business leaders for michigan 2014 economic competitiveness benchmarking report
TRANSCRIPT
2014 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking Report:
Data Supporting the Michigan Turnaround PlanNovember 2014
About Business Leaders for MichiganBusiness Leaders for Michigan is a private, non-profit executive leadership organization whose mission is to develop, advocate andsupport high-impact strategies that will make Michigan a “Top Ten” state for jobs, personal income and a healthy economy. Theorganization’s work is defined by the Michigan Turnaround Plan, a holistic, fact-based strategy developed to achieve our “Top Ten” goal.Serving as the state’s business roundtable, Business Leaders for Michigan is composed of the chairpersons, chief executive officers, ormost senior executives of Michigan’s largest companies and universities. Our members drive over 25% of the state’s economy, provideover 325,000 direct and 820,000 indirect jobs in Michigan, generate over $1 trillion in annual revenue and serve nearly one half of allMichigan public university students.
Copyright © 2014 Business Leaders For Michigan. All Rights Reserved.
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
4 Key Findings
7 Output Metrics
16 Input Metrics
54 Michigan’s Regional Performance
60 Business Leaders for Michigan Board of Directors
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
1
Introduction
This report provides a fact-based assessment of Michigan’s economic competitiveness
relative to other states. Michigan’s performance is compared on key output (e.g.,
employment, GDP) and input (e.g., labor cost) metrics. A set of “traditional,” “new economy,”
and “Top Ten” benchmark states were used to provide multiple reference points to evaluate
Michigan’s performance.
While the intent of this report is not to make recommendations, general conclusions are
outlined. These conclusions are used by Business Leaders for Michigan to help develop
strategies for making Michigan a “Top Ten” state for jobs, personal income, and a healthy
economy, such as those contained in the Michigan Turnaround Plan.
Why is it important for Michigan to be a “Top Ten” state? Simply put, it would
result in more jobs, better incomes and a stronger economy. If Michigan was performing
like a “Top Ten” state today, there would be:
150,000more Michigan people working
$12,000more income per person
$16,000more GDP per person
Research for the 2014 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
468.8%
5.5%
th
Tren
dTo
p 1
0 A
vg.
How To Read This Report
Across the globe, analysts use a series of commonmeasures to determine the economic strength ofcountries, states, and regions. The measures aredivided into two categories: 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 whether tolocate in a particular state or region. Theyinclude factors like the cost of doing business,the incentives available, the pool of talent, andavailable infrastructure to support companyoperations. When these indicators are positive,they greatly influence site selection decisionsand, ultimately, lead to stronger outputs.
The correlation between the inputs and theoutputs is important to keep in mind whenreading this report. Ultimately, the inputs are thefactors over which state leaders have the greatestamount of control. This year’s benchmarkingresults can offer continuing direction as wecollectively evaluate the next crucial decisions forour 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 among the50 states
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
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
2
3
STATE
North DakotaWyomingAlaskaMassachusettsSouth DakotaTexasNew YorkIowaNebraskaConnecticut
OVERALRANK
123456789
10
EMPLOYMENTGROWTH2
112384926
1623
EMPLOYMENTLEVEL2
1203428
291954
10
POPULATIONGROWTH
127
1637223
44342739
POPULATIONLEVEL
485047144623
303729
PER CAPITAINCOMEGROWTH
13
141879841720
PER CAPITAINCOMELEVEL
2793
21256
22171
PER CAPITAGDP
LEVEL
2315
21157
20144
PER CAPITAGDP
GROWTH
135
1567
128
1027
Top Ten States
WA
OR
CA
NV
UT
AZNM
CO
ID
MT
KS
OK
MN
MO
AR
LA
ILIN
OH
KY
TN
MS AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VAWV
PA
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
HI
VT
ND
SD
NEIA
TX
AK
NY
CA COIL
OH
TN
AL GA
NC
TX
IN
VA
WY
Methodology, continued
Michigan’s performance on economic output and inputmetrics 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” States1 were selected based on averageranking on key job, economic, personal income, andpopulation indicators (2003- 2013).
• Alaska • New York• Connecticut • North Dakota• Iowa • South Dakota• Massachusetts • Texas• Nebraska • Wyoming
“Top Ten” States for Job and Economic Growth (2003-2013)
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 the performance of this group of states andMichigan's performance relative to the average performance of this group. The table below looks at aweighted average rank for both level and ten-year growth for these four categories.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
1 “Top Ten“ states have highest average rankings across Per Capita GDP Level and Growth, Per Capita Personal Income Level and Growth, Employment Level and Growth, and PopulationLevel and Growth. 2013 “Top Ten” state Washington was replaced in the 2014 “Top Ten” by Connecticut. 2 Employment is measured per capita to control for state size
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
4
Key Findings
Michigan employment, personal income, and GDP continue to grow fasterthan most states, but are well below “Top Ten” levels.
• Growth in employment, per capita GDP, and per capita personal incomehas exceeded most peers since 2009, but per capita personal income andper capita GDP remain below average while unemployment continues tobe above the national average.
• While Michigan’s population has experienced positive growth in the lasttwo years, over the long term other states have grown faster.
Michigan’s overall business tax climate now ranks among the best nationally.
• The overall tax climate is 14th best nationally and the business taxclimate is ranked 9th best.
• Changes to the Personal Property Tax are expected to improve the taxclimate further.
Michigan’s production and availability of credentialed and degreed talent isbelow the level of “Top Ten” States.
• Michigan’s production of technical degrees and certificates is 6% lower than“Top Ten” states and production of all degrees and certificates is 9% lower.
• The percentage of Michigan high school students who are career andcollege ready is 35 percent below “Top Ten” states.
• The percentage of the population with an associate’s degree or above isabout 11 percent lower than “Top Ten” states.
Michigan continues to demonstrate strong innovation and manufacturingcapabilities, but this has not translated into consistent attraction of venturecapital or sustained entrepreneurial activity.
• University R&D is among the “Top Ten” in the nation and Michiganranks 13th in patents awarded.
• Michigan exports per $100,000 of GDP are nearly double that of the“Top Ten” states.
• Venture capital investment in Michigan declined significantly in2013 after a surge in 2012.
• Entrepreneurial activity was up slightly in 2013 after 3 years of decline.
5
In 2009, Michigan was heading in the wrongdirection on most measures of economicperformance. Today, Michigan has reversed courseand is improving in most areas.
2009
2013
0 5 10 15 20
12Improving
3Holding
22Declining
22Improving
4Holding
11Declining
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
6
Unemployment RateEmployment GrowthLabor Force ParticipationLabor Force GrowthPer Capita Personal IncomePer Capita Personal Income GrowthPer Capita GDPPer Capita GDP GrowthPopulationPopulation GrowthCost of Doing BusinessCorporate Tax ClimateOverall Business Tax ClimateUnit Cost of LaborValue Added Per WorkerUnion RepresentationElectricity Costs*Econ Dev ExpendituresBusiness Climate Rankings
TalentPreschool EnrollmentPreschool Funding4th Grade Reading Scores8th Grade Math ScoresCareer & College ReadinessDegrees Conferred
Educational AttainmentTalent Migration (Residents w/BA+)
InnovationExportsUniversity R&D ExpendituresUS Patents per 100,000 ResidentsVenture Capital InvestmentEntrepreneurial Activity
Infrastructure% of Urban Roads in Poor Condition
Broadband Speeds (download)Broadband Speeds (upload)
* 2013 indicators represent 2014 data
2009Trend Top 10
2013 2009 2013
OU
TPU
TIN
PUT
- Cos
tIN
PUT
- Val
ue
Key Findings: Michigan’s Performance – 2009-2013
Michigan has experienced “Top Ten” growth on keyoutputs but is still below “Top Ten” in absolute terms.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
7
Output Metrics
The end result of ongoing economic development and policy changes, outputmetrics help measure the impact of economic choices. Output metrics focus onareas indicative of strong economic performance: Employment, Per Capita GDP,Population and Per Capita Income.
When Business Leaders for Michigan first adopted its Michigan TurnaroundPlan in 2009, the state’s output measures clearly showed a significanteconomic problem. Michigan was smaller, poorer, and less productive thannearly every other state in the union. As you’ll see from this year’s output data,Michigan has righted its economic ship. Although there is much work yet to bedone, we’re starting to see positive results.
output
14thinEmployment
Growth
46thin Unemployment
Rate
37thin Per Capita GDP
35thin Per Capita
Personal Income
in
9thin Per Capita
Personal IncomeGrowth
13thPer Capita GDP Growth
Michigan continues to grow faster than average rate of "Top Ten" states
What it is:Seasonally-adjusted, average shareof labor force that is looking for workbut does not have a job.
Why it matters:A lower unemployment rate indicatesthat more residents seeking employmentare able to find it.
Michigan’s unemploymentrate still trailed most
states at 8.8% in 2013. Its
unemployment rate was over
3 percentage points higherthan the “Top Ten” averageand remained higher than
all of its peers except
California and Illinois.
Michigan’s September 2014
rate was 7.2%.
Unemployment Rate Standings
Unemployment Rate
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
8
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
RANKLe
vel
468.8%
5.5%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Unemployment Rate Trends
9
output
Employment Growth Trends
What it is:Seasonally-adjusted average numberof residents with a private-sector job.
Why it matters:Higher levels of private employmentindicate both economic strength andprosperity among the state’s residents.
Michigan was ranked 14th inprivate sector employmentgrowth from 2012 to 2013,down from the 6th fastest
growth rate in the country
from 2011 to 2012.
Michigan’s private sector
employment growth rate was
above the “Top Ten” average,
however, recent growth is
off of a low base.
Employment Standings
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages)
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
RANKLe
vel
142.7%
1.8%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Employment Growth
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Labor Force Participation
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
10
Labor Force Participation Trends
What it is:Share of the population age 16 and older,not including residents who are on activeduty or institutionalized, that is employedor looking for work.
Why it matters:Members of the working-age populationcan stop looking for work and drop out ofthe labor force due to many reasons,including disability, old age, ordiscouragement. Higher labor forceparticipation is a sign of a healthiereconomy and workforce.
Labor force participationdeclined in almost every statefrom 2012 to 2013, andMichigan was no exception.The labor force participationrate in Michigan stood ateight percentage points lessthan the “Top Ten” averageand four percentage pointsless than the peer stateaverage. Michigan’s laborforce participation rate in2013 was lower than that forall peer states exceptAlabama.
Labor Force Participation Standings
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION
RANKLe
vel
4360.0%
68.1%
Tren
dTo
p 1
0 A
vg.
rd
hciMevA01poTllIbalA
n
5
8agihe
25,596,47gare
s
53,791,3
8ionila
59,085,6mab
o 6ihO
2,155,592
307575
2,155,592
ofilaCuhcassaMriVoeGdnI
o 6ihOa
30,757,54inro
s30,026,81
7ttesa
09,874,3
8iniga
12,632,43igro
a67,587,43naid 864713
dnIoloCraChtroNenneTT
a 3naido
86,471,3
4daroa
06,657,2
3niloe
02,827,46esse
s
55,201,3
7axeT 18,157,21
000400020
2100001000800060
00 008100061000410002
What it is:Number of residents employed or lookingfor work.
Why it matters:Labor force includes the entire pool ofresidents that are interested in working,showing less volatility than employmentthroughout the business cycle. A growinglabor force shows a growing pool ofworkers for businesses.
The Michigan labor forcegrew from 2012 to 2013for the first time since 2006,when it peaked at 5.1
million (it now stands at
4.7 million). The increase
in Michigan’s labor force
from 2012 to 2013 outpaced
the average increase for
peer states and for the
“Top Ten” states.
Labor Force Standings
Labor Force Growth
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
11
output
LABOR FORCE GROWTH
RANKLe
vel
90.5%
0.3%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Labor Force Growth Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Per Capita Personal Income
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
12
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH
RANK
Level
90.9%
0.4%
th
Trend
Top
10 A
vg.
Per Capita Personal Income Trends
What it is:Personal income (2014 dollars) divided bypopulation. Personal income includessalaries, wages, and bonuses fromemployment; dividends and interest frominvestments; rental income; pensions, etc.
Why it matters:Personal income is an indicator of prosperityand average standard of living in a state.
Michigan’s per capitapersonal income growthfrom 2012 to 2013 was the9th fastest in the nation —over twice as fast as the“Top Ten” averageand faster than all of itspeers. However, its percapita income level wasbelow over half of its peersand the high growth ratewas off of a low base.
Per Capita Personal Income Standings
Bureau of Economic Analysis (personal income summary), Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
RANKLe
vel
35$40,122
$52,192
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 2012-2013 percapita GDP growth ranked13th nationally, was slightlyfaster than the “Top Ten”average, and better than allpeers except for Colorado andTexas. However, Michigan’sper capita GDP level wasranked in the bottom half ofstates (below all peers exceptAlabama) and the growthrate was off of a low base.
Per Capita GDP Standings
Per Capita GDP
Bureau of Economic Analysis (personal income summary),Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
13
output
Per Capita GDP TrendsPER CAPITA GDP
RANK
Leve
l
37$36,668
$52,637
th
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.
PER CAPITA GDP GROWTH
RANK
Leve
l
132.52%
2.44%
th
Tren
dTo
p 1
0 A
vg.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Population
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
14
POPULATION GROWTH
RANK
Leve
l
420.1%
1.0%
nd
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.
Population Trends
What it is:Number of residents.
Why it matters:Growth in population is an indicator forhow well a state attracts and maintainsresidents. It also affects a state’s ability tosupport shared responsibilities such asmaintaining infrastructure.
Michigan was among the top
10 most populated states in
2013 with its rank at number
nine. Michigan’s population
increased slightly from 2012
to 2013, and its population
level is about 3 million
higher than the “Top Ten”
average. Its populationgrowth was slower than allof its peers except forIllinois.
Population Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
POPULATION
RANKLevel
9 9.896 M
6.423 M
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
15
output
Output Conclusions
Michigan’s future growth rates will have significanteconomic implications for its citizens. Michigan has beengrowing at a competitive rate since 2009 but must groweven faster to reach “Top Ten.”
Why is it important to be “Top Ten?”
Simply put, it would result in more jobs, betterincomes and a stronger economy. If Michigan wasperforming like a “Top Ten” state today, there would be:
More Jobs: 150,000 more Michigan people working
Higher incomes: $12,000 more income per person
Stronger economy: $16,000 more GDP per person
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
16
Input Metrics
In this report, Michigan’s input metrics are divided into two categories: cost indicatorsand value indicators. When deciding whether nor not to locate or expand 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, areasthat offer more value for equal or lower cost encourage business growth andattraction which leads to more jobs, higher incomes and a stronger economy.
Cost indicators represent a region’s basic level of competitiveness. States that are notcompetitive on most cost factors don’t often get a second glance from job providerslooking to locate or expand their business.
Value indicators are what separate regions from one another when other factors areequal. When comparing two or more regions with similar cost structures, the regionwith better infrastructure, available talent, and innovation capabilities will often win.
When the relationship between cost and value indicators is positive, it can greatlyinfluence site selection decisions and, ultimately it leads to stronger outputs.
input
Moody's North American Business Cost Review (2012 data)
Cost of Doing Business
17
input
cost
Cost of Doing Business Trends
What it is:Index that compares the state’s averagebusiness costs (labor, energy, and state &local tax burden) with the nationalaverage (U.S. = 100).
Why it matters:Lower business costs make it easier forexisting businesses to succeed and makethe state more attractive to newbusinesses.
On average, businesses paid
more to operate in Michigan
than in “Top Ten” states.
Michigan had the 12th
highest cost of doingbusiness in the nation.The only peer states whose
costs of doing business
exceeded Michigan’s
were California and
Massachusetts.
Index: Cost of Doing Business Standings
COST OF DOING BUSINESS
RANKLe
vel 105
99
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.39th
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Corporate Tax Climate
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
18
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:Lower corporate tax burdens can improve astate’s attractiveness to both new andexisting businesses.
Michigan was among thetop ten states in terms ofcorporate tax climate in2013. Michigan’s corporate
tax climate rank exceeded
all of the “Top Ten” states,
except Wyoming and
South Dakota, and all
peer states, except
Virginia and Georgia.
Corporate Tax Climate Standings
Tax Foundation (2014 State Business Tax Climate Index)
CORPORATE TAX CLIMATE
RANKLe
vel
95.8
5.8
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
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) (1 = lowest tax burden,50 = highest tax burden).
Why it matters:These measures indicate how attractivea state might be to both businesses andindividuals in terms of common taxburdens.
Michigan’s overall businesstax climate index rankingdropped from 12th in 2013
to 14th in 2014. However,the average rank for
“Top Ten” states was 24th.
Michigan has remained
more competitive than all
of its peer states in terms
of its overall tax climate
with the exception of
Indiana and Texas.
Index: Overall Business Tax Climate Standings
Overall Business Tax Climate
Tax Foundation (2014 State Business Tax Climate Index)
19
input
cost
OVERALL BUSINESS TAX CLIMATE
RANKLe
vel
1414
24
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Overall Business Tax Climate Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Labor
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
20
Labor Trends
What it is:Private industry compensation divided byprivate sector GDP (both in current dollars).
Why it matters:The share of output that is paid to workersindicates the “value proposition” foremployers of Michigan workers. Lower unitlabor costs make a state a more attractiveenvironment.
Michigan’s unit cost of laborhas remained constant over
the past three years and was
over 20% higher than the“Top Ten” average in 2012.The unit cost of labor in
Michigan was higher than
all of its peer states except
Massachusetts.
Labor Standings
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP by State, Compensation ofEmployees - 2012 data)
UNIT COST OF LABOR
RANKLe
vel
48$0.53
$0.44
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
What it is:Real GDP divided by seasonally-adjusted,non-farm employment.
Why it matters:This is a measure of the amount ofproduction per worker, which is animportant way to increase income andeconomic activity.
Value added per workerin Michigan was about
20% lower than the“Top Ten” average in 2013and ranked below almost
all of its peer states.
However, the growth in
worker productivity in
Michigan from 2012 to2013 exceeded that of overhalf of its peer states.
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)
21
input
cost
VALUE ADDED PER WORKER
RANKLe
vel
27$88,371
$107,638
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Value Added Per Worker Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Union Representation
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
22
Union Representation Trends
What it is:Union members (as a percent of employed)and employees represented by a union(as a percent of employed).
Why it matters:An indicator of labor market bargainingpower, labor flexibility, and pro-businesssentiments in the state. For someemployers, lower union membership makesa state a more attractive place to operate.
Michigan had the 7th
highest share of workersthat are represented by aunion in 2013. Michigan’sunionization rate was 5
percentage points higher
than the “Top Ten” average.
Michigan’s union
membership and
representation rate
remained higher than
all peer states except
California.
Union Representation Standings
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Population Survey)
UNION REPRESENTATION
RANKLe
vel
4416.3%
11.4%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
23
input
cost
What it is:Price per kilowatt-hour (kwh) ofelectricity for commercial and industrialusers.
Why it matters:Maintaining competitive energy costscontributes to a state’s attractiveness tobusinesses.
Michigan’s electricity costs
are 10% lower than the“Top Ten Average” and onpar with the average of
peer states. Through August
of 2014, Michigan’s rates
have declined and are
expected to continue to
decline in 2015.
Note: 2014 rates are based on monthly reported datathrough August.
Electricity Costs Standings
Electricity Costs
Energy Information Administration
ELECTRICITY COSTS
RANKLe
vel
369.5¢
10.6¢
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Electricity Costs Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
24
hciM
n 7agih 752$
hciMevA01poTllIbalA
ofilaC
n 7agihe
7.52$3gare
s3.57$
3ionila
9.7$
9mabo
0.02$9ihO
a1.62$
inro 21.5$
uhcassaMriVoeGdnIoloC
s 0ttesa
1.9$7inig
a4.12$
2igroa
1.82$8naid
o8.8$
0daro 7.04$
raChtroNenneTT
2
6
010
$6.76
a 1niloe
3.61$8esse
s0.72$
axeT
504030
070605
What it is:State and local government expenditureson economic development programs andincentives (2014 dollars), divided bypopulation.
Why it matters:This measure indicates the total scale ofpublic spending on economic developmentprograms and incentives in a state.
Michigan’s economicdevelopment expendituresper capita in 2013 were onlyone-third of the “Top Ten”average. However,Michigan’s growth ineconomic developmentexpenditures from 2012 to2013 was almost 23%compared to a decline of 5%for the “Top Ten” average.Among peers, Michigantrailed only Colorado,Georgia, Tennessee, and Ohioon economic developmentspending.
Economic Development Expenditure Standings
Economic Development Expenditures
Council for Community and Economic Research (State Economic Development Expenditures Database)
ECON. DEV. EXPENDITURES
RANKLe
vel
28$25.77
$75.33
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Economic Development Expenditure Trends
Economic Development Incentives
25
input
cost
What it is:Number of economic developmentprograms by type.
Why it matters:This measure indicates the overallnumber of different programs, taxincentives, and other initiatives in astate.
Michigan only had
6 tax credit/deduction
economic developmentincentive programs and29 total programs in
2014, which were both
lower than the “Top Ten”average. Michigan wasranked 5th among its peer
states in terms of total
programs.
Economic Development Incentive StandingsNumber of Incentive Programs
Number of Economic Development Programs by Type
Council for Community and Economic Research (State Economic Development Expenditures Database)
Michigan
Top Ten Average
Peer State AverageIllinoisAlabamaOhioCaliforniaMassachusettsVirginiaGeorgiaIndianaColoradoNorth CarolinaTennesseeTexas
Note: Data prior to 2007 are unavailable.
TAX CREDIT/DEDUCTION
6
10
13 10 17 16 4 7
23 17 16 9
12 15 6
OTHER
1
0
0 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - -
TOTAL
29
33
36 56 28 44 24 40 60 34 37 23 30 27 34
DIRECTBUSINESS
FINANCING
15
17
16 31 6
21 14 29 27 7
11 11 12 8
15
INDIRECTBUSINESS
FINANCING
5
4
5 8 4 5 3 2 9 7 3 3 5 3 5
DIRECTCOMMUNITYFINANCING
2
2
3 7 1 2 3 1 1 2 7 - 1 1 8
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
State Unfunded Pension Liabilities
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
26
Pension Liability Trends
What it is:State government unfunded pensionliability (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 pension
unfunded liability per capita
was less than the “Top Ten”
average in 2012 and the
median level among its
peers. From 2009 to 2012,
growth in Michigan’s
pension unfunded liabilityper capita grew 27%compared to 16% for the“Top Ten” states.
Pension Liability Standings
Census of Governments, Pew Center of the States, Standard and Poor's(2012 data)
STATE UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITIES
RANKLevel
$3,153
$3,519
Trend
Top
10 A
vg.27th
hciM
n 9agih 561$
hciMevA01poTllIbalA
ofilaC
n 9agihe
561$4gare
s412$
6ionila
852$1mab
o432$
9ihOa
121$4inro 171$
uhcassaMriVoeGdnIoloC
s
7
2ttesa
542$1inig
a26$
4igroa
741$naid 84
$275$
odaro
raChtroNenneTT
0
3
050
$322a 7niloe
403$esse
s 7axeT 212$
000200510001
000300520
What it is:State government unfundedpostemployment 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 OPEB unfundedliability was less than the“Top Ten” average in 2012and the median level
among its peers.
Note: “Top Ten” average for OPEB excludes Nebraska due tothe lack of available data. Cannot make inter-yearcomparisons for OPEB due to use of a different data sourcefor 2012.
OPEB Liability Standings
State Unfunded Non-Pension (OPEB) Liabilities
Census of Governments, Pew Center of the States, Standard and Poor's(2012 data)
27
input
cost
STATE UNFUNDED OPEB LIABILITIES
RANKLevel
32$1,659
$2,144
ndTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Total State & Local Spending
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
28
Total State & Local Spending Trends
What it is:Total state and local governmentexpenditures (2014 dollars) divided bypopulation.
Why it matters:State and local government expendituresare used for important investments ineducation, infrastructure, and public safety.On the other hand, high expenditures cancrowd out private sector economic activityby redirecting tax revenue and stateworkers away from private use.
Michigan’s state and localspending was 25% lowerthan the “Top Ten” average in2011 and slightly lower thanthe average of peer states.Michigan’s annual growthin spending from 2002 to2011 was 0.5% compared to2% for the “Top Ten” states,and Michigan had the 3rd
lowest annual growth instate and local governmentspending per capitanationally, behind onlyGeorgia among its peers.
Total State & Local Spending Standings
Census of Governments (Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances -2011 data)
TOTAL STATE & LOCAL SPENDING
RANKLe
vel
$9.64
$12.91
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.20th
What it is:State and local government expenditures(2014 dollars) on corrections facilitiesand operations, divided by population.
Why it matters:The amount spent on correctionsspending impacts the revenues availableto support other key priorities. Highcorrections spending could indicateinefficient spending and/or anoverburdened criminal justice system.
Corrections expendituresper capita in Michigan wereslightly lower than the“Top Ten” average in 2011and higher than theaverage of its peers. From2010 to 2011, corrections
expenditures per capita
declined at a faster rate in
Michigan than the “Top Ten”
states and at a faster rate
than all peers except
Massachusetts, Colorado,
and North Carolina.
Corrections Spending Standings
Corrections Spending
Census of Governments (Annual Survey of State and Local GovernmentFinances - 2011 data)
29
input
cost
CORRECTIONS SPENDING
RANKLe
vel
31$0.24
$0.25
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Corrections Spending Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Local Debt Service
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
30
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 ondebt in Michigan exceededthe “Top Ten” average andranked in the bottom half ofthe nation. However, it wasrelatively constant from
2010 to 2011. Among its
peers, only Illinois, Colorado,
and Texas had higher local
government interest
spending than Michigan.
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
Census of Governments (Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances -2011 data)
LOCAL DEBT SERVICE
RANKLe
vel
344.5%
3.3%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
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 rankingacross three major businessclimate indices improved bytwo spots from 2012 to
2013, but still remained inthe bottom 10 states.Michigan’s average ranking
was below all peer states
except Illinois and
California.
Index: Business Climate Ranking Standings
Business Climate Rankings
CEO Magazine (Best and Worst States for Business), CNBC (Top States for Business), Forbes (Best States for Business)
31
input
cost
BUSINESS CLIMATE RANKINGS
RANKLe
vel
4040
20.4
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Business Climate Rankings Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Preschool Enrollment
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
32
hciM
n %agih 012
hciMevA01poTllIbalA
ofilaC
n %agihe
0.12%gare
s0.12
%ionila
0.72%mab
o0.6
ihO %0.2a %inro 0.51
uhcassaMriV
dnIoeG
oloC
s %ttesa
0.41%inig
a
0.71%
naid %0.0aigro
o
0.85
%daro 0.12
raChtroNenneTT
010
a %niloe
0.32%esse
s0.12
%axeT 0.25
0302
0504
Preschool Enrollment Trends
What it is:Percent of 4-year-olds enrolled in state-funded pre-kindergarten.
Why it matters:Enrollment in preschool can assist inestablishing a strong foundation thatprepares children for success in the future.
The share of 4-year-oldsenrolled in preschool inMichigan was less than the“Top Ten” average in 2013,but only by 0.3 percentagepoints. Michigan was inthe middle of its peers for
preschool enrollment
among 4-year-olds.
Note: Indiana does not have a state funded preschool program.
Preschool Enrollment Standings
National Institute for Early Education Research (State of Preschool Yearbook)
PRESCHOOL ENROLLMENT
RANKLe
vel
2021%
21.3%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:State government spending per childenrolled in preschool (2014 dollars).
Why it matters:Higher levels of preschool funding canimprove educational quality and socialservices for young families.
Preschool funding per childenrolled in Michigan was
considerably higher thanthe “Top Ten” average.Michigan was in the
middle of its peers for
preschool funding.
Preschool Funding Standings
Preschool Funding
National Institute for Early Education Research (State of Preschool Yearbook)
33
input
value
PRESCHOOL FUNDING
RANKLe
vel
17$4,555
$3,263
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Preschool Funding Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
4th Grade Reading
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
34
4th Grade Reading Trends
What it is:Average score for reading proficiencyamong 4th graders, reflected as apercentage of students achieving “basic”and “proficient” standards on statewideassessments.
Why it matters:This provides an indicator of how wellschools are meeting competitive academicstandards.
Michigan 4th graders areperforming below the “TopTen” average in reading byabout one percentage point.Both the Michigan averageand the “Top Ten” averageexceeded the “basic” level,but fall short of the“proficient” level. Michiganscores have declined since2007 and were among thebottom half of the nation.Michigan 4th grade readingscores were outranked by allof its peer states exceptCalifornia.
4th Grade Reading Standings
National Center for Education Statistics (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
4TH GRADE READING
RANKLe
vel
3843.4%
44.5%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
What it is:Average score for math proficiencyamong 8th graders, reflected as apercentage of students achieving “basic”and “proficient” standards on statewideassessments.
Why it matters:This provides an indicator of how wellschools are meeting competitiveacademic standards.
Michigan 8th gradersperformed below the“Top Ten” average inmathematics by 1.5percentage points. Both theMichigan average and the“Top Ten” average exceededthe “basic” level, but fallshort of the “proficient”level. Michigan scores haveimproved over the pastdecade, but were still in thebottom half of the nationand were outranked by overhalf of peer states.
8th Grade Math Standings
8th Grade Math
National Center for Education Statistics (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
35
input
value
8TH GRADE MATH
RANKLe
vel
3756%
57.5%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
8th Grade Math Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
States which have ADOPTED Common Core state standards
States which have NOT ADOPTED Common Core state standards
WA
OR
CA
NV
UT
AZNM
CO
ID
MT
KS
OK
MN
MO
AR
LA
KY
MS
FL
SC
WV
PA
ME
NH
NJ
DE
MDDC
CTRI
MAWI
MI
HI
VTND
SD
NEIA
TX
AK
NY
WY
ILIN
OH
TN
AL GA
NC
VA
Career & College Ready K-12 Standards
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
36
What it is:Indicator for whether the state hasadopted Common Core state standards.
Why it matters:This provides an indicator forwhether schools are required tomeet a nationally-recognized setof competitive academic standards.
Michigan has adopted
the Common Core state
standards. The same
is true for all but three
of the “Top Ten” states
and all but three of the
12 peer states.
Peer States• Alabama• California• Colorado• Georgia• Illinois• Indiana• Massachusetts• North Carolina• Ohio• Tennessee• Texas• Virginia
“Top Ten” States
• Alaska• Connecticut• Iowa• Massachusetts• Nebraska• New York• North Dakota• South Dakota• Texas• Wyoming
What it is:Percent of students tested that met orexceeded the ACT College ReadinessBenchmarks in all four subjects (English,reading, mathematics, science).
Why it matters:This is an indicator of how well preparedhigh school graduates are for enteringcollege and future careers.
The percentage ofcareer and college readystudents in Michiganremained constant from2012 to 2013, and is about35 percent lower thanthe “Top Ten” average.Michigan was among thebottom half of the nationin terms of career andcollege-ready students andwas outranked by all butthree of its peer states:Alabama, Tennessee, andNorth Carolina.
Career & College Readiness Standings
Career & College Readiness
ACT College and Career Readiness Benchmarks
37
input
value
CAREER & COLLEGE READINESS
RANKLe
vel
3721%
32.4%
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Career & College Readiness Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Out-of-State Enrollment
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
38
Out-of-State Enrollment Trends
What it is:Percent of entering first-yearundergraduates from out of state.
Why it matters:This indicates how well higher educationinstitutions are attracting students fromout of state, who provide an infusion oftalent and capital. Out-of-state enrollmentshould be balanced with in-stateenrollment to ensure that states aremaintaining in-state enrollment.
The rate of out-of-stateenrollment at highereducation institutions inMichigan was aboutone-third of the “Top Ten”average in 2012 and trailedall but 4 states in the nation.However, Michiganinstitutions increased theirout-of-state enrollment rateby 1.2 percentage pointsfrom 2010 to 2012compared to the “Top Ten”average.
Out-of-State Enrollment Standings
National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary EducationData System, U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates (2012 data)
OUT-OF-STATE ENROLLMENT
RANKLe
vel
4611.7%
31.6%
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:Total associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, anddoctorate degrees conferred per 10,000residents by public and privateinstitutions.
Why it matters:Number of students earning a degreeeach year. Educational attainment isfactor in accessing the quality of a state’stalent pool.
The number of degreesconferred by highereducation institutions in
Michigan has been
increasing, but remainedbelow the “Top Ten” averageby about 9% in 2013.
Michigan was in the middle
of its peers in terms of the
number of degrees
conferred per 10,000
people.
Note: Degrees include associate, bachelor’s, andgraduate/professional degrees. Higher education institutionsinclude all public and private degree-granting institutions.
Degrees Conferred Standings
Degrees ConferredAssociate’s+ Per 10,000
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
39
input
value
DEGREES CONFERRED
RANKLe
vel
21121
133
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Degrees Conferred Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Technical EducationCritical Skills Degrees & Certificates
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
40
Technical Education Trends
What it is:Total critical skills degrees and certificatesconferred divided by the working agepopulation (ages 20 through 64, inclusive)
Why it matters:These degrees prepare students for high-skilled occupations, particularly in theSTEM fields, which are the types of jobsMichigan expects to increase in the future.
The number of critical skillsdegrees and certificatesawarded in Michiganincreased by 4.6% annuallysince 2003. However, thelevel of degrees awarded is6% lower than the “Top Ten”average in 2013. Michiganwas also outranked by mostof its peers in terms of boththe level and growth ofcritical skills degrees andcertificates awarded.
Note: Higher education institutions include all public andprivate degree-granting institutions.
Technical Education Standings
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
CRITICAL SKILLS DEG. & CERT.
RANKLevel
2687
98.9
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:Share of residents aged 25 to 64 with anassociate’s degree or higher
Why it matters:The availability of highly educated talentcan promote future growth of theeconomy.
The level of highly educatedtalent available in Michiganhas increased by about 13
percentage points since
2003, but was about 11percent lower than the“Top Ten” average in 2012.Michigan was among the
bottom half of the nation
in terms of educational
attainment and was
outranked by half of its
peer states.
Educational Attainment Standings
Educational Attainment Population age 25-64 with Associate’s+
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey - 2012 data)
41
input
value
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
RANKLe
vel
3137.4%
42.2%
stTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
Educational Attainment Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Talent Migration Educated Adults with BA+
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
42
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 educated individualsto live in the state.
The net migration of
educated residents in
Michigan was lower than the
“Top Ten” average in 2012.
However, 2012 marked thefirst year out of the sixprevious years in whichMichigan had a net positivemigration of talentedindividuals. While Michiganranked in the top half of the
nation, it also ranked at the
bottom of its peer states.
Talent Migration Standings
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey - 2012 data)Note: This measure does not take into account emigrants whohave moved to another country.
TALENT MIGRATION
RANKLe
vel
4,580
8,428
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.22nd
What it is:Total value of exports originating in astate that were shipped out of thecountry, as a share of total GDP (both incurrent dollars).
Why it matters:Exports help support jobs and growthof the state economy.
Michigan was among the
“Top Ten” states in exports
with the 7th highest valueof exports (scaled by GDP)in 2013, both in terms of
total and manufactured
goods. The level of exports
from Michigan exceeded
the “Top Ten” average and
those of all “Top Ten” states
except Texas. Michigan was
only second to Texas among
its peer states in terms of
the value of both all goods
and manufactured goods.
Export Standings
ExportsPer $100,000 of GDP
U.S. Department of Commerce (TradeStats Express)
43
input
value
EXPORTS
RANKLevel
7$13,559
$7,314
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
Export Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
University R&D ExpendituresPer $1M of GDP
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
44
University R&D Expenditure Trends
What it is:Research and development expendituresby higher education institutions (2014dollars) divided by real GDP (chained 2009dollars).
Why it matters:Research and development expendituresby universities improve the state’sattractiveness to out-of-state studentsand talent, and provide an importantsource of innovation and entrepreneurshipin the state.
Research and developmentexpenditures at universitiesin Michigan were in the top
ten in 2012 and were higherthan the “Top Ten” average.Michigan universities’
research and development
expenditures were greater
than those for all of its peers
except Massachusetts and
North Carolina.
University R&D Expenditure Standings
National Science Foundation Higher Education R&D Expenditures by State,Bureau of Economic Analysis Real GDP by State (2012 data)
UNIVERSITY R&D EXPEND
RANKLe
vel
9$6,816
$5,212
thTr
end
Top
10
Avg
.
What it is:Patents awarded per 100,000 residents.
Why it matters:This measure indicates a state’sleadership in innovation and technology.
Michigan was ranked 13th
in the nation with 51patents per 100,000residents – which farexceeded the “Top Ten”
average of 35 patents.
Michigan was awarded
more patents per capita
than all peer states except
California, Massachusetts,
and Colorado.
U.S. Patent Standings
U.S. PatentsPer 100,000 Residents
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patents By Country, State, and Year -Utility Patents), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
45
input
value
US PATENTS
RANKLe
vel
1351.4
35
thTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
U.S. Patent Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Venture Capital InvestmentPer $100,000 of GDP
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
46
Venture Capital Investment Trends
What it is:Total capital infusions by venture capitalfunds and investors (2014 dollars) dividedby $100,000 in real GDP (chained 2009dollars).
Why it matters:This measure indicates a state’s leadershipin innovation and entrepreneurship.
This is a volatile indicator.
Venture capital investmentin Michigan in 2013 wasabout half of the level in2012. It was alsosignificantly lower than the
“Top Ten” average, both in
terms of level and growth.
Venture capital investment
in Michigan was behind all
of its peer states in terms of
growth and level, except for
Indiana and Alabama.
Venture Capital Investment Standings
Pricewaterhouse Coopers / National Venture Capital Association (MoneyTree™ Report)
VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT
RANKLe
vel
33$31.08
$149.18
rdTr
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 a state’sleadership in entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial activity inMichigan was slightly lessthan the “Top Ten” averagein 2013. However, Michigan
has reached its highest
level of entrepreneurial
activity since 2010.
Entrepreneurial activity in
Michigan was ranked in the
middle of its peers in 2013
compared to the bottom of
its peers in 2012.
Entrepreneurial Activity Standings
Entrepreneurial Activity
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity)
47
input
value
ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY
RANKLe
vel
0.29%
0.30%
Tren
dTo
p 10
Avg
.20th
Entrepreneurial Activity Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Urban Roads in Poor Condition
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
48
Urban Roads in Poor Condition Trends
What it is:Share of urban roads in poor condition,by length.
Why it matters:A strong, reliable transportation systembenefits both businesses and individuals.Poor road quality imposes many tangiblecosts and reduces productivity.
The percentage of poor-
quality urban roads in
Michigan improved from
2012 to 2013. However,
urban road quality was
worse in Michigan than
the “Top Ten” average, and
Michigan ranked 45th
among all states. Amongpeers, only Massachusettsand California have agreater percentage of urbanroads in poor condition.
Note: Includes interstate highways, freeways, expressways, andmajor arterial roads in urban areas.
Urban Roads in Poor Condition Standings
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (Length by measured pavement roughness, all systems - 2012 data)
URBAN ROADS IN POOR CONDITION
RANKLevel
4512.6%
10.8%
thTrend
Top
10
Avg
.
What it is:Percent of bridges in deficient condition,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 deficient inMichigan has declinedconsiderably over the pastten years, improving at aconsiderably higher ratethan that for the “Top Ten”average and for peer states.However, the share ofbridges that are deficient inMichigan remains abovethose two averages.Michigan has a highershare of deficient bridgesthan all peer states exceptOhio, California, andMassachusetts.
Deficient Bridge Standings
Deficient Bridges
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (Area of bridges by Functional Classification)
49
input
value
DEFICIENT BRIDGES
RANKLe
vel
4133%
30.7%
stTr
end
Top
10 A
vg.
Deficient Bridge Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Broadband Speeds - Download
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
50
Broadband Speed (Download) Trends
What it is:Average broadband download speeds.
Why it matters:Strong telecommunicationsinfrastructure can improve productivityand is attractive for businesses.
Download speeds in
Michigan in 2013 were
higher than the “Top Ten”
average and ranked in the
middle of its peers.
Broadband Speed (Download) Standings
Source: Ookla (Net Index)
BROADBAND SPEEDS (DOWNLOAD)
RANKLevel
2617,575
17,213
thTrend
Top
10 A
vg.
What it is:Average broadband upload speeds.
Why it matters:Strong telecommunicationsinfrastructure can improve productivityand is attractive for businesses.
Upload speeds in Michigan
in 2013 were lower than
the “Top Ten” average and
ranked in the middle of
its peers.
Broadband Speed (Upload) Standings
Broadband Speeds - Upload
Source: Ookla (Net Index)
51
input
value
BROADBAND SPEEDS (UPLOAD)
RANKLevel
274,428
4,563
thTrend
Top
10
Avg
.
Broadband Speed (Upload) Trends
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Non-Discrimination Policies
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
52
What it is:Indicator for whether the stateprohibits employment-relateddiscrimination based on sexualorientation.
Why it matters:Protections against employment-related discrimination facilitate awelcoming environment for workers.
Michigan does not prohibitemployment-relateddiscrimination based onsexual orientation. Onlyfour of the “Top Ten” states
and only 4 of the 12 peer
states prohibit
employment-related
discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
WA
OR
CA
NV
UT
AZNM
CO
WY
ID
MT ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
MN
IA
MO
AR
TXLA
ILIN
OH
KY
TN
MS AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VAWV
PA
NY
ME
NH
NJ
DE
MDDC
CTRI
MAWI
MI
AK
HI
VT
States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only
Human Rights Campaign
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
53
inputInput Conclusions
While Tax Climate, University R&D, andExports are experiencing downward trends,Michigan’s overall performance in thoseareas remains at a “Top Ten” level.
On the other hand, Michigan has made gainsin key areas such as Career and CollegeReadiness, Educational Attainment, and RoadQuality but is still well below “Top Ten”performance.
Bottom10
RoadQuality
Educational Attainment
Career &College
Readiness
Exports
UniversityR&D
TaxClimate
Top 10
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
54
KEWEENAWW
ONTONAGON
GOGEBIC
IRON
BARAGA
MARQUETTE
DICKINSON
MENOMINEE
DELTA
ALGERSCHOOLCRAFT
LUCE
MACKINAC
CHIPPEWA
EMMET
CHEBOYGANPRESQUE ISLE
CHARLEVOIX
ALPENA
MONTMORENCYOTSEGANTRIM
LEELANAU
BENZIEGRAND
TRAVERS
KALKASKACODA ALCONA
IOSCOOGEMAWROSCOMMONUKEEWEXFORMANISTEE
MASON LAKE OSCEOLA CLARE GLADWINARENAC
HURON
MIDLAND
TUSCOLA SANILAC
LAPSHIAWASSEE
GRATIOAGINAW
GENESEE
MECOSTANEWAYGO
OCEANA
OTTAWA
MONTCALM
IONIA CLINTON
EATOLIVINGSTON
ALLEGAN
VAN BURENJACKSON
BERRIEN CAS JOSEPH BRANCH HILLSDALE WEE MONROE
HOUGHTON
ISABELLA
MUSKEGON
KENT
GHAM
KALAMAZOO CALHOUN WASHTENAW WAYNE
OAKLAND
MACOMB
ST. CLAIR
BAY
CRAWF
BARRY
1
SE
KALKA
MIMISSMISSAURD2
MGO
OSCORD3
KENT
4MIDLAND
OTSA
5 A SAN
PEER S
6CLINTON
ON ING7
ON
LENAW
W
9WAYNE
10SS ST. J
KALA
8
Upper Peninsula region
Lake Superior Community
Partnership
Northwest region NWMCOG
Northeast region NEMCOG
West Michigan region The Right Place
East Central Michigan region
Saginaw Future
East Michigan region Flint and Genesee Chamber of Commerce
South Central region LEAP
Southwest region Southwest Michigan First
Southeast Michigan region
Ann Arbor SPARK
Detroit Metro region Detroit Economic Growth Corp
Oakland County PCD
Macomb County PED
Wayne County EDGE
WENAEEWK W
O TN O AN OG N
GOG IBE C
H
NIRO
ABAR GA
M RA UQ ETTE
ID C NIK NOS
GUO TH ON
ATAELD
LA G RECS H OO LC FAR T
UL C
MAC
CE
C AINK C
C WHIPPE A
1
3
2
SNOREGI
NEMCOGegionrNortheast
NWMCOGegionrNorthwest
PartnershipLake Superior Community Upper Peninsula
NEM O EEMIN
egion
egion
Lake Superior Community egionrUpper Peninsula
UANAELEL
ENZIEBG ANR
EAVRT
C
TMMEE
C BEH OYG NAERP QS IEU SL
XIIXLEVORHACCH
AYCCY
NNCEEN
MONTMORREO EST GIRANT M
DANRE S
AKASALKAAKOC AD AFAWR
EL
ANPELA
AL OC AN
5
7
6
4
LEAPSouth Central
Flint and Genesee Chamber of CommeEast Michigan
erSaginaw FutuEast Central Michigan
The Right Placeest Michiga WWest Michigan
egionrSouth Central
cerFlint and Genesee Chamber of CommeegionrEast Michigan
egionrEast Central Michigan
egionrest Michigan
U
E
FEXWIMAN S EET
OSMA N KAL E
YANEW OGCO ANAE
M S EK OG N
K
T
YI
GO AME WR OSCO MM ONU EEKF RO
CSO EOLA RALC E G IWADL NA AENR C
DNALAMID
WAHIIIASHHIA
G IATR OGA ANI W
GE
ME SOC TA
OM TN C MLA
S LLABE A
N
AB
I OCSO
HUR NO
ALTUSCO CALANIAS
AL PEN SEE RIALA C.ST
9
01
8
ayne County EDGEW
Macomb County PED Oakland County PCD
oit Economic GrDeto roit MetrDet
ARPPARKAnn Arbor SSoutheast Michigan
Southwest Michigan FirstegionrSouthwest
ayne County EDGE
Macomb County PED Oakland County PCD
owth Corp roit Economic Gegionro
ARKegionrSoutheast Michigan
Southwest Michigan Firstegion
O WATT A
A ELL G NA
V NERUAN B
NERIERB CA OJ
LAMAZOAK
G
C
W
Y
EEEESSSE
WAASA
IO AIN NNTOILC
TAE OL NIVI SG TO
KSOCAJ
HPESO NARB CH H LLI S ELAD EE
AH M
OLAMAZO HLA UO N TENAHSA
RBAR
O
E
M
NO
O RN EO
WTENA NYWA
NAKLAA D BMMBOOMCCOAMMA
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 5 years.
OutputEmployment GrowthUnemployment RateLabor Per Capita IncomePopulation
InputDegrees ConferredTechnical EducationEducation AttainmentPatents Per 100,000 Residents
What it is:Seasonally-adjusted average number of residents
with a private-sector job.
Why it matters:Higher levels of private employment indicate both
economic strength and prosperity among the
region’s residents.
Employment Growth
What it is:Average share of labor force that is looking for
work but does not have a job (not seasonally-
adjusted).
Why it matters:A lower unemployment rate indicates that more
residents seeking employment are able to find it.
Unemployment Rate
55
regional
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
2013 Unemployment Rate
2007-12 Employment CAGR
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
56
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 due
to many reasons, including disability, old age, or
discouragement. Higher labor force participation is
a sign of a healthier economy and workforce.
Labor
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP by State, Compensation ofEmployees - 2012 data)
What it is:Share of residents aged 25 to 64 with an
associate’s degree or higher.
Why it matters:The availability of highly educated talent can
promote future growth of the economy.
Education Attainment
20 25 30 35 40
29.0%Region 01
33.9%Region 02
23.3%Region 03
32.9%Region 04
28.9%Region 05
26.0%Region 06
41.0%Region 07
32.2%Region 08
39.6%Region 09
36.0%Region 10
% of population over age 25 with an associate’s degree or higher
U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey - 2012 data)
2008–13 Labor Force CAGR
Educational Attainment (2008–12 Estimates)
57
regional
What it is:Personal income (2014 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:Personal income is an indicator of prosperity and
average standard of living in a region.
Per Capita Income 2012 Per Capita Personal Income
Bureau of Economic Analysis (Personal income summary), Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Inflation Calculator)
2007-12 Per Capita Personal Income CAGR
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
58
What it is:Number of residents.
Why it matters:Growth in population is an indicator for how
well a state attracts and maintains residents.
It also affects a region’s ability to support
shared responsibilities such as maintaining
infrastructure.
Population
Thousands-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
8.1%Region 01
0.1%Region 02
Region 0-0.8% 3
0.3%Region 04
-0.3% Region 05
-3.2% Region 06
0.2%Region 07
-1.4% Region 08
0.2%Region 09
-0.2% Region 10
4
1R o
%
%0noi
o
geR
2R
1.8
0no
%
igeR %
R
o
1.0
-0.8%
o
noigeR
40noigeR %3.0
330n
%
n
R
. ooi
o
geR%3.0
o
-
n% o
%
igeR
7
2.3-
0noigeR %
o
2.0
n% oigeR41-
550
6
n
6
8
0n
80n
1
R o
o
01-2-3-
n% o
%
igeR
9
4.1
0no
0
igeR %
o
2.0
noigeR%2.0-
5
8
432
8
0
0n
01n
876
Thousands0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
309,387Region 01
301,143Region 02
204,896Region 03
1,544,819Region 04
571,246Region 05
861,444Region 06
Region 07
778,967Region 08
994,717Region 09
3,861,682Region 10
467,321
4
oigeR
oigeR
oigeR
oigeR
1 00no 783,903
020no 341,10
4
3
30no 698,402
4 90no 18,445,1
oge
oigeR
oigeR
oigeR
oigeR
0 9o
5
8,5,
60no
6
42,175
40no
7
44,168
0no
8 70no
,321
69877
467
oigeR
oigeR
oigeR
010050
8 70no
9
69,877
70no
0
17,499
21no 86,168,3
5200020051000
0053000300
U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2013 Population
2008-13 Population CAGR
59
regional
What it is:Total associate’s, 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 determining
the quality of a region’s talent pool.
Degrees Conferred
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2013 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 prepare students for high-skilled
occupations, particularly in the STEM fields,
which are the types of jobs Michigan expects to
increase in the future.
Technical Education
National Center for Education Statistics (Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System), U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates)
2013 Critical Skills Degrees Conferred
Business Leaders for Michigan I 2014 Econom
ic Competitiveness Benchm
arking Report
Busi
ness
Lea
ders
for
Mic
higa
n I20
14 E
cono
mic
Com
peti
tive
ness
Ben
chm
arki
ng R
epor
t
60
JEFF M. FETTIGCHAIR OF THE BOARDWhirlpool Corporation
TERENCE E. ADDERLEYKelly Services, Inc.
KEITH J. ALLMANMasco Corporation
G. MARK ALYEAAlro Steel Corporation
GERARD M. ANDERSON DTE Energy
DAVID W. BARFIELD The Bartech Group, Inc.
MARY BARRAGeneral Motors Company
ALBERT M. BERRIZ McKinley, Inc.
MARK J. BISSELLBISSELL Inc.
STEPHEN K. CARLISLEGeneral Motors Company
JOHN C. CARTERChase
TIMOTHY P. COLLINSComcast Cable
ROBERT S. CUBBINMeadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
WALTER P. CZARNECKIPenske Corporation
KURT L. DARROWLa-Z-Boy Incorporated
DAVID C. DAUCH American Axle & Manufacturing
RICHARD L. DeVOREPNC Financial Services Group
DOUGLAS L. DeVOSAmway
ALESSANDRO DiNELLOFlagstar Bank
J. PATRICK DOYLEDomino’s Pizza
JAMES E. DUNLAPHuntington
MATTHEW B. ELLIOTT Bank of America
WILLIAM CLAY FORD, JR. Ford Motor Company
DANIEL GILBERTQuicken Loans Inc.
ALFRED R. GLANCY III Unico Investment Group LLC
DAN GORDONGordon Food Service, Inc.
RONALD E. HALL Bridgewater Interiors, LLC
RICHARD G. HAWORTHHaworth, Inc.
CHRISTOPHER ILITCH Ilitch Holdings, Inc.
MICHAEL J. JANDERNOAPerrigo Company
MILES E. JONESDawn Food Products, Inc.
HANS-WERNER KAAS McKinsey & Company
ALAN JAY KAUFMANKaufman Financial Group
JAMES P. KEANESteelcase Inc.
JOHN C. KENNEDYAutocam Medical
STEPHEN M. KIRCHERBoyne Resorts
WILLIAM L. KOZYRATI Automotive Ltd.
BLAKE W. KRUEGERWolverine World Wide, Inc.
BRIAN K. LARCHEEngineered Machined Products, Inc.
TIMOTHY D. LEULIETTEVisteon Corporation
ANDREW N. LIVERISDow Chemical Company
KEVIN A. LOBOStryker Corporation
DANIEL J. LOEPP Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
EVAN D. LYALL Roush Enterprises, Inc.
BEN C. MAIBACH III Barton Malow Company
DENNIS MANNIONPalace Sports and Entertainment
RICHARD A. MANOOGIAN Masco Corporation
FLORINE MARK The WW Group, Inc.
CHARLES G. McCLUREMichigan Capital Partners, LLC
DAVID E. MEADORDTE Energy
HANK MEIJERMeijer, Inc.
MICHAEL MILLERGoogle, Inc.
FREDERICK K. MINTURNMSX International
PAUL J. MUELLERThe Hanover Insurance Group
MARK A. MURRAYMeijer, Inc.
JAMES B. NICHOLSONPVS Chemicals, Inc.
WILLIAM U. PARFETMPI Research
CYNTHIA J. PASKY Strategic Staffing Solutions
ROGER S. PENSKE Penske Corporation
WILLIAM F. PICKARD GlobalAutomotiveAlliance
SANDRA E. PIERCE FirstMerit Michigan
CHARLES H. PODOWSKI The Auto Club Group
JOHN RAKOLTA, JR. Walbridge
MICHAEL T. RITCHIEComerica Bank
DOUG ROTHWELL Business Leaders for Michigan
ANDRA M. RUSHRush Group Family of Companies
JOHN G. RUSSELLCMS Energy Corporation/Consumers Energy Co.
RICHARD F. RUSSELL Amerisure Mutual Holdings, Inc.
MARK S. SCHLISSELUniversity of Michigan
J. DONALD SHEETSDow Corning
BRAD SIMMONSFord Motor Company
LOU ANNA K. SIMON, Ph.D. Michigan State University
SAM SIMONAtlas Oil Company
MATTHEW J. SIMONCINILear Corporation
BRIG SORBERTwo Men and a Truck/International, Inc.
ROBERT S. TAUBMAN Taubman, Inc.
GARY TORGOWTalmer Bancorp
SAMUEL VALENTI III TriMas Corporation
STEPHEN A. VAN ANDELAmway
BRIAN C. WALKERHerman Miller, Inc.
THOMAS J. WEBBCMS Energy Corporation
WILLIAM H. WEIDEMAN The Dow Chemical Company
GIL WESTDelta Air Lines
M. ROY WILSONWayne State University
ROGER J. WOODDana Holding Corporation
WILLIAM C. YOUNG Plastipak Holdings, Inc.
BASF CORPORATION
FIFTH THIRD BANK.
Business Leaders for Michigan - 2014 Board of Directors
This list represents the board members at the time of printing. For a current list, visit businessleadersformichigan.com
www.BusinessLeadersForMichigan.com