• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Trendlines   Sd Workers By Industry
 

Trendlines Sd Workers By Industry

on

  • 746 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
746
Views on SlideShare
746
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Trendlines   Sd Workers By Industry Trendlines Sd Workers By Industry Presentation Transcript

    • Sponsored by-- Midwestern Higher Education Compact Midwestern Legislative Conference Midwestern Governors Association South Dakota Board of Regents South Dakota Governor’s Office South Dakota Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Tourism and State Development
    • Midwestern Education to Workforce Policy Initiative: Midwestern Higher Education Compact Midwestern Legislative Conference Midwestern Governors Association Policy Summit – October 2005 State Roundtables – 2006 Policy Report Series – 2007 Funded by: MHEC, CSG & Lumina Foundation for Education
    • Education to Workforce Conferences Minnesota, October 23, 2006 Michigan, May 25, 2006 South Dakota, June 27, 2006 Nebraska, May 23, 2006 Missouri April 25, 2006 Illinois, June 14, 2006 = Already completed = Later this year or next year
    • Interstate Compacts MHEC NEBHE 1991 1955 WICHE 1953 SREB 1948
    • The Commission Ë Governs the Compact Ë Acts as an instrumentality of state government in each of the eleven member states Ë Serves all sectors of public and private higher education and state government
    • Midwestern Higher Education Compact Advancing Education Through Cooperation Three Core Functions  Cost Savings  Student Access  Policy Research
    • Today’s Purposes and Outcomes  Share information and ideas with you.  Encourage you to think about the future of South Dakota and how you can help create it.  Receive from you your ideas on what needs to be done in business, education and government to create more excellent jobs and an excellent workforce that will create a brighter future for South Dakota.  Encourage all of you to communicate more on these issues beyond this conference.  Identify specific action items and plan to sustain this effort.
    • Highlights  Demographics in the Future  Responding to the Age Wave  SD Advantages  Workforce Challenges  Your Needs, Ideas and Advice
    • SD Population Projections 2005 - 2025 AGE 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0-19 0-4 50,663 51,210 52,152 51,905 49,838 Most in 5-9 50,438 50,158 50,692 52,043 51,874 School 10-14 54,170 50,162 49,907 50,949 52,330 15-19 59,412 54,438 50,808 51,996 53,394 20-24 59,305 57,324 52,945 50,462 51,685 25-29 46,251 51,741 49,659 46,054 43,775 20-64 30-34 44,244 45,366 50,623 48,981 45,498 Primarily 35-39 45,905 44,209 45,328 50,830 49,188 income earners 40-44 56,562 45,983 44,291 45,795 51,284 and 45-49 58,773 56,645 46,150 44,723 46,266 taxpayers 50-54 53,883 58,873 56,812 46,582 45,150 55-59 43,711 53,778 58,701 56,676 46,481 60-64 33,425 43,492 53,530 58,495 56,449 65-69 28,384 33,008 42,935 52,881 57,820 65+ 70-74 26,471 27,740 32,259 42,094 51,866 Most 75-79 25,139 25,606 26,844 31,564 41,204 are 80-84 21,133 23,614 24,062 25,855 30,380 Retired 85+ 18,195 22,657 25,779 26,615 28,318 776,064 796,004 813,477 834,500 852,800 Source: State Data Center, Vermillion
    • SD Projections Combined into 3 Groups AGE 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0-19 214,683 205,968 203,559 206,893 207,436 20-64 442,059 457,411 458,039 448,598 435,776 65+ 119,322 132,625 151,879 179,009 209,588 776,064 796,004 813,477 834,500 852,800 AGE 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0-19 28% 26% 25% 25% 24% - 4% 20-64 57% 57% 56% 54% 51% - 6% 65+ 15% 17% 19% 21% 25% + 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% How will these trends affect all of us? Our futures? Will we accept these trends? Source: State Data Center, Vermillion
    • Think of the Age Wave Consequences… AGE 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Difference 0-19 214,683 205,968 203,559 206,893 207,436 - 7,247 20-64 442,059 457,411 458,039 448,598 435,776 - 6,283 65+ 119,322 132,625 151,879 179,009 209,588 + 90,266 776,064 796,004 813,477 834,500 852,800 AGE 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0-19 ---- - 8,715 - 2,409 + 3,334 + 543 - 7,247 20-64 ---- + 15,352 + 628 - 9,441 - 12,822 - 6,283 65+ ---- + 13,303 + 19,254 + 27,130 +30,579 + 90,266 More jobs will be needed in the 20-64 group to provide services for those over 65.
    • Responding to the Age Wage: Options  Less government services to those over 65.  More tax revenue from a lower number of taxpayers in the 20-65 group to pay for elderly services.  More jobs and therefore more people in the 20-65 group to grow the economy and state revenues.  Less services to all South Dakotans.  Using 65+ group as a resource.  More jobs and therefore, more people in the 20-65 group so tax rates can remain stable.
    • What’s Already Happening: Trendlines in SD Occupations for the Next 6 years Fastest Growing Occupations: Fastest Declining Occupations: Social/Human Services Computer Operators Assistants Meter Readers Medical Assistants Typists Network / Data Analysts Eligibility Interviewers Self-Enrichment Teachers Announcers Medical Records Technicians Travel Agents Massage Therapists Prepress Technicians Social Workers Electric/Electronic Assemblers Physician Assistants Loan Interviewers and Clerks Residential Advisors Locomotive Engineers Home Health Aides Data Entry Workers Respiratory Therapists Order Clerks Dental Assistants Mixing Machine Operators Physical Therapist Assistants Brokerage Clerks Source: Occupational Outlook, Dept. of Labor
    • Trendlines-- SD Workers by Industry Fastest Growing by Industry: Fastest Declining by Industry: Social Assistance Apparel Manufacturing Ambulatory Healthcare Textile Mills Waste Management Computer Manufacturing Amusement / Gambling / Rec Metal Manufacturing Museums / Historical Sites Self-Employed Hunting, Fishing Sport / Hobby / Book Stores & Agriculture-related Hospitals Beverage Manufacturing Internet Service / Web Providers Utilities Repair and Maintenance Federal Government Warehousing Broadcasting Nursing / Residential Care Plastics Manufacturing Chemical Manufacturing Wholesalers Accommodations / Lodging Clothing & Accessories Mining Self-employed Farm Workers Source: Occupational Outlook, Dept. of Labor
    • In Addition to Predicted Job Growth… What Else? Recent History: More Energy and Agriculture Big Stone II Power Plant, Morrell Expansion, 3M, Dakota Turkey Growers, Qwest, SD Certified Beef, TransCanada Pipeline, more manufacturing, more Ethanol, etc Already Targeted Industry Clusters: Manufacturing, Food Processing, Firearms and Financial Services. Long Term Targets for High-Paying Job Growth: Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, Research to Commercialization and spin-offs. For even more jobs, we want your advice and ideas during the breakout sessions for now, short-term and long-term.
    • Taxes - Advantage in Creating New Jobs? $2,203 $1,910 (35th) (21st) $3,094 (6th) $1,430 $3,418 (50th) (3rd) $2,158 $1,939 (33rd) (24th) South Dakota state tax per person is LESS THAN ONE-HALF of Minnesota’s or Wyoming’s state tax per person. Source: http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html
    • Is Per Capita Income an Advantage? Per Capita Per Capita Income Adjusted Income for Taxes and Costs of Rank Living Rank 1999 36th 25th 2005 31th 11th Your incomes have increased faster than the rest of the nation and you have held down your taxes and cost of living. Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce;Taubman Center, Harvard University; and Dr. Ralph Brown, USD Business Research Bureau.
    • However, the United States and South Dakota Both Need Better Workforces To Compete for Future Jobs An Educated and Trained Workforce is the Key in Order to Compete
    • Kiplinger Letter, September 23, 2005  Skilled workers will be harder to find  Some college or training needed for 85% of new jobs  Needed Health care workers Engineers Scientists  Contributing issues to worker shortages Baby boom retirements Fewer foreign workers
    • South Dakota Educational Attainment and Rank Among States Age 18-24 with HS Diploma 78.2% 19th Age 25-64 with HS Diploma 90.1% 10th Age 25-64 with Associate Degree 12th 8.6% Age 25-64 with Bachelor's or Higher 24.5% 31st Age 25-64 with Graduate/Prof. Degree 6.5% 46th Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census 50 40 30 20 10 0 South Dakota Can Do Better in the Future
    • Earnings by Job Type in SD 2 05 $40,000 , 38 2,7 6 3 ,25 $3 $3 38 9 $2 7 5,2 $30,000 7 7 2,6 $2 , 45 $2 0 5 $2 3 5,7 $20,000 $1 $10,000 $0 Health Care Technology Office Factory Education & Natural Resources Low-Skill Services Public Services Source: Tony Carnevale and Donna Desrochers, ETS (PUMS 2000 5% Sample, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org, 1998-2000
    • 21.7 West Virginia % of Population 25-64 with Associate Degree or Higher Arkansas Louisiana Kentucky Mississippi Nevada Nation 33.8% Tennessee Alabama SD 33.1% Indiana Oklahoma South Carolina Missouri Ohio Texas New Mexico Idaho Georgia North Carolina Michigan Arizona Florida Wyoming Pennsylvania Alaska 33.1 South Dakota Iowa Maine Montana 33.8 United States Wisconsin Delaware Oregon Kansas California Nebraska Illinois Utah North Dakota Rhode Island Virginia Hawaii New York Washington New Jersey Minnesota Source: U.S. Census 2000 Maryland Vermont New Hampshire Connecticut Colorado 45.3 Massachusetts 50 40 30 20 10 0
    • % of Adults Age 25-64 with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 16.5 West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas Kentucky Nevada Louisiana Nation 26.5% Alabama SD 24.5% Tennessee Indiana South Carolina Oklahoma Ohio Idaho Wyoming Michigan Florida Iowa North Carolina Missouri 24.5 South Dakota New Mexico Texas Arizona Maine Wisconsin Pennsylvania Alaska North Dakota Georgia 26.5 United States Montana Delaware Oregon Nebraska Utah California Kansas Hawaii Rhode Island Illinois Washington New York Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Minnesota New Hampshire Vermont Virginia New Jersey Maryland Connecticut Colorado 37.1 Massachusetts 40 30 20 10 0
    • 6.0 Arkansas % of Adults 25 to 64 With Graduate or Professional Degree 6.1 North Dakota 6.1 Mississippi 6.2 Nevada 6.5 West Virginia Nation 9.4% 6.5 South Dakota 6.8 Louisiana SD 6.5% 7.1 Oklahoma 7.1 Iowa 7.1 Idaho 7.2 Tennessee 7.2 South Carolina 7.3 Wyoming 7.4 Alabama 7.5 North Carolina 7.5 Kentucky 7.6 Montana 7.7 Wisconsin 7.7 Indiana 7.9 Texas 8.0 Ohio 8.1 Nebraska 8.3 Missouri 8.3 Maine 8.3 Florida 8.4 Utah 8.5 Arizona 8.6 Michigan 8.7 Alaska 8.8 Georgia 8.9 Hawaii 9.0 Minnesota 9.1 Oregon 9.4 Nation 9.4 Pennsylvania 9.4 Kansas 9.7 Washington 9.8 California 9.9 Delaware 10.2 New Mexico Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census 10.4 New Hampshire 10.4 Illinois 10.8 Rhode Island 11.6 Colorado 11.7 Vermont 12.0 New Jersey 12.4 Virginia 12.7 New York 14.3 Maryland 14.4 Connecticut 15.1 Massachusetts 8 4 0 16 12
    • 1.1 Nebraska Nevada Florida Number of Doctorates per 1,000 Workers in Arkansas West Virginia Kentucky We will also need more technicians Mississippi As Deep Underground Science and South Dakota Doctorates will be needed like other 2.4 Alabama Louisiana Engineering Lab develops, more Science and Engineering in SD Oklahoma South Carolina Iowa Arizona Georgia Kansas Wisconsin Maine Source: Development Report Card for the States, Corporation for Enterprise Development Indiana Missouri Texas Wyoming to help them. Montana lab states. Tennessee Idaho Michigan Illinois Ohio New Hampshire Alaska Oregon Minnesota North Carolina Utah Pennsylvania Hawaii California Virginia New York Rhode Island Washington Colorado Vermont New Jersey Connecticut Maryland Delaware North Dakota Massachusetts 9.0 New Mexico 9 6 3 0
    • South Dakota’s Research Industry
    • 42.4 South Dakota West Virginia Arkansas Maine Nevada Florida Doctoral Granting Institutions, 2002 Idaho Kentucky Per Capita R&D Expenditures at New Jersey Oklahoma Tennessee Mississippi Virginia Wyoming South Carolina Ohio Source: Development Report Card for the States, Corporation for Enterprise Development Indiana Minnesota Arizona Louisiana Alabama Delaware Kansas Illinois Texas Oregon Michigan Montana Georgia Washington Missouri Vermont California New York Colorado Hawaii North Dakota Wisconsin Rhode Island Pennsylvania North Carolina Nebraska Connecticut Utah New Mexico Iowa New Hampshire Alaska Massachusetts 304.3 Maryland $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0
    • 57.4 Maine 65.4 South Dakota Total R&D Expenditures Per Capita, 2003 West Virginia Arkansas Nevada Florida Idaho Oklahoma New Jersey Kentucky Minnesota Tennessee South Carolina Virginia Arizona Ohio Mississippi Kansas Louisiana Indiana Wyoming Oregon Alabama Texas Illinois Delaware Georgia 137.8 United States Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau Michigan Missouri Washington Hawaii California Colorado Montana New York Wisconsin Utah Pennsylvania New Mexico North Carolina Iowa Connecticut Vermont Nebraska Rhode Island New Hampshire North Dakota Alaska Massachusetts 368.4 Maryland $375 $300 $225 $150 $75 $0
    • 23.9 Maine Arkansas Oklahoma 36.9 South Dakota Federal R&D Expenditures Per Florida West Virginia Idaho New Jersey Kentucky Wyoming Nevada Louisiana Indiana South Carolina Kansas Minnesota Nebraska Arizona Ohio Capita, 2003 Virginia Tennessee Texas Mississippi Georgia Illinois Michigan 85.0 United States Oregon Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau Delaware California Missouri Alabama Wisconsin Montana Iowa North Carolina Washington North Dakota New York New Mexico Utah Vermont Pennsylvania Colorado Alaska Hawaii Connecticut 272.8 Rhode Island New Hampshire Massachusetts Maryland $225 $150 $75 $0
    • 0.0 Delaware Alaska Maine Wyoming Nevada Idaho Oklahoma Federal Medical Science R&D Per Montana 5.5 South Dakota New Jersey Arkansas Mississippi West Virginia Louisiana Kansas Nebraska Florida North Dakota New Mexico Indiana Arizona Capita, 2002 South Carolina Kentucky Virginia Hawaii Georgia Tennessee Texas Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau Michigan Oregon Illinois Ohio Utah 25.1 United States Rhode Island Wisconsin Colorado Missouri Minnesota California New York Alabama Iowa Washington Vermont North Carolina Pennsylvania New Hampshire Connecticut Massachusetts 70.1 Maryland $75 $50 $25 $0
    • 5.2 Maine Nevada Delaware Federal Life Science R&D Per 14.3 South Dakota West Virginia Oklahoma Florida Arkansas Idaho New Jersey Wyoming Mississippi Alaska Indiana Kentucky Arizona North Dakota South Carolina Capita, 2002 Louisiana Virginia Kansas Nebraska Hawaii New Mexico Georgia Ohio Tennessee Michigan Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau Illinois Montana Texas Minnesota Rhode Island California 44.6 United States Wisconsin Colorado Utah Oregon New Hampshire Alabama Washington Iowa New York North Carolina Missouri Pennsylvania Vermont Connecticut Massachusetts 104.9 Maryland $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $110 $100 $0
    • 0.0 Vermont West Virginia Alaska Federal Computer Science R&D South Carolina Arkansas Louisiana 0.4 South Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Montana Maine Iowa Wyoming Kentucky Michigan Per Capita, 2002 Kansas Florida Nevada Idaho New Jersey Missouri Tennessee Washington Indiana Delaware Alabama Connecticut Colorado Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau North Dakota Oregon Virginia Minnesota Arizona Wisconsin North Carolina Nebraska Texas New Mexico New York Georgia Mississippi 2.7 United States New Hampshire Rhode Island California Illinois Massachusetts 17.0 Utah Pennsylvania Hawaii Maryland $9 $6 $3 $0
    • 0.9 Alaska Idaho 2.0 South Dakota West Virginia Kentucky Maine Vermont Missouri Nevada Federal Physical Science R&D Arkansas Georgia Oregon Florida Tennessee South Carolina Oklahoma Ohio Per Capita, 2002 Minnesota New Hampshire Washington Louisiana Wyoming Nebraska North Carolina Texas Alabama New Jersey Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau Rhode Island Kansas Virginia Michigan Wisconsin Connecticut Iowa Illinois 7.4 United States North Dakota Indiana New York Pennsylvania Utah Mississippi Arizona New Mexico California Delaware Montana Hawaii Colorado Massachusetts 32.7 Maryland $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0
    • 1.7 Vermont Arkansas Maine Hawaii Nebraska Oregon Wyoming Connecticut Missouri Florida Kentucky Oklahoma Nevada Federal Engineering R&D Louisiana North Carolina Minnesota Tennessee Indiana Per Capita, 2002 Alaska Idaho Kansas Montana New Jersey 7.7 South Dakota Texas Illinois Washington Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau Arizona New York South Carolina Iowa Ohio Virginia California 11.2 United States Wisconsin Alabama Rhode Island West Virginia Michigan Colorado Georgia Mississippi New Hampshire Pennsylvania North Dakota Delaware Massachusetts 72.4 Utah New Mexico Maryland $40 $30 $20 $10 $0
    • 2010 Initiative GOAL THREE: Become a Recognized Leader in Research and Technology Development by 2010  3A. Secure Homestake Mine for use as an underground science laboratory  3B. Improve ranking to at least 30th nationally for NSF funding  3C. Develop research and technology infrastructure at our universities and with the private sector (Emphasis on research that can be commercialized and will benefit South Dakota)
    • South Dakota's Research Investment
    • Building and Infrastructure for a Research Industry FY05-07 New Investments 2010 Research Centers $ 8,600,000 EPSCoR Match $ 1,200,000 New Doctoral Programs $ 583,540 Faculty Research Seed Grants $ 894,293 DUSEL (Deep Underground Science $ 35,000,000 and Engineering Lab) $ 46,277,833
    • Forbes Magazine Top 10 Best Small Metropolitan Cities to Start a Business 1. Sioux Falls, SD 2. Las Cruces, NM Based on: 3. Fargo, ND Cost of Living 4. Bismarck, ND Crime Rate 5. Morgantown, WV Culture / Leisure 6. Rapid City, SD Education 7. Rochester, MN Income Growth 8. St. George, UT 9. Johnson City, TN Net Migration 10. Logan, UT Source: Forbes magazine, May, 2006
    • For Recruitment, Retention and Productivity-- Adapt the Workplace to Meet the Needs of All Three Age Groups of Workers YOUNG (under 34) They are the least satisfied and least engaged in their jobs and they want respect, independence, self-defined work schedules, challenging duties with sufficient pay or time-off when desired. To keep them happy, create an engaging, friendly and high performance environment. Allow them to try different challenges and opportunities. If they leave, make it easy for them to return. MIDDLE (35-54) They may have frustration if careers are stalled or if they are torn between work and family obligations. Others in this group may be reentering the workforce. Therefore, many are hungry for change. They value flexibility and aid in meeting their obligations. They like fresh assignments and more leadership assignments. OLDER (55+) They may welcome relocation or travel that they would have rejected when younger due to family obligations. They may welcome opportunities to mentor younger colleagues or work part-time or by assignment or project to blend retirement with work. When they “retire,” some may want to launch new, more flexible careers. Source: 7,700 Employee survey responses in WorkForce Crisis and Businessweek, April 24, 2006
    • See the Retiring 65+ Group as an Opportunity, Not a Problem Many Older Workers Can Have Higher Levels of—  Job satisfaction,  Productivity,  Loyalty/ enthusiasm, and  Want to stay longer or work part-time Many Older Workers Are Less Likely to --  Job hop,  Battle with colleagues, or  Suffer from burnout Older Workers Want—  Recognition of experience,  Meaningful work, and  Time flexibility. Source: Businessweek, April 24, 2006
    • So what are some issues/ideas? 1. Educate populace. 2. Set high standards for high school graduation. 3. Create public awareness of importance of education. 4. Involve private sector in determining actions. 5. Are colleges meeting education needs plus workforce training needs? 6. Fix leaks in the education pipeline? 7. Are you doing everything possible to improve college access and completion?  Preparation  Financial Aid  Incentives 8. Is there a “working” workforce training system? 9. Is there access to community college type programs?
    • So what are some issues/ideas? 1. Is being the “lowest” on some measures an advantage for future success? 3. Are you marketing South Dakota advantages strategically? 4. Are you thinking regionally or globally? 5. Involve private sector in determining actions. 6. Do your state “plans” link South Dakota’s postsecondary resources to South Dakota’s future economic success? Is this part of South Dakota’s higher education mission? 9. Public/Private Partnerships:  Centers of Excellence  Education/training for specific industries or fields of study  Allied health  Math & science teachers  Technology workers  Engineers  Other?
    • Ideas from the Great Lakes Regional Economic Initiative  Create the new – learning, research, innovations  Invite in – opening doors to ideas, people and trade  Build out – connect to the world  Link up – with others for synergy & strength  Build skills  Open immigration policy  Wired Midwest  Fix infrastructure  Open market abroad
    • We want your advice and ideas during the breakout sessions  Your reactions to the information presented.  Your ideas for what other sectors should be targeted for creating and attracting jobs.  Your recommendations for how business, education and government can help each other create a better workforce in SD. To help prime the pump for breakout discussions, we will also have some people give us some short reactions before lunch.
    • SD needs more people with more skills and education so it can attract more jobs and earn more money to boost even more its healthy economy for more South Dakotans. How can you work together to make this happen over the next 20 years?
    • Some Questions…  Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that provides health insurance for his or her family?  Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it possible to provide a good home for your grandchildren?  Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it possible to provide your grandchildren with extras such as family vacations, music lessons, summer camp, and recreational opportunities?  Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it possible to provide your grandchildren with a good quality of life AND be able to invest for their college education?  Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it possible to do all these while also investing for their own retirement?  Is South Dakota a “quality of place” that will make this happen plus attract others?
    • “If you don’t change your direction, you may wind up where you are headed.” -- Old Chinese Proverb