Our basic conclusion: What most distinguishes successful areas from Michigan is their concentrations of talent, where talent is defined as a combination of knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurship. Quite simply, in a flattening world, the places with the greatest concentrations of talent win! States and regions without concentrations of talent will have great difficulty retaining or attracting knowledge-based enterprises, nor are they likely to be the place where new knowledge-based enterprises are created. So retaining and attracting talent is at the heart of growing a high prosperity Michigan. We focus on college educated Millennials because they are the most mobile. Young people are the most likely demographic group to move. And among the young, moving from one state to another is highest for those with a four-year degree or more. The priorities: 1) Building a culture that is welcoming to all. 2) Creating places where talent – particularly mobile young talent – wants to live. This means expanded public investments in quality of place with an emphasis on vibrant central city neighborhoods.

1. www.michiganfuture.org
1

2. Our goal
A high prosperity
Michigan
2

3. What state do we want to emulate?
State Per capita Unemployment Poverty Education
income (09) (10) rate (09) attainment (09)
Oklahoma $35,837 7.1 % 16.2 % 22.73 %
Minnesota $41,854 7.3 % 11.0 % 31.50 %
Michigan $34,315 12.5% 16.2 % 24.59 %
U.S. $39,635 9.6 % 14.3 % 27.90 %
3

4. 10 Most Prosperous States
Connecticut New York
New Jersey Virginia
Massachusetts Alaska
Wyoming Washington
Maryland New Hampshire
4

5. Traits of prosperous states
• High proportion of wages from knowledge
industries
• High proportion of college grads
• Big metro with higher per cap income than state
• Largest city in that metro has high proportion of
college grads
5

6. What is the knowledge economy?
public goods
5% information
leisure other administration 5%
services 10%
trade trans
3% utilities
7%
financial
activities
health 11%
21%
prof and
business
education services
21% 17%
6

7. Michigan’s income rank aligned
with our college attainment rank
Per Cap Income % 4 year degree
10
15
18
20
34
25
36
30 37
35
2000 2009
40
7

8. 10 Most Prosperous Regions
• San Jose/San Fran. • Seattle
• Washington/Balt. • Houston
• NY/Newark • San Diego
• Hartford • Denver/Boulder
• Boston/Worchester • Philadelphia
8

9. Major metros smarter
Education attainment by metro population
35% 33%
30%
30%
25% 26%
25% 24%
23%
20%
15%
10%
Under .2 m .2-.5 m .5-1 m 1-1.6 m 1.6-3.5 m 3.5 m and
up
9

10. Major metros richer
Per capita income by metro population
$50,000
$45,667
$45,000
$39,490
$40,000 $37,470
$35,304 $35,734
$35,000 $33,304
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
under .2 m .2-.5 m .5-1 m 1-1.6 m 1.6-3.5 m 3.5 m and
up
10

11. Metro Detroit vs.
Metro Minneapolis
City Per cap Education Share of wages from
income attainment knowledge industry
Minneapolis 11 7 13
Detroit 41 39 31
2009 Rank among 55 metros 1 million
population or more
11

12. Metro Grand Rapids vs.
Metro Minneapolis
City Per cap Education Share of wages from
income attainment knowledge industry
Minneapolis 9 7 10
Grand 54 44 54
Rapids
2009 Rank among 55 metros 1 million
population or more
12

13. Metro Lansing vs. Metro Madison
City Per cap % bachelors Share of wages from
income degree or more knowledge industries
Madison $ 42,456 38.90 % 63.61 %
Lansing $ 33,273 29.09 % 65.33 %
2009 data
13

14. High education industries
growing in U.S.
5.83%
6.00%
Employment change 2001-09
4.00%
2.00% $45,558 $59,926
0.00%
-2.00%
-0.79% All industry
-4.00% Low education
$33,383
-6.00%
High education
-5.79%
(2009 average wage)
14

15. High education industries
doing best in Michigan
0.00%
Employment change 2001-09
$54,964
-5.00%
-4.97%
-10.00%
$43,645
-15.00% All industry
-15.66%
Low education
-20.00% $34,646
High education
-22.59%
-25.00%
(2009 average wage)
15

16. Index value (100 in Dec. 2007)
100
105
80
85
90
95
75
2007.12
2008.01
2008.02
2008.03
2008.04
2008.05
2008.06
2008.07
2008.08
2008.09
2008.1
2008.11
U.S. High Ed
2008.12
2009.01
2009.02
2009.03
2009.04
2009.05
U.S. Low Ed
2009.06
2009.07
2009.08
2009.09
2009.1
2009.11
Date Mich High Ed 2009.12
2010.01
2010.02
2010.03
2010.04
2010.05
2010.06
2010.07
Mich Low Ed
2010.08
2010.09
Employment in High and Low Education Attainment
2010.1
Industries, Michigan and the U.S., 2007.12 to 2011.05
2010.11
2010.12
2011.01
2011.02
Recession accelerates trends
2011.03
2011.04
16
2011.05

17. Our conclusion:
The places with the greatest
concentration of talent win!
17

18. Young talent is
aggregating in
urban regions
Younger college grads
Blue = With children
Red = Without children

25. Our recommendations
•Align Michigan culture with the flat world realities
•Create places where talent wants to live
•Ensure success of vibrant higher ed system
•Reinvent K-12 education to align with new realities
•Develop new public and – more importantly –
private sector leaders
25

26. Bottom line
We must get younger
and better educated
or
we will get poorer
26

27. For more information about Michigan
Future, our reports or what the media is
saying, please visit our Web site at:
www.MichiganFuture.org
27