7,762 7,850 7,827 8,551 8,715 8,815 9,616 10,022 10,188 9,832 9,705 % Hshld Employment 61.8% 60.7% 61.4% 63.6% 65.6% 63.6% 62.5% 65.4% 69.2% 67.2% 68.0% GOODS-PRODUCING 2,565 2,357 2,180 2,835 2,806 2,573 2,637 2,836 3,087 2,818 2,847 Agriculture 1,626 1,451 1,345 1,954 2,028 1,839 1,846 1,992 2,187 1,714 1,698 Construction Manufacturing Utilities SERVICE-PRODUCING 5,197 5,493 5,647 5,716 5,909 6,242 6,979 7,186 7,101 7;014 6,858 ~ N 0\ Trade 2,045 2,276 2,340 2,340 2,447 2,606 2,794 2,880 2,744 2,577 2,553 ~ Finance tool Services 1,535 1,622 1,681 1,739 1,795 1,914 2,165 2,253 2,307 2,356 2,257 = Government 1,345 1,346 1,376 1,400 1,435 1,489 1,726 1,764 1,798 1,837 1,810 % GOODS-PRODUCING 33.0% 30.0% 27.9% 33.2% 32.2% 29.2% 27.4% 28.3% 30.3% 28.7% 29.3% % Agriculture 20.9% % 22.9% 23.3% 20.9% 19.2% 19.9% 21.5% 17.4% 17.5% % Construction 6.3% 5.8% 5.1% 5.2% 4.4% 4.2% 3.7% 4.0% 4.3% 4.7% 5.3% % Manufacturing 3.5% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% % Utilities 2.3% 2.6% 2.8% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.9% 4.9% 4.9% % SERVICE-PRODUCING 67.0% 70.0% 72.1% 66.8% 67.8% 70.8% 72.6% 71.7% 69.7% 71.3% 70.7% % Trade 26.3% 29.0% 29.9% 27.4% 28.1% 29.6% 29.1% 28.7% 26.9% 26.2% 26.3% % Finance 3.5% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 3.1% 2.9% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% % Services 19.8% 20.7% 21.5% 20.3% 20.6% 21.7% 22.5% 22.5% 22.6% 24.0% 23.3% % Government 17.3% 17.1% 17.6% 16.4% 16.5% 16.9% 17.9% 17.6% 17.6% 18.7% 18.7%

30 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE Polk County COVERED EMPLOY. 157, , , , , , , , , , ,900 % Hshld Employment 87.0% 87.3% 88.1% 88.7% 91.1% 92.0% 93.1% 93.1% 94.6% 93.3% 93.2% GOODS PRODUCING 50,466 49,597 47,485 47,290 49,757 49,808 51,387 50,203 50,903 49,454 49,209 Agriculture 8,700 10,453 10,051 10,575 11,052 10,076 10,140 9,670 9,052 7,936 8,211 Construction 12,382 11,316 10,142 9,786 10,308 11,299 11,855 11,856 12,833 12,438 12,339 Manufacturing 22,352 20,681 20,028 19,433 20,506 20,310 20,970 20,585 20,577 20,289 19,737 Utilities 7,032 7,147 7,264 7,496 7,891 8,123 8,422 8,092 8,441 8,791 8,922 SERVICE-PRODUCING 106, , , , ,16{) 115, , , , , ,691 ~ Trade 42,327 41,213 41,148 42,390 43,309 44,769 45,739 46,963 48,844 49,292 50,946 ~ N '-J Finance 7,861 7,366 7,277 7,261 7,424 7,497 7,397 7,509 8,066 8,070 8,565,.. Services 33,420 33,557 33,839 36,273 37,867 38,455 40,389 41,450 43,160 44,680 45,940...:I Government 22,988 23,416 23,198 23,520 24,560 24,726 24,724 25,263 26,349 26,402 27,240 % GOODS PRODUCING 32.1% 32.0% 31.0% 30.2% 30.5% 30.1% 30.3% 29.3% 28.7% 27.8% 27.1% % Agriculture 5.5% 6.7% 6.6% 6.7% 6.8% 6.1% 6.0% 5.6% 5.1% 4.5% 4.5% % Construction 7.9% 7.3% 6.6% 6.2% 6.3ilAl 6.8% 7.0% 6.9% 7.2% 7.0% 6.8% % Manufacturing 14.2% 13.3% 13.1% 12.4% 12.6% 12.3% 12.4% 12.00,4 11.6% 11.4% 10.9% % Utilities 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 5.0% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% % SERVICE-PRODUCING 67.9% 68.0% 69.0% 69.8% 69.5% 69.9% 69.7% 70.7% 71.3% 72.2% 72.9% % Trade 26.9% 26.6% 26.9% 27.0% 26.6% 27.1% 27.0% 27.4% 27.5% 27.7% 28.0% % Finance 5.0% 4.7% 4.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.7% % Services 21.3% 21.6% 22.1% 23.1% 23.2% 23.3% 23.8% 24.2% 24.3% 25.1% 25.3% % Government 14.6% 15.1% 15.2% 15.0% 15.1% 15.0% 14.6% 14.7% 14.90/0 14.8% 15.0%

31 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE Hillsborough County COVERED EMPLOY. 440, , , , , , , , , , ,832 % Hshld Employment 102.1% 101.5% 101.7% 102.1% 103.2% 104.7% 107.0% 106.~A> 107.4% 107.7% 106.7% GOODS PRODUCING 99,766 93,890 92,456 92,833 95,563 96,312 98, , , , ,247 Agriculture 11,363 11,124 10,941 11,144 11,835 11,692 11,015 10,682 11,708 12,035 11,946 Construction 22,932 20,337 19,293 19,217 20,845 22,226 24,149 25,134 26,669 27,419 28,602 Manufacturing 40,059 37,975 37,489 37,342 36,979 35,933 35,771 36,598 37,498 37,430 37,892 Utilities 25,412 24,454 24,733 25,130 25,904 26,461 27,488 28,294 30,292 31,760 32,807 N 00 SERVICE PRODUCING 340, , , , , , , , ,318 '464, ,585 ~ Trade 114, , , , , , , , , , ,860 &; Finance 34,928 35,216 35,731 35,335 37,794 37,969 40,737 42,179 45,150 46,870 47,266 """ Services 129, , , , , , , , , , , Government 61,903 62,590 63,372 63,764 65,333 65,885 65,865 65,812 68,846 67,537 69,878 % GOODS-PRODUCING 22.6% 21.9% 21.4% 20.7% 20.1% 19.5% 19.2% 19.0% 19.1% 19.0% 18.8% % Agriculture 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% % Construction 5.2% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% % Manufacturing 9.1% 8.9% 8.7% 8.3% 7.8% 7.3% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.5% 6.4% % Utilities 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% % SERVICE-PRODUCING 77.4% 78.1% 78.6% 79.3% 79.9% 80.5% 80.8% 81.0% 80.9% 81.0% 81.2% % Trade 26.0% 25.1% 24.9% 24.6% 24.5% 24.6% 24.4% 24.2% 22.9% 22.1% 21.9% % Finance 7.9% 8.2% 8.3% 7.9% 8.0% 7.7% 7.9% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.0% % Services 29.4% 30.2% 30.7% 32.6% 33.6% 34.8% 35.7% 36.4% 37.4% 39.0% 39.5% % Government 14.1% 14.6% 14.7% 14.2% 13.8% 13.4% 12.8% 12.4% 12.4% 11.8% 11.8%