1. Analysis of Manufacturing in the Midwest
The following analysis looks at the trends in manufacturing as a whole, manufacturing of nondurable
and durable goods, and manufacturing of the major sectors in durable goods. The charts display data
regarding not-seasonally-adjusted nonfarm payroll employment in manufacturing obtained from
Current Employment Statistics survey (CES) over the past five years. The sectors of durable goods were
chosen due to their prominence in Illinois or the Midwest.
Manufacturing
In average monthly employment in manufacturing (Fig. 1.1), Ohio holds a clear lead in the
manufacturing employment in the Midwest. Illinois comes in second; however, Michigan has increased
its average monthly employment at a significantly faster rate than Illinois. Therefore it can be
anticipated that its monthly average will take over that of Illinois in the near future, especially
considering that its total manufacturing employment has been greater than Illinois’ since June 2014.
Michigan’s changes in employment have been much more volatile in its recessionary drops than Illinois,
hence the reason its lead over Illinois in the early 2000s did not take hold during the .com bust. But its
ability to recover faster, especially with its strengths in transportation, has helped it to be able to
bounce back faster as well.
Illinois remains more stagnant, struggling to recover after the great recession. If Illinois does not start to
show more significant growth, there is a high chance that Indiana will also increase past Illinois’ average
monthly employment in manufacturing in the coming years as Indiana is also increasing at a significantly
larger rate than Illinois.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
(in thousands)
Average Monthly Employment in Manufacturing
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.1

2. Nondurable Goods
From 1990 to around 2009 most of the trends for the Midwest states are in a decline. By 2010, states
start to show a slight recovery or at least leveling from the great recession. While third in nondurable
goods employment, Wisconsin has shown the greatest percent change over the year for the past five
years. They are currently up 4.3 percent from April 2014, while Ohio is only up 2.5 percent and Illinois is
actually down 0.7 percent. With the current trends, it looks as though Illinois will drop to third within
the next ten or so years even though it held the lead in 2014 at 230.4 thousand average monthly
employees (Fig. 1.2).
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
(in thousands) Average Monthly Employment in Non-Durable Goods
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Manufacturing Employees in
Nondurable Goods
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3

3. In manufacturing of nondurable goods, Illinois employs the greatest number of employees with Ohio not
too far behind. Yet by looking at the percent of manufacturing employees in nondurable goods (Fig. 1.3)
it is evident that Nebraska is the most reliant on nondurable goods manufacturing in the Midwest.
Currently 52.9 percent of its manufacturing employees work with nondurable goods, while only 39.8
percent for Illinois and 31.9 percent for Ohio. The rest of the states in the Midwest are only reliant on
nondurable goods 40 percent or less, making Nebraska the only state to have the majority of its
manufacturing employees working with nondurable goods, though the majority is small.
Durable Goods
Currently, Ohio has the greatest employment in durable goods, but it holds a longstanding competition
with Michigan for this position, as seen in Fig. 1.4. The difference between the two has been decreasing
as they started to recover from the recession in 2009, with the 2014 Ohio employment at 458.2
thousand and Michigan at 437.4 thousand. Illinois and Indiana are in a similar relationship in third and
fourth greatest employment as Ohio and Michigan are for first and second. However, Illinois’ percent
change over the year has been decreasing while Indiana’s has had a slight increase, causing Illinois to
drop to fourth in May 2013. Illinois shows no signs of exceeding Indiana’s employment.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(in thousands)
Average Monthly Employment in Durable Goods
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.4

4. While having the second largest number of employees in durable goods, Michigan has the greatest
importance with 76.0 percent of their manufacturing employees in 2014 working with durable goods
(Fig. 1.5). As Nebraska was the only state to have a majority of manufacturing employees working on
nondurable goods, it only makes sense that the rest of the states have a majority of manufacturing
employees working on durable goods. Illinois has a fairly stable, if not declining, majority of
manufacturing employees on durable goods, while the rest of the states, with the exception of Kansas,
show an increasing majority of manufacturing employees working on durable goods.
Chemicals
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Manufacturing Employees in
Durable Goods
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio
(in thousands)
Monthly Average Employment in Chemicals
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6

5. Chemical manufacturing is the only area where Illinois has been at and maintained the largest
employment in the Midwest. Ohio is in a close second to Illinois but has recently started to trend
downward while Illinois’ employment increases. Michigan and Indiana are also on the rise, but have
some catching up to do with Illinois’ 45.3 thousand (Fig. 1.6). With Michigan’s larger percent change
increases, Illinois should be making sure that there are extra efforts to maintain their only lead in the
manufacturing industry.
Not only does Illinois have the greatest number of manufacturing employees in chemicals, but it also has
the greatest percent of its manufacturing employees in chemicals. While chemicals only make up 13.0
percent of employees in manufacturing, chemicals are actually the fourth largest percentage of
employees in durable goods manufacturing (Fig. 1.7). Ohio is close behind at 9.4 percent. All of the
states besides Illinois have a decreasing percentage of chemical employees, making it possible for Illinois
to maintain this important lead.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Durable Goods Employees in
Chemicals
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.7

6. Fabricated Metal Products
In the manufacturing of fabricated metal products, Ohio has consistently held the lead with Illinois not
too far behind. However, Fig. 1.8 demonstrates that in recent years the gap between the two has grown
as Ohio’s employment has continued to increase while Illinois’ has started to decrease. All of the states
show an increase in employees with the exceptions of Illinois and Missouri.
Illinois and Wisconsin are incredibly close for the percent of manufacturing employees in fabricated
metals at 26.6 and 26.2 percent, meaning that either one could prove to have a greater percent of
manufacturing employees working with fabricated metals in the next release of data (Fig. 1.9). As
fabricated metals are the largest area of durable goods manufactured for Illinois, it is important that
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
(in thousands) Average Monthly Employment in Fabricated Metal
Products
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Durable Goods Employees in
Fabricated Metal Products
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.9
Figure 1.8

7. Illinois maintains this lead in order to ensure the strength of the industry. Ohio is the closest threat at
22.4 percent, but there are also several other states that have fabricated metals making up at least 15
percent of their manufacturing employees. Due to the competition in this field, Illinois must work
extremely hard ensure its significance in fabricated metals remains high.
Machinery
In machinery, Illinois has the greater workforce, but Ohio is a real threat to that as the current difference
between the two is only 2.6 thousand employees (Fig. 1.10). With Ohio’s percent change over the year
currently at 3.9 percent, it will most likely overtake Illinois in the next month’s report as Illinois’s percent
change over the year still trying to creep out of a negative percent change in comparison to the previous
year. Wisconsin and Michigan are in third and fourth for machinery employment, and have had very
close numbers over the past years, yet Michigan has been able to maintain its lead as its percent change
over the year has increased while Wisconsin’s decreased.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
(in thousands)
Average Monthly Employment in Machinery
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.10

8. North Dakota relies heavily on machinery for its manufacturing employees, with the data for 2014
putting machinery at 33.5 percent (Fig. 1.11). This is in spite having only 6.0 thousand employees in
machinery compared to Illinois’ 80.4 thousand (Fig. 1.10). Iowa is in a close second at 32.1 percent, and
Illinois actually comes in third at 23.0 percent. This does not change the fact that machinery employees
the second largest percentage of manufacturing employees in Illinois working with durable goods.
Computer & Electrical Products
Illinois had the lead in the computer and electrical products employment, peaking at the early 2000s
when its decreasing trend passed Minnesota. It has since slowed down its decline, but shows no signs of
increasing soon, sitting at a low of 31.6 thousand in 2014 (Fig. 1.12). Over the last five years, the percent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Durable Goods Employees in
Machinery
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Ohio
(in thousands)
Average Monthly Employment in Computer & Electrical
Products
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.12
Figure 1.11

9. changes for the top four state percent changes (Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana) have followed a
fairly similar pattern. But Minnesota has shown a steeper increase over the past year. This will help
Minnesota maintain its lead. It the states continue the way they have been going, Illinois will be able to
maintain its second place position for a few more years, but at the risk of continually losing employees.
Minnesota not only employees the most in computer & electrical products, but also has the largest
percent of its durable manufacturing employees even though the percentage has been declining. The
other Midwest states pale in comparison to Minnesota’s 22.7 percent with their 2014 percentages not
even breaking 10.0 (Fig. 1.13). Missouri is the only state increasing percentage of manufacturing
employees in computer & electrical products. While Illinois is in a decline, computer & electrical
products are only its sixth largest percent of employees in durable manufacturing, and its percentages in
this area are not much higher than the other states with the obvious exception of Minnesota.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Ohio
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Durable Goods Employees in
Computer & Electrical Products
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.13

10. Transportation Equipment
It is no surprise that Michigan is in the lead in transportation equipment by a long shot. While states
with a larger transportation employment had a larger loss during the great recession, their recovery was
also significantly greater. States with the second and third greatest employment are Indiana and Ohio,
but their recovery trends after the great recession line up almost perfectly. Illinois’ transportation
equipment employment averages around 41.8 thousand, not even coming near Michigan’s current
175.9 thousand (Fig. 1.14). While Illinois’ employment is slightly increasing, drastic measures would have
to be taken to make it stand out from the rest of the Midwest states.
0
50
100
150
200
(in thousands) Average Monthly Employment in Transportation
Equipment
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Percent
Percent of Average Monthly Durable Goods Employees in
Transportation Equipment
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 1.15
Figure 1.14

11. Michigan puts the most importance on transportation equipment with 40.2 percent of its manufacturing
employees working and showing steady growth. Kansas and Indiana are close behind, but Kansas is
actually in a slight decline (Fig. 1.15). Oddly enough, Kansas has 39.5 percent of its manufacturing
employees in this sector of durable goods, yet that only equates to 39.0 thousand employees, which is
less than Illinois. Illinois is far below most of the Midwest states at only 12.0 percent despite the fact
that transportation is the fourth largest sector for its employees manufacturing durable goods. Illinois is
showing extremely slow growth in comparison to the stronger competitors, but the slow growth is
common among states with less than 30.0 percent of manufacturing employees working with
transportation equipment.
Other Types of Durable Manufacturing
The remaining types of manufacturing either had information for only a few states in the Midwest, or
held little significance to Illinois. A common occurrence with the types of durable manufacturing that
was not discussed was Illinois holding second or third in employment for each type of manufacturing.
However, each type accounted for no more than 40.3 thousand employees and showed no signs of
significant growth.
Conclusion
Even if Illinois held market share in certain manufacturing fields before the great recession, it has since
lost that foothold. The overall trends for each type of manufacturing have been fairly stagnant since the
recession, not indicating any significant changes in the near future. Illinois still has the advantage in the
number employed and the percent employed when it comes to chemicals. And in fabricated metals it is
not too far behind Ohio in number of employees for it to be impossible to gain the upper hand,
especially considering that fabricated metals has the greatest percentage of manufacturing employees
working in durable goods. Other Midwestern states, most notably Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, are
showing greater percent changes than Illinois. In order to help boost manufacturing in Illinois, it would
be wise to look at the approaches of these three states when it comes to manufacturing in order to
ensure that Illinois is not made obsolete in manufacturing in comparison to the rest of the Midwest.