Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

State of Ingenuity: Comparison to National Trends

113

Published on

A presentation made by Norman Walzer and Brian Harger to the State of Ingenuity steering committee on November 18, 2011 at the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater.

A presentation made by Norman Walzer and Brian Harger to the State of Ingenuity steering committee on November 18, 2011 at the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. St t f I itState of Ingenuity Comparisons to National Trends Norman Walzer and Brian L. Harger Senior Research Scholar Research Associate Presented to SOI Steering Committee Whitewater, Wisconsin 11/18/2011 1
  • 2. Population & Employment TrendsPopulation & Employment Trends 11/18/2011 2
  • 3. Population Change by Age Cohort 52.5% 60.0% State of Ingenuity Region 28.5% 44.5% 30.8% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% to 2020 Silent  Generation 8.1% 7.6% 3 6% 4 3% 7.3% 11.0% 15.8% 4.6% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% cent Change 2010t Baby Bust Generation Z 3.6% ‐0.7% 2.8% 4.3% 0.9% ‐7.9% 4.6% 2.6% ‐10.0% 0.0% Perc Baby BoomersMillennials ‐14.5% ‐20.0% 11/18/2011 3 Data Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
  • 4. Population Change by Age Cohort 58.8% 60 0% 70.0% State of Ingenuity Region 31 5% 49.2% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% to 2030 Generation  8.5% 9.3% 8.3% 11.1% 18.4% 31.5% 17.1% 10 0% 20.0% 30.0% cent Change 2020t Baby Bust Generation Z Alpha? 2.7% 4.4% 5.2% 0.7% 3.7% 5.6% 1.7% ‐5.6%‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% Perc Baby BoomersMillennials ‐12.8% ‐20.0% 11/18/2011 4 Data Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
  • 5. Population Change by Age Cohort 43.0% 50.0% State of Ingenuity Region 21.9% 36.8% 30.0% 40.0% to 2040 Generation Z 8.1% 5.0% 2.9% 5.6% 11.1% 11.1% 4.7% 1.2% 5.0% 7.3% 9.6% 11.4% 2.8% 10.0% 20.0% cent Change 2030t Baby Bust Generation Z 1.2% ‐10.3% ‐2.6% ‐10.0% 0.0% Perc Baby BoomersMillennialsGeneration  Alpha? ‐20.0% 11/18/2011 5 Data Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
  • 6. Unemployment Rate State of Ingenuity Region 16.0 State of Ingenuity Region U S 12.0 14.0 U.S. ssion on ion 8.0 10.0 Rece Recessi Recessi 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990-2011.* Year by month. 11/18/2011 6 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 20
  • 7. Employment Trends by Industry Sector State of Ingenuity Region  50.0 Manufacturing ment 40.0 g Services Government TotalEmploym 30.0 PercentofT 10.0 20.0 0.0 Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990-2010. 11/18/2011 7
  • 8. Per Capita Wage Growth State of Ingenuity Region State of Ingenuity  R i United States Percent Change  (2001 2009)Industry Cluster Region (2001‐2009) 2001 2009 2001 2009 Region U.S. Agribusiness, Food Processing & Technology $35,614  $43,410  $29,369  $36,577  21.9 24.5 Bi di l/Bi t h i l (Lif S i ) $32 778 $47 618 $40 670 $52 802 45 3 29 8Biomedical/Biotechnical (Life Sciences) $32,778  $47,618  $40,670  $52,802  45.3 29.8 Business & Financial Services $37,930  $49,123  $63,750  $79,518  29.5 24.7 Defense & Security $31,370  $40,487  $51,609  $65,011  29.1 26.0 Education & Knowledge Creation $31,279 $39,048 $33,755 $43,098 24.8 27.7Education & Knowledge Creation $31,279  $39,048  $33,755  $43,098  24.8 27.7 Energy (Fossil & Renewable) $34,703  $42,314  $49,601  $66,403  21.9 33.9 Information Technology & Telecommunications $40,561  $50,831  $64,050  $80,444  25.3 25.6 Transportation & Logistics $30,150  $35,631  $38,066  $45,128  18.2 18.6 Manufacturing Supercluster $45,567  $56,089  $48,912  $62,141  23.1 27.0 Printing & Publishing $31,349  $40,219  $50,204  $62,087  28.3 23.7 Total All Industries $31,788  $37,752  $36,219  $45,559  18.8 25.8 11/18/2011 8 Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011.
  • 9. U.S. Industry Employment & Output Percent Change, 1998‐2008 Other services Religious, grantmaking, civic, professional organizatons Output Employment Education services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accomodation and food services Other services Employment Finance and insurance Real estate, rental, and leasing Professional, scientific, and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative, support, waste management and remediation Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing Information Finance and insurance Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing -50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 11/18/2011 9 Source: Employment Projections Program, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011.
  • 10. U.S. Industry Employment & Output Forecast Percent Change, 2008‐2018 Religious, grantmaking, civic, professional organizatons Output Education services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accomodation and food services Other services Employment Fi d i Real estate, rental, and leasing Professional, scientific, and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative, support, waste management and remediation Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing Information Finance and insurance Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing -50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 11/18/2011 10 Source: Employment Projections Program, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011.
  • 11. U.S. Industry Trends Forecasted Annual Rate of Change, 2008‐2018 Industry Description Pct. Of Total Emp. (2008) Employment Wages Output SOI Region U.S. Mining 0.1 0.6 -1.6 0.4 -0.2 Utilities 0.6 0.4 -1.1 0.9 0.9 Construction 5.3 7.7 1.7 1.4 2.9 Manufacturing 16.8 9.5 -0.9 -0.2 2.1 Wholesale trade 4.1 4.3 0.4 0.8 5.3 Retail trade 11.7 12.7 0.4 1.0 4.2 Transportation and warehousing 3.3 3.8 0.9 1.1 2.9 Information 1.2 2.4 0.4 1.0 5.4 Finance and insurance 3.4 5.6 0.5 1.1 9.3 Real estate, rental, and leasing 3.2 5.2 1.1 2.0 2.5 Professional, scientific, and technical services 3.5 7.9 3.0 2.1 3.2 Management of companies and enterprises 0.4 1.3 0.5 1.3 4.3 Ad i i t ti t t t d di ti 6 7 7 2 1 6 1 7 3 5Administrative, support, waste management and remediation 6.7 7.2 1.6 1.7 3.5 Education services 1.5 2.5 2.4 2.7 1.7 Health care and social assistance 11.8 11.8 2.3 2.0 3.6 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 2.0 2.4 1.4 1.7 1.9 Accommodation and food services 7 1 8 0 0 7 1 6 1 6Accommodation and food services 7.1 8.0 0.7 1.6 1.6 Other services 6.2 6.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 Data Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011. 11/18/2011 11
  • 12. Gross Regional Product State of Ingenuity Region $40,000,000,000 Actual $35,000,000,000 Forecast $30,000,000,000 $25,000,000,000 $20,000,000,000 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 11/18/2011 12 Note: Figures are in constant (2005) dollars. Data Sources: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
  • 13. Industrial & Occupational ClustersIndustrial & Occupational Clusters 11/18/2011 13
  • 14. Industry Concentrations 0.60 State of Ingenuity Region Employment Change 2001‐2009 0.40 Glass & Ceramics Business &  2009) 10.0% or more 5.0% to 9.9% 0.1% to 4.9% No Change 0 1% t 4 9% e              Increase 2001‐2009 Arts, Entertainment,  Recreation & Visitor Industries 0.20 Education &  Knowledge  Creation Financial Services Forest & Wood Products Transportation & Logistics b d h l Defense & Security inL.Q.(2001-2 ‐0.1% to ‐4.9% ‐5.0% to ‐9.9% ‐10.0% or more Decrease Mi i 0 20 0.00 Advanced  Materials Chemicals & Chemical‐based ProductsPrinting & Publishing Agribusiness , Food Processing & Technology Information Technology  & Telecommunications Changei Mining Apparel &  Textiles Manufacturing  Supercluster ‐0.40 ‐0.20 Energy (Fossil &  Renewable) Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011. Supe c uste Biomedical/ Biotechnical 11/18/2011 14 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Location Quotient (2009)
  • 15. Manufacturing Concentrations 0.40 State of Ingenuity Region 0 00 0.20 Computer & Electronic  Product Mfg. 9) -0.20 0.00 Primary Metals Mfg. Electrical Equipment, Appliance  & Component Mfg. F b i d M l L.Q.(2001-2009 Employment Change -0.40 Transportation  Equipment Mfg. Machinery Mfg. Fabricated Metal  Products Mfg. ChangeinL 10.0% or more 5.0% to 9.9% 0.1% to 4.9% No Change        Increase Employment Change 2001‐2009 -0.80 -0.60 0 00 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 00 5 00 6 00 q p g Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011. No Change ‐0.1% to ‐4.9% ‐5.0% to ‐9.9% ‐10.0% or more Decrease        11/18/2011 15 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Location Quotient (2009)
  • 16. Industry Employment Concentrations State of Ingenuity Region Industry Cluster Description Location Quotient 2001 2009 Change (2001‐2009) Advanced Materials 1.18 1.08 ‐0.10 Agribusiness, Food Processing & Technology 1.01 1.04 0.03 Apparel & Textiles 0.26 0.26 ‐0.01 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation & Visitor Industries 0.53 0.59 0.06 Biomedical/Biotechnical (Life Sciences) 0.81 0.73 ‐0.08 Business & Financial Services 0.39 0.37 ‐0.03 Chemicals & Chemical Based Products 1 55 1 32 0 22Chemicals & Chemical Based Products 1.55 1.32 ‐0.22 Defense & Security 0.25 0.29 0.04 Education & Knowledge Creation 0.55 0.74 0.19 Energy (Fossil & Renewable) 0.46 0.40 ‐0.06 Forest & Wood Products 0.75 0.91 0.15 Glass & Ceramics 1.07 1.57 0.50Glass & Ceramics 1.07 1.57 0.50 Information Technology & Telecommunications 0.36 0.27 ‐0.09 Transportation & Logistics 0.81 1.00 0.19 Manufacturing Supercluster 2.76 2.58 ‐0.18 Primary Metal Mfg 1.61 1.37 ‐0.24 Fabricated Metal Product Mfg 3.62 3.29 ‐0.33g Machinery Mfg 5.42 5.05 ‐0.36 Computer & Electronic Product Mfg 0.66 0.75 0.10 Electrical Equipment, Appliance & Component Mfg 3.22 3.12 ‐0.10 Transportation Equipment Mfg 2.28 1.77 ‐0.51 Mining 0.17 0.21 0.03 Printing & Publishing 0.63 0.59 ‐0.04 11/18/2011 16 Data Source:  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages  (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011.
  • 17. Components of Industry Growth  State of Ingenuity Region Industry Cluster Description National Job Growth  Component Industry Job Growth  Component Competitive Job  Growth Component Advanced Materials ‐168 ‐4,546 ‐6,952, , Agribusiness, Food Processing & Technology ‐78 ‐414 ‐748 Apparel & Textiles ‐10 ‐526 ‐596 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation & Visitor Industries ‐64 16 365 Biomedical/Biotechnical (Life Sciences) ‐74 1,999 143 Business & Financial Services ‐103 297 ‐1,471 Chemicals & Chemical Based Products ‐96 ‐2,673 ‐4,568 Defense & Security ‐39 19 460 Education & Knowledge Creation ‐151 2,065 7,436 Energy (Fossil & Renewable) ‐84 ‐228 ‐2,161 Forest & Wood Products ‐52 ‐1,822 ‐1,261 Gl & C i 16 567 42Glass & Ceramics ‐16 ‐567 ‐42 Information Technology & Telecommunications ‐62 ‐1,341 ‐3,243 Transportation & Logistics ‐74 ‐439 922 Manufacturing Supercluster ‐512 ‐18,223 ‐24,134 Primary Metal Mfg ‐22 ‐965 ‐1,326 Fabricated Metal Product Mfg ‐143 ‐3,827 ‐5,968Fabricated Metal Product Mfg 143 3,827 5,968 Machinery Mfg ‐174 ‐5,296 ‐7,443 Computer & Electronic Product Mfg ‐27 ‐1,172 ‐1,023 Electrical Equipment, Appliance & Component Mfg ‐42 ‐1,686 ‐2,033 Transportation Equipment Mfg ‐105 ‐3,749 ‐6,336 Mining ‐1 ‐5 6 Printing & Publishing ‐43 ‐1,021 ‐1,582 11/18/2011 17 Data Source:  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages  (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011.
  • 18. Industry Wage Concentrations State of Ingenuity Region Industry Cluster Description Location Quotient 2001 2009 Change (2001‐2009) Advanced Materials 1.24 0.88 ‐0.36 Agribusiness, Food Processing & Technology 1.39 1.49 0.10 Apparel & Textiles 0.31 0.29 ‐0.02 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation & Visitor Industries 0.35 0.38 0.03 Biomedical/Biotechnical (Life Sciences) 0.74 0.79 0.05 Business & Financial Services 0.27 0.27 0.00 Chemicals & Chemical Based Products 1 95 1 23 ‐0 72Chemicals & Chemical Based Products 1.95 1.23 ‐0.72 Defense & Security 0.17 0.22 0.05 Education & Knowledge Creation 0.58 0.80 0.22 Energy (Fossil & Renewable) 0.37 0.31 ‐0.06 Forest & Wood Products 0.80 1.00 0.20 Glass & Ceramics 1.12 1.58 0.46 Information Technology & Telecommunications 0.26 0.21 ‐0.05 Transportation & Logistics 0.73 0.95 0.22 Manufacturing Supercluster 2.93 2.81 ‐0.12 Primary Metal Mfg 1.57 1.41 ‐0.16 Fabricated Metal Product Mfg 4.22 3.65 ‐0.57 M hi Mf 6 71 6 55 0 16Machinery Mfg 6.71 6.55 ‐0.16 Computer & Electronic Product Mfg 0.46 0.55 0.09 Electrical Equipment, Appliance & Component Mfg 3.41 3.44 0.03 Transportation Equipment Mfg 2.84 2.43 ‐0.41 Mining 0.23 0.32 0.09 Printing & Publishing 0.45 0.46 0.01Printing & Publishing 0.45 0.46 0.01 11/18/2011 18 Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011.
  • 19. Industry Employment Concentrations State of Ingenuity Region • The region has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) strong  employment concentrations in manufacturing related industry  clusters.  However, that dominance is declining due in part to local  competitive factors, as well as national and industry related factors.p , y • The Transportation and Logistics cluster, though relatively small in  terms of regional employment, has experienced positive growth.   Th l i t th t h f thi th i b d l lThe analysis suggests that much of this growth is based on local  competitive advantages.  • Several other clusters (Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and Visitor Se e a ot e c uste s ( ts, te ta e t, ec eat o a d s to industries, Biomedical/Biotechnical, and Defense and Security)  could emerge as future sources of regional employment growth. 11/18/2011 19
  • 20. Occupational Employment Concentrations 0.10 State of Ingenuity Region M h i S i i Natural Sciences and  Environmental Management Managerial, Sales, Marketing  and Human Resources Crop and Livestock Workers Health Care and  Medical Science 0.00 Job Zone 1 Technology‐Based  Knowledge Clusters Information Technology -2009) Mathematics, Statistics,  Data and Accounting Job Zone 2 Public Safety and  -0.10 Post‐Secondary Education  & Knowledge Creation Legal and Financial  Services, and Real Estate einL.Q.(2001- Arts, Entertainment,  Publishing & Broadcasting Domestic Security Personal Services Occupations Primary/Secondary and  Vocational Education,  Remediation & Social Services -0.20 Building, Landscape and  Skilled Production  Workers Change 10.0% or more 5.0% to 9.9% 0.1% to 4.9%      Increase Employment Change 2001‐2009 Engineering and  Related Sciences -0.30 0 40 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 80 0 90 1 00 1 10 1 20 1 30 Construction Design Data Source:  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages  (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011. No Change ‐0.1% to ‐4.9% ‐5.0% to ‐9.9% ‐10.0% or more Decrease          0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 Location Quotient (2009) 11/18/2011 20
  • 21. Occupational Employment Concentrations State of Ingenuity Region Occupational Cluster Description Location Quotient 2001 2009 Change (2001-2009) Managerial Sales Marketing and HR 0 77 0 81 0 04Managerial, Sales, Marketing and HR 0.77 0.81 0.04 Skilled Production Workers: Technicians, Operators, Trades, Installers & Repairers 1.29 1.19 -0.10 Health Care and Medical Science (Aggregate) 0.94 0.98 0.04 Health Care and Medical Science (Medical Practitioners and Scientists) 0.74 0.84 0.10 Health Care and Medical Science (Medical Technicians) 1.01 0.99 -0.02 Health Care and Medical Science (Therapy, Counseling and Rehabilitation ) 0.99 1.04 0.05 Mathematics, Statistics, Data and Accounting 0.68 0.68 0.00 Legal and Financial Services, and Real Estate 0.83 0.80 -0.03 Information Technology (IT) 0.47 0.48 0.01 Natural Sciences and Environmental Management 0.40 0.42 0.02 Crop and Livestock Workers 0.78 0.84 0.06 Primary/Secondary and Vocational Education, Remediation & Social Services 1.13 1.19 0.06 Building, Landscape and Construction Design 0.87 0.65 -0.22 Engineering and Related Sciences 0.82 0.68 -0.14 Personal Services Occupations 1.14 1.09 -0.05 Arts, Entertainment, Publishing and Broadcasting 0.80 0.85 0.05 Public Safety and Domestic Security 0.89 0.90 0.01 Postsecondary Education and Knowledge Creation 0.77 0.72 -0.05 Job Zone 2 1.12 1.12 0.00 Job Zone 1 1.01 1.04 0.03 Technology-Based Knowledge Clusters 0.65 0.65 0.00 11/18/2011 21 Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011.
  • 22. Occupational Employment Growth Components  S f I i R iState of Ingenuity Region Industry Name National Job Growth Component Industry Job Growth Component Competitive Job Growth Component Managerial, Sales, Marketing and HR 1,611 1,900 1,579 Skill d P d ti W k T h i i O t T d I t ll &Skilled Production Workers: Technicians, Operators, Trades, Installers & Repairers 2,475 -3,498 -10,173 Health Care and Medical Science (Aggregate) 1,188 2,687 2,178 Health Care and Medical Science (Medical Practitioners and Scientists) 219 425 708 Health Care and Medical Science (Medical Technicians) 252 761 312 Health Care and Medical Science (Therapy, Counseling & Rehabilitation) 716 1,527 1,162 Mathematics, Statistics, Data and Accounting 419 68 -553 Legal and Financial Services, and Real Estate 1,619 2,019 -1,311 Information Technology (IT) 243 -100 -329 Natural Sciences and Environmental Management 44 37 20g Crop and Livestock Workers 317 -405 -400 Primary/Secondary and Vocational Education, Remediation & Social Services 1,434 1,771 1,269 Building, Landscape and Construction Design 110 -129 -757 Engineering and Related Sciences 230 -409 -1,361 P l S i O ti 530 2 549 1 125Personal Services Occupations 530 2,549 1,125 Arts, Entertainment, Publishing and Broadcasting 397 583 500 Public Safety and Domestic Security 250 344 66 Postsecondary Education and Knowledge Creation 222 139 -422 Job Zone 2 9,899 -9,851 -21,214 Job Zone 1 3,884 -3,318 -6,647 Technology-Based Knowledge Clusters 1,378 155 -1,938 11/18/2011 22 Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Purdue Center for Regional Development (cluster definitions), 2011.
  • 23. Occupational Employment Concentrations State of Ingenuity Region • As the manufacturing employment has receded, so has the number  of those employed in skilled production occupations. • The region’s healthcare occupational clusters have enjoyed strong  job growth in the past decade due in part to local competitivejob growth in the past decade, due in part to local competitive  factors. • The Personal Services and the Primary/Secondary and Vocational y/ y Education, Remediation & Social Services clusters have also shown  growth potential base on local competitive advantages. Th T h l B d K l d Cl t h th t ti l• The Technology‐Based Knowledge Cluster has growth potential,  based on national and industry wide growth trends, but is declining  in the region because of local competitive factors. 11/18/2011 23
  • 24. Business Vitality & Access to CapitalBusiness Vitality & Access to Capital 11/18/2011 24
  • 25. Trends in Business Establishments State of Ingenuity Region, 2006‐2008 Type of Business Net  Opened2 Net  Expanded3 Net Moved  In4 Stage /Sector  Movement5 Net New6 p p Total 8,274 1,782 20 ‐1,616 8,460 Noncommercial 198 154 1 ‐149 204 Nonresident1 ‐225 ‐10 0 99 ‐136Nonresident 225 10 0 99 136 Resident1 8,301 1,638 19 ‐1,566 8,392 Self Employed (1) 4,508 1,423 ‐13 ‐2,217 3,701 Stage 1 (2 to 9 employees) 3 973 251 18 500 4 742Stage 1 (2 to 9 employees) 3,973 251 18 500 4,742 Stage 2 (10 to 99 employees) ‐169 ‐35 19 150 ‐35 Stage 3 (100 to 499 employees) ‐9 2 ‐3 0 ‐10 Stage 4 (500+ employees) ‐2 ‐3 ‐2 1 ‐6Stage 4 (500+ employees) 2 3 2 1 6 1 Resident businesses are either stand-alone in area or headquartered in same state; non-resident businesses are headquartered in a different state. 2 The “Net Opened” column is the difference in the number of businesses “Opened” and the number of businesses “Closed”. 3 The “Net Expanded” column is the difference in the number of businesses “Expanded” and the number businesses “Contracted”. 4 The “Net Moved In” column is the difference in the number of businesses “Moved In” and the number of jobs lost in businesses “Moved Out”. 5 The “Stage/Sector Movement” column is the difference in the number of businesses that moved between Resident business stages or between Resident, N R id t N i l t 11/18/2011 25 Non-Resident, or Noncommercial sectors. 6 The “Net Expanded” column is the difference in the number of businesses “Expanded” and the number of businesses “Contracted”. Data Source: National Establishment Time‐Series (NETS) database, 2010.
  • 26. Trends in Business Employment State of Ingenuity Region, 2006‐2008 Type of Business Net  Opened2 Net  Expanded3 Net Moved  In4 Stage /Sector  Movement5 Net New6 p p Total ‐16,816 3,637 ‐2,753 3,039 ‐12,893 Noncommercial ‐2,178 1,313 ‐14 660 ‐219 Nonresident* ‐22 056 802 ‐882 3 948 ‐18 188Nonresident   22,056 802 882 3,948 18,188 Resident* 7,418 1,522 ‐1,857 ‐1,569 5,514 Self Employed (1) 4,508 2,640 ‐13 ‐3,434 3,701 Stage 1 (2 to 9 employees) 7 853 3 618 81 ‐840 10 712Stage 1 (2 to 9 employees) 7,853 3,618 81 840 10,712 Stage 2 (10 to 99 employees) ‐3,397 75 475 1,931 ‐916 Stage 3 (100 to 499 employees) ‐1,642 ‐639 ‐700 545 ‐2,436 Stage 4 (500+ employees) 96 ‐4 172 ‐1 700 229 ‐5 547Stage 4 (500+ employees) 96 4,172 1,700 229 5,547 1 Resident businesses are either stand-alone in area or headquartered in same state; non-resident businesses are headquartered in a different state. 2 The “Net Opened” column is the difference in the number of jobs gained in businesses “Opened” and the number of jobs lost in businesses “Closed”. 3 The “Net Expanded” column is the difference in the number of jobs gained in businesses “Expanded” and the number of jobs lost in businesses “Contracted”. 4 The “Net Moved In” column is the difference in the number of jobs gained in businesses “Moved In” and the number of jobs lost in businesses “Moved Out”. 5 The “Stage/Sector Movement” column is the difference in the number of jobs gained and lost in businesses that moved between Resident business stages or b t R id t N R id t N i l t 11/18/2011 26 between Resident, Non-Resident, or Noncommercial sectors. 6 The “Net Expanded” column is the difference in the number of jobs gained in businesses “Expanded” and the number of jobs lost in businesses “Contracted”. Data Source: National Establishment Time‐Series (NETS) database, 2010.
  • 27. Business Vitality Indicators State of Ingenuity Region Industry Sector Startup Activity  (%) Firm Failure  (%) Small Business  il (%) Industry Sector (%) Rates (%) Failure Rates (%) Agriculture 3.7 6.8 6.8 Mining 5.2 10.1 8.8 Construction 8.7 9.2 9.3 Manufacturing 3.6 5.9 6.3 Transportation, Communications, Utilities 9.5 9.4 9.7p , , Wholesale 6.5 5.5 5.9 Retail 6.4 9.7 8.4 Fi I R l E t t 10 9 7 2 7 3Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 10.9 7.2 7.3 Services 6.6 9.8 9.7 Total 6.9 8.7 8.6 11/18/2011 27 Data Source: BizMiner.com, Local Business Vitality Indicators for the period January 2008 ‐ December 2008.
  • 28. Small Business Lending & Capital Access National Trends (2003‐2010) • Small business lending in the U.S. peaked in 2008 when depository  institutions in the held more than $711 billion in small business  loans.  • From 2008 to 2010 small business lending declined by 8 3 percentFrom 2008 to 2010, small business lending declined by 8.3 percent  to $652 billion.  In 2009‐2010, lenders reduced their small loan  portfolio by $43 billion. • Large lenders (those with $10 billion or more in assets) which hold• Large lenders (those with $10 billion or more in assets), which hold  about 48 percent of all small business loans, were responsible for  more than 55 percent of the decline. • The market for small business loans has become more concentrated  with large lenders holding 48 percent of small business loans in  2010, up from 44 percent in 2003. 11/18/2011 28
  • 29. Small Business Lending & Capital Access National Trends (2003‐2010) The causes of the downturn in the value of loans held by lenders are  if ld Th i l d b t t li it d t th f ll imanifold.  They include, but are not limited to, the following: • The decline in housing prices; decreasing the value of important collateral for  many small business borrowers and subsequently reducing the amount of money  il bl f h l davailable from the lender. • The lack of demand for the products or services sold by small businesses;  consequently, growth plans have also slowed. In a slowing economy, prudent  business owners seek to limit their risk exposure by reducing loan balances andbusiness owners seek to limit their risk exposure by reducing loan balances and  avoiding debt. • Regulators are monitoring lending activity more closely and are more quick to  classify loans as nonperforming than they were previously. • In the new regulatory environment, smaller lenders are likely to be less profitable  because they have fewer sales of products and services to spread out over the  higher auditing and FDIC costs.  Hence, they have less money to lend to small  b i d thbusinesses and others. 11/18/2011 29
  • 30. Small Business Lending & Capital Access Regional Trends (2003‐2010) • Aggregate lending for community lenders in SBA Region 5* declined  b 6 3 t f 2009 t 2010by 6.3 percent from 2009 to 2010.  • The number of small business loans decreased by about 105,000, or  nearly 14 percent.   • Lenders with assets of $100 million to $500 million experienced a  17.2 percent drop in the number of small business loans.  This  accounted for more than half of the total decline in small businessaccounted for more than half of the total decline in small business  loans. • The mean loan value decreased by less than 1 percent for small  business loansbusiness loans. • The total assets ratio (small business loans to total assets) declined  by over 4 percent. 11/18/2011 30 *SBA Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin).
  • 31. Aggregate Value of Small Business Loans* Community lenders with less than $10 billion in total assets 35,000 25,000 30,000 rs Less than $100 million 15,000 20,000 lionsofDollar $100 million to $499.9 million $500 million to $999.9 million $1 billion to $9.9 billion 5,000 10,000 Mill 0 , 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 *SBA Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Data Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Lenders (http://www2.fdic.gov/sdi/main.asp) 11/18/2011 31
  • 32. Aggregate Number of Small Business Loans* Community lenders with less than $10 billion in total assets 600 Less than $100 million 400 500 ans $100 million to $499.9 million $500 million to $999.9 million $1 billion to $9.9 billion 300 usandsofLoa 100 200 Thou 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 *SBA Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Data Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Lenders (http://www2.fdic.gov/sdi/main.asp) 11/18/2011 32
  • 33. Mean Value of Small Business Loans* Community lenders with less than $10 billion in total assets 180 Less than $100 million 140 160 ollars $100 million to $499.9 million $500 million to $999.9 million $1 billion to $9.9 billion 120 ousandsofDo 80 100 Tho 60 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 *SBA Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Data Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Lenders (http://www2.fdic.gov/sdi/main.asp) 11/18/2011 33
  • 34. Ratio of Small Business Loans to Total Assets* Community lenders with less than $10 billion in total assets 0.200 0.175 oTotalAssets 0 125 0.150 nessLoansto 0.100 0.125 ioSmallBusin Less than $100 million $100 million to $499.9 million 0.075 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Rati $500 million to $999.9 million $1 billion to $9.9 billion *SBA Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Data Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Lenders (http://www2.fdic.gov/sdi/main.asp) 11/18/2011 34
  • 35. Ratio of Small Business Loans to All Business Loans* Community lenders with less than $10 billion in total assets 1.000 s 0.800 oAllBusiness 0 400 0.600 inessLoansto Loans 0.200 0.400 ofSmallBusi Less than $100 million $100 million to $499.9 million $500 million to $999 9 million 0.000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ratio $500 million to $999.9 million $1 billion to $9.9 billion *SBA Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). Data Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Lenders (http://www2.fdic.gov/sdi/main.asp) 11/18/2011 35
  • 36. SBA 7a Program: Number of Loans State of Ingenuity Region 100 Boone County 90 80 Winnebago County Kenosha County Racine County Rock County 56 47 51 60 Walworth County 47 26 24 26 28 33 2930 32 36 20 40 9 8 4 7 24 20 20 10 11 19 4 8 0 20 2008 2009 2010 20112008 2009 2010 2011 Data Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, 2011. 11/18/2011 36
  • 37. SBA 7a Program: Aggregate Amount of Loans  State of Ingenuity Region $30,000,000 Boone County $27,261,800 $25,000,000 Winnebago County Kenosha County Racine County Rock County 0 $ $17,07 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 Rock County Walworth County $ $ $8,9 $11,186,5 $ $ $ $9,31 $ $14,509,000 $ $ $ $ $ $12,794,900 $ $ 72,100 $ $10,000,000 $601,000 $749,200 $2,567,200 $4,590,300 39,600 500 7,341,500 $2,615,500 $4,310,500 16,500 $5,475,500 $4,310,500 $3,788,900 $6,772,000 $1,773,300 $6,747,000 0 $594,400 $2,615,500 $7,049,400 $7,207,500 $0 $5,000,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 Data Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, 2011. 11/18/2011 37
  • 38. SBA 504 Program: Number of Loans State of Ingenuity Region 16 Boone County 13 15 12 14 Winnebago County Kenosha County Racine County Rock County 8 8 10 Walworth County 5 4 6 7 5 4 6 1 0 0 0 4 1 2 2 0 3 01 3 2 2 3 1 0 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 Data Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, 2011. 11/18/2011 38
  • 39. SBA 504 Program: Aggregate Amount of Loans  State of Ingenuity Region $10,000,000 Boone County $8,412,0 $8,000,000 Winnebago County Kenosha County Racine County Rock County 000 $5 $6,000,000 Rock County Walworth County $4,359,000 $3,717,0 $3,871,00 $3,1 5,068,000 $4,633,000 $4,000,000 $1,025,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,143,000 000 $1,901,000 $215,000 $2,135,000 00 15,000 $1,989,000 $0 $516,000 $1,995,000 $1,064,000 $250,700 $998,000 $418,000 $0 $2,000,000 $ 2008 2009 2010 2011 Data Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, 2011. 11/18/2011 39
  • 40. Innovation Index 11/18/2011 40
  • 41. Innovation Index Overview The Innovation Index takes a broad look at indicators related to  innovation from both the input and output perspectives.  The Index consists of four components.  • Human Capital: 30%Human Capital: 30% • Economic Dynamics: 30% • Productivity and Employment: 30%y p y • Economic Well‐Being: 10% 11/18/2011 41
  • 42. Innovation Index Overview Based on statistical analysis, several factors appear to be y , pp especially important for increasing economic growth: Ed ti l tt i t• Educational attainment  • Young‐adult population growth  • High‐tech employment growthHigh tech employment growth  • The number of small establishments 11/18/2011 42
  • 43. Innovation Index State of Ingenuity Region 88 5Total Innovation Index U.S. Average = 100.0 79.7 88.5 Human Capital Total Innovation Index 77.1Economic Dynamics 107.5Productivity and Employment 92.5 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Economic Well‐Being Data Sources:  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),  the Indiana Business Research Center and the Purdue Center for Regional Development ,2011. 11/18/2011 43
  • 44. Innovation Index State of Ingenuity Region Human Capital RACINE Human capital inputs are those characteristics that describe the ability of the population and labor force KENOSHA 87.0 ROCK 87.4 WALWORTH 83.6 97.1 to innovate. “High Tech” Employment Population Age 25-64 with Some College or AA Degree WINNEBAGO 84.7 BOONE 80.3 Some College or AA Degree Population Age 25-64 with Baccalaureate Degree -20% Young Adult Population NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Young Adult Population Population Growth Tech-Based Occupations NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Data Source: Mapping Innovation Tool, StatsAmerica.org, 2011. 11/18/2011 44
  • 45. Human Capital Index State of Ingenuity Region Human capital inputs areHuman capital inputs are those characteristics that describe the ability of the population and labor force to innovate.RACINE “High Tech” Employment Population Age 25-64 with Some College or AA Degree KENOSHA 88.8 ROCK 74.5 WALWORTH 80.7 79.3 Population Age 25-64 with Baccalaureate Degree -20% Young Adult Population WINNEBAGO 78.7 BOONE 72.7 Population Growth Tech-Based Occupations NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. 11/18/2011 45 NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Data Source: Mapping Innovation Tool, StatsAmerica.org, 2011.
  • 46. Economic Dynamics Index State of Ingenuity Region This component measuresThis component measures local resources available to county entrepreneurs and businesses that encourage innovationRACINE close to home. Venture Capital Investment Average Establishment Churn KENOSHA 79.2 ROCK 75.6 WALWORTH 78.5 84.3 Churn Broadband Connections Change in Broadband Density WINNEBAGO 79.0 BOONE 79.1 NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Large Establishments Per Capita Small Establishments Per CapitaNOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Data Source: Mapping Innovation Tool, StatsAmerica.org, 2011. p 11/18/2011 46
  • 47. Productivity & Employment Index State of Ingenuity Region This component measuresThis component measures local resources available to county entrepreneurs and businesses that encourage innovationRACINE close to home. Job Growth to Population Growth Change in “High Tech” KENOSHA 90.1 ROCK 81.3 WALWORTH 87.2 128.6 Change in High Tech Employment Share Average Patents (per 1,000 workers) GDP W k WINNEBAGO 94.7 BOONE 86.0 NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. GDP per Worker Average Annual Rate of Change (per worker) NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Data Source: Mapping Innovation Tool, StatsAmerica.org, 2011. 11/18/2011 47
  • 48. Economic Well‐Being Index State of Ingenuity Region Innovative economies improve economic well- being for residents because they earn more and have in increasing standard of living RACINE standard of living. Average Poverty Rate Average Unemployment Rate KENOSHA 95.4 ROCK 89.8 WALWORTH 96.7 94.8 Average Net Internal Migration Change Per Capita Personal Income WINNEBAGO 90.0 BOONE 89.8 NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Income Change in Wage/Salary Compensation (per worker) Change in Proprietor Income (per proprietor)NOTE: Darker colors indicate higher index values. Data Source: Mapping Innovation Tool, StatsAmerica.org, 2011. (per proprietor) 11/18/2011 48
  • 49. For Further InformationFor Further Information Contact: Norman Walzer Brian Harger Senior Research Scholar Research Associate nwalzer@niu.edu bharger@niu.edu Center for Governmental Studies Northern Illinois University De Kalb, IL 60115 815‐753‐1907

×