Business Leaders for Michigan 2014 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking Report

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.



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



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.



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



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


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


11

output

LABOR FORCE GROWTH

RANKLe

vel

90.5%

0.3%

thTr

end

Top

10 A

vg.

Labor Force Growth Trends



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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)


2013 Unemployment Rate

2007-12 Employment CAGR



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



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


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


2013 Critical Skills Degrees Conferred



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

Economy & Finance

Business Leaders for Michigan 2014 Economic Competitiveness Benchmarking Report