NewGeography.com blogs

Here's a look at national employment change in the United States over the past 10 years. Nonfarm employment peaked in the US in December of 2007 at 138.1 million jobs. After a record loss of 598,000 jobs in the last month, we're now at 134.5 million. Thats a loss of more than 3.5 million jobs over the past year. Conveniently, 3.5 million jobs is exactly what Obama administration economists plan to create or save with the stimulus package.

If we cut it by sector, recent job losses in manufacturing, construction, and professional and business services are striking. Over this same time period, we've added roughly 4.5 million jobs in education and health and another 2.5 million in government jobs. Perhaps the president is planning to hire those 3.5 million new employees directly?

If we index each sector back to January 1999, we can begin to see the trajectory of each industry over time. For this chart, the height of each line at a given point of time indicates percent growth over the January 1999 level. The heavy black line shows growth for all sectors.

From here, the dot-com bust is obvious, as is the fact that the information sector has not recovered to pre-2000 levels. Information may be even more trouble in the short term, as that sector includes media and publishing.

The construction employment boom began in mid 2003 and eventually reached more that a 20% premium over 1999 before falling back to mid 2003 levels last month.

Manufacturing has fallen precipitously with this bust, we are now seeing marked declines in other goods-supporting industries: wholesale trade and transportation and warehousing.

Again, institutional sectors of Government (up 12%) and eds and meds (up 30%) lead the way. The other fastest growing sector since 1999? Leisure and hospitality. Staycation, anyone?

Nebraska was the 37th State to join the Union, is home to the “Cornhuskers,” and currently has a $3.5 billion budget and a $563 million cash reserve.

In this time of economic hardship, the Cornhusker state has no debt, shunning all long-term financial commitments including retirement benefits.

A recent USA Today survey of state financial reports found that the other 49 states combined “have an unfunded obligation of $445 billion” owed for the medical care of retired government workers.

The formula accountants use to compute the financial health of a state government includes medical benefits, debt and pension liability. Medical benefits represent the Pandora’s Box of the three, with civil servants often retiring before Medicare benefits kick in at 65.

In contrast, Nebraska is the “only state that doesn't subsidize the medical care of retired government employees.”

Other states and local governments have debts that range anywhere from New York City’s $60 billion obligation to Los Angeles’ $544 million sum.

Some state and local governments have begun setting aside money to prepare to pay retiree medical costs. Some plan to pay nearly the entire cost, other will contribute a fixed amount, such as “$200 a month or 50% of the health insurance premium.”

In defending Nebraska’s nonexistent retiree health care coverage, Senator Dave Pankonin distills his state’s approach simply: “Nebraska is a fiscally conservative, pay-as-you-go state, and that’s the biggest reason we don’t have this benefit.” Or, he might have added, deficit.

Last week I took a look at the share of US born residents in each state born in their current state of residence. Some on other blogs wondered if a low share of native born in a state meant that everyone has left or if instead that state is a big lure to out-of-staters. Aside from a few outliers, it seems to be the latter. Take a look at this quick analysis: states with a low share of native born tend to have high net inmigration and states with many born in state tend to have high outmigration.

It makes sense that in tougher times (evidenced by net outmigration) those with deeper roots find a reason to stick around - or maybe they are just tied down.

High net inmigration, low native born states tend to be high in natural amenities (read: mountains) or recent boom states in the west - many of which may have capitalized on the exodus from California. Note that North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee have similar numbers.

Most interesting is the grouping towards the upper right: states with both above average number of those born in state and positive or near positive migration. Could this signal a return of the diaspora to states like Texas, Kentucky, Alabama, Utah, or even Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

The business sections of newspapers have become doomsayers for the nation. Sensationalistic journalism decries of the failings and crises that have done our economy irreparable harm.

Rewind to a couple of years ago, and the print media was content with profiles of personable CEOs and pages upon pages devoted to the kitschy Mergers and Acquisitions. Where was the hard-hitting reporting that could’ve opened the public’s eyes to the failing economy much sooner?

“I'll attest that business journalists as a rule are as smart, sophisticated, and plugged-in as they seem”, notes former Wall Street Journal reporter Dean Starkman in a recent article for Mother Jones. And yet that army of professional business reporters – an estimated 9,000 or so nationwide in print alone – for all practical purposes missed the biggest story on the beat. Why?”

Starkman suggests the print industry’s own declining financial health may play a role. In the last decade alone, the New York Times profit margins have fallen from 24 percent to a meager 8.5.The newspaper industry’s failing has also resulted in a 25 percent loss of jobs in the business reporting field alone.

He adds that business journalism’s insistence on clinging to outdated formulas could play a role. The focus on consumer-pleasing and personality-driven stories – “not deconstructing balance sheets or figuring out risks” – seems part of the problem.

Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill has both policy makers and the public wondering what the bill will actually manage to stimulate. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, a recent study shows that left to fend for itself, the United States is inherently prosperous.

The Legatum Prosperity Index recently released a study of the most prosperous nations, measuring economic growth and quality of life. The study found that the U.S. – despite its current economic situation – ranks fourth out of 104 nations.

The amount of wealth and sense of well-being enjoyed by U.S. citizens is higher than any among large countries, with no other country with more than 100 million inhabitants ranking above the top 10.

The Index measures nations overall by “how well they foster the practices, institutions, and habits that create competitive economies, stable and free political institutions, and social capital.”

When looking at prosperity in this fashion, America and its ability to foster both economic and non-economic progress is what puts it so high on the scale. The US still rewards innovation and entrepreneurship to an extent seen in few other countries. This opportunistic culture provides the basis for successful growth of commerce even in an otherwise weak environment.

The U.S. bests the other top 10 countries on personal income by 40 percent. It scores 38 percent higher than the rest of the world in its ability to “commercialize innovation through patents.”

On the flip side, the US ranks just 7th in economic competitiveness and below average on promoting international trade and investment. The stimulus bill could offer some jolt to the weak economy, but given access to capital, Americans might prove adept in finding their own path to prosperity.