M I S S I S S I P P I ’ S BU S I N E S S
AUGUST 2015
Monitoring the state’s economy
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 8
A P u b l i ca t i on o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , M i ss i s s ip p i In s t i tu ti o n s o f H ig h e r L e a r n in g
ECONOMY AT A GLANCE
T
he value of the Mississippi Leading Index (MLI) slipped
0.2 percent in June, only its second decline in 2015.
As seen in Figure 1 below the value of the MLI was 4.2
percent higher in June compared to one year ago, the
largest year-over-year increase since December 2014.
As Figure 2 below indicates the value of the Mississippi
Coincident Index rose 0.9 percent in June. Compared to
one year ago, the value of the index was 3.0 percent higher. The average value for the last six months exceeds the
average value of the previous six months by 1.4 percent.
The first estimate of the change in real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) for the second quarter by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) equaled 2.3 percent, a
growth rate similar to recent annual rates. About 2.0 percentage point of the increase resulted from consumer
spending, indicating its significance to current economic
growth and the relatively weak state of business investment. Moreover, BEA revised its estimate of the first
quarter change in real GDP to an increase of 0.6 percent.
Thus, contrary to BEA’s first three estimates, the U.S.
economy in fact did not contract in the first quarter. Nevertheless, based on these estimates the average change in
real GDP for the first half of 2015 totaled less than 1.5
percent, a relatively lackluster rate of growth.
Mississippi’s economy continues to perform relatively well
in 2015 despite the weakness in the U.S. manufacturing
industry. Growth in building permits remains one of
the more positive developments in the state this year.
However, at best the U.S. economy apparently will grow
no more in 2015 than last year—which will likely limit any
expansion in the state’s economy.
Figure 1. Leading indices
130
Figure 2. Coincident indices
114
125
112
120
110
115
110
108
105
106
100
104
95
90
102
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
U.S.
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
Mississippi
Sources: University Research Center and The Conference Board
Notes: The Mississippi Coincident Index is constructed by the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia and re-indexed to 2004. The Index is based on changes in
nonfarm employment, the unemployment rate, average manufacturing
workweek length, and wage and salary disbursements. The Mississippi Leading
Index is constructed by the Mississippi University Research Center. The U.S.
Indices are from The Conference Board. All series are indexed to a base year
of 2004.
To download the current issue of Mississippi’s Business as
well as view an archive of past issues, visit:
www.mississippi.edu/urc/publications.asp
U.S.
Mississippi
Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and The Conference Board
Inside this issue:
Mississippi Leading Index, June 2015
2
Mississippi Coincident Index, June 2015
4
National Trends
5
Mississippi Employment Trends
8
Change in Mississippi Real Income in 2013
11
Corey Miller, Economic Analyst • 3825 Ridgewood Road, Jackson, MS 39211 • [email protected] • www.mississippi.edu/urc
Page 2
MISSISSIPPI’S BUSINE SS
MISSISSIPPI LEADING INDEX, JUNE 2015
A
110.0
7.0%
109.0
6.0%
108.0
107.0
5.0%
4.0%
106.0
105.0
104.0
3.0%
2.0%
103.0
1.0%
102.0
0.0%
Line graph: percent change over year ago
Only two components of the MLI contributed
positively in June. Discussion of each component appears below in order of smallest to
largest contribution.
Figure 3. Mississippi Leading Index
Bar Graph: Index; 2004 = 100
s Figure 3 indicates, the value of the Mississippi Leading Index of Economic
Indicators (MLI) fell slightly in June. The MLI
lost 0.2 percent of its value for the month,
but remained 4.2 percent higher compared to
one year ago—the largest year-over-year gain
since December 2014. Data revisions resulted
in increases in the MLI for previous months,
essentially scaling up the values.
The value of seasonally-adjusted initial un6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
employment claims in Mississippi surged
Source: University Research Center
19.3 percent in June as seen in Figure 4. However, the value of initial claims compared to June 2014
After increasing for two consecutive months, the value of
was 10.9 percent lower for the month. As seen in Figure
the Institute for Supply Management Index of U.S.
14 on page 6, the number of seasonally-adjusted continManufacturing Activity declined in July. As seen in Figued unemployment claims in Mississippi edged higher by
ure 7, the value fell 1.5 percent, a sign of the slow im0.8 percent in June. This value was 33.5 percent lower
provement in U.S. manufacturing. The value of the Index
compared to one year ago. The seasonally-adjusted unem- compared to July 2014 was 6.6 percent lower for the
ployment rate in Mississippi for June declined by 0.1 permonth. Decreases in the inventories and employment
centage point to 6.6 percent.
components were responsible for most of the month’s
The value of the University of Michigan Index of
Consumer Expectations (three-month moving average) dipped for the fourth time in the last five months as
seen in Figure 5. The value declined 1.8 percent to its
lowest level since November 2014. Nevertheless, the value of the Index was 16.9 percent higher in June compared
to one year ago. The share of respondents who believes
business conditions improved over the past year declined,
while the share who believes conditions worsened increased. Some measures did improve, such as the share
reporting an increase in incomes over the past year. Both
short- and longer-term inflation expectations edged higher for the month.
As seen in Figure 6, the value of Mississippi income tax
withholdings (three-month moving average) declined in
June, the fourth such decrease in the last six months. The
value fell 0.7 percent for the month; however, compared
to one year ago the June value remained 1.6 percent higher. Through June, the average monthly value of withholdings over the last six months was down 0.2 percent compared to the previous six months, the first such decrease
in 2015.
decline as the other components of the Index experienced at least minimal increases. Notably, energy-related
manufacturing firms pushed down the employment component. Despite positive developments in manufacturing
such as the automobile industry, the number of factors
weighing on the sector will likely result in incremental
gains at best in the short-term.
Figure 8 indicates the value of U.S. retail sales fell 0.3
percent in June, the first decline since February. The decline was unexpected, as analysts had anticipated a small
increase. A reduction in the May value mitigated a larger
decline in June. April retail sales also were revised slightly
lower. Weakness was generally widespread, as sales of
automobiles, furniture, building materials, and clothing all
fell by more than 1.0 percent. Electronics and gasoline
station sales were among the few segments that increased. Sales were 1.4 percent higher in June compared
to one year ago.
The value of Mississippi residential building permits
(three-month moving average) rose 7.5 percent in June, as
indicated in Figure 9. Compared to one year ago the value
was 31.7 percent higher in June. The seasonally-adjusted
(Continued on page 4)
Page 3
AUGUST 2015
COMPONENTS OF MISSIS SIPPI LEADING INDEX, IN FIGURES
Figure 5. University of Michigan Index of Consumer Expectations
(Three-month moving average)
0%
9,000
-5%
8,000
-10%
7,000
-15%
6,000
-20%
5,000
-25%
4,000
-30%
25%
20%
90
15%
80
10%
70
5%
60
0%
50
-5%
40
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
-10%
6/14
Source: U.S. Department of Labor; seasonally adjusted
9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
3%
2%
$108
1%
$106
0%
-1%
$104
-2%
$102
-3%
60
6%
58
4%
56
2%
54
0%
52
-2%
50
-4%
48
-6%
46
44
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
-8%
7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15
Source: Institute for Supply Management
Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue; seasonally adjusted
Figure 9. Value of Mississippi residential building permits
Figure 8. U.S. retail sales
(Three-month moving average)
5.0%
$442
$440
4.0%
$438
$436
3.0%
$434
2.0%
$432
$430
1.0%
$428
$426
0.0%
Bar graph: Millions of 2004 dollars
$444
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
6.0%
$80
45%
$75
40%
35%
$70
30%
$65
25%
$60
20%
$55
15%
10%
$50
5%
$45
0%
$40
-5%
$35
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
-10%
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
Source: Bureau of the Census
Source: Bureau of the Census; seasonally adjusted
Figure 10. Mississippi Manufacturing Employment Intensity Index
6.0%
84.0
4.0%
Bar graph: Index; 2004 = 100
83.0
82.0
2.0%
81.0
80.0
0.0%
79.0
-2.0%
78.0
77.0
-4.0%
76.0
75.0
-6.0%
8/14
9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15
2/15
Source: URC using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
85.0
Five of the seven leading
economic indicators fell in value
in June. As a result, the value of
the MLI lost 0.2% for the month.
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
$446
7/14
6/15
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
4%
$110
Bar graph: Index (percent)
5%
$112
(Dotted line indicates expansion threshold)
6%
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
$114
Bar graph: Millions of 2004 dollars
8/14
Figure 7. ISM Index of U.S. Manufacturing Activity
(Three-month moving average)
Bar graph: Billions of current dollars
7/14
Source: Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers
Figure 6. Mississippi income tax withholdings
6/14
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
10,000
100
Bar graph: Index; 1966Q1 = 100
5%
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
Bar graph: Number of claims
Figure 4. Mississippi initial unemployment claims
11,000
Page 4
MISSISSIPPI’S BUSINE SS
MISSISSIPPI LEADING INDEX, JUNE 2015 (CONTINUED)
number of units for which building permits were issued
(three-month moving average) in Mississippi also increased, rising by 11.0 percent for the month. The number of units was 33.6 percent higher in June compared to
one year ago. The number of privately-owned housing
units in the U.S. authorized by building permits in June
increased 7.4 percent, a value 30.0 percent higher than
one year ago.
As Figure 10 indicates, the value of the Mississippi Manufacturing Employment Intensity Index rose in June
for the fifth consecutive month. The value of the Index
climbed 1.7 percent for the month and was 3.8 percent
higher compared to one year ago. Both manufacturing
employment and the average weekly hours of production
employees in Mississippi increased in June. As evidenced
by the Index, employment in manufacturing in the state
has held up relatively well so far in 2015.
MISSISSIPPI COINCIDENT INDEX, JUNE 2015
T
Compared to three months prior, the value of the coincident indices in forty-three
states increased in June as Figure 13 on
page 5 indicates. Mississippi was one of
thirty-eight states with a coincident index
that rose more than 0.5 percent in value
compared to March. Four states experienced declines in the value of their coincident indices of more than –0.5 percent in
June while three other states incurred declines of less than –0.3 percent. As in previous months, most of the largest declines
occurred in states with substantial energy
sectors.
3.5%
109.0
3.0%
108.5
108.0
2.5%
107.5
2.0%
107.0
106.5
1.5%
106.0
1.0%
105.5
105.0
0.5%
104.5
104.0
Line Graph: Percent change over year ago
Following the May corrections, values of
the coincident indices of all states in the
Southeast region were above 100 percent
of their pre-recession peaks in June as seen
in Figure 12. The lowest value was for Florida at 101.1 percent, followed by the 101.3
percent value for Alabama, and the Mississippi coincident index was third-lowest in
the region at 101.7 percent of its prerecession peak in June. The coincident index for Texas remained much higher in
June relative to other states in the region
at 121.1 percent of its pre-recession peak.
Figure 11. Mississippi Coincident Index
109.5
Bar Graph: Index; 2004 = 100
he value of the Mississippi Coincident Index of Economic Indicators (MCI) increased 0.3 percent in June
according to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia. Correction of an error in the
May data resulted in revisions to previous
months’ values. As Figure 11 indicates, the
value of the MCI was 3.0 percent higher in
June compared to one year ago.
0.0%
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Figure 12. Coincident index: March 2015 percentage of pre-recession peak
130%
121.1%
120%
110%
107.8%
106.1%
101.3%
105.6%
109.6% 108.5% 109.1%
107.4%
113.0%
111.3%
101.7%
101.1%
100%
90%
80%
70%
AL
AR
FL
GA
KY
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
LA
MS
NC
OK
SC
TN
TX
US
Page 5
AUGUST 2015
NATIONAL TRENDS
T
he Conference Board reported the value of the U.S.
Leading Economic Index (LEI) increased 0.6 percent
in June. Following data revisions, the gain marked the
fourth consecutive monthly increase. Compared to one
year ago, the value of the LEI was 5.5 percent higher in
June. Six of the ten indicators comprising the LEI increased in value for the month and the largest contributors were building permits and the interest rate spread.
Over the last six months the LEI increased 2.1 percent, a
decline from the 3.2 percent gain for the previous six
months.
percent in June. The value fell to its lowest level since
March 2014 as seen in Figure 20 on page 6. Moreover, the
value was 0.9 percent lower compared to a year ago, the
first year-over-year decrease since October 2013. Declines in June were widespread as nine of the ten components decreased. The largest share of the decrease was
due to declines in spending plans, followed by a decline in
earnings trends. The decrease in the Small Business Optimism Index in June marks a sharp turnaround from the
increases in April and May, indicating a relatively stronger
second half of the year appears less likely.
The U.S. Coincident Economic Index (CEI) rose 0.2 percent in June according to The Conference Board. Both
the April and May values were revised slightly higher. All
four components of the CEI contributed positively in June;
the largest contributor was employees on nonagricultural
payrolls. The value of the CEI was 2.6 percent higher in
June compared to one year ago. Over the last six months,
the value of the CEI increased by 0.9 percent.
Most analysts continue to believe the Federal Reserve will
move to increase interest rates at the September meeting
of the Federal Open Market Committee. Over 80 percent
of the economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal in
July expect rate increases to start in September. The initial estimate by BEA of a 2.3 percent increase in second
quarter real U.S. GDP provided another indication of a
return to growth for the economy after a lethargic first
quarter. Growth in inflation, while still below the Federal
Reserve’s target, has picked up in recent months.
The value of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) Small Business Optimism Index sank 4.3
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Page 6
MISSISSIPPI’S BUSINE SS
MISCELLANEOUS ECONOMIC INDICATORS, IN FIGURES
Figure 14. Mississippi continued unemployment claims
0%
-5%
7.6%
-2%
7.4%
-4%
7.2%
-6%
7.0%
-8%
6.8%
-10%
6.6%
-12%
6.4%
-14%
6.2%
-16%
-10%
80.0
-15%
60.0
-20%
-25%
40.0
-30%
20.0
-35%
0.0
6.0%
-40%
-18%
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
Source: U.S. Department of Labor; seasonally adjusted
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; seasonally adjusted
Figure 16. Real average manufacturing weekly earnings in Mississippi
$780
6%
Figure 17. Mississippi gaming revenue
$175
4%
$760
2%
$740
0%
$720
-2%
$700
-4%
$680
-6%
$660
-8%
10%
8%
$150
6%
$125
4%
2%
$100
0%
$75
-2%
-4%
$50
-6%
$25
-8%
$0
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
8%
Bar graph: Millions of 2004 dollars
$800
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
Bar graph: Millions of 2004 dollars
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
7.8%
Bar graph: Seasonally-adjusted rate
100.0
Figure 15. Mississippi unemployment rate
0%
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
Bar graph: Thousands of claims
120.0
-10%
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
$640
-10%
8/14
9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
Coastal
6/15
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; non-seasonally adjusted
Figure 18. U.S. inflation: price growth over prior year (CPI)
Total
Annual Growth of Total
Figure 19. ISM Index of U.S. Non-Manufacturing Activity
2.5%
2.0%
2.0%
1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
1.5%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.5%
0.1%
0.0%
-0.1% 0.0% -0.1%
-0.5%
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15
2/15
3/15
-0.2%
4/15
0.0%
Bar graph: Index (percent)
(Dotted line indicates expansion threshold)
65.0
2.1%
8%
60.0
6%
55.0
4%
50.0
2%
45.0
0%
Source: Institute for Supply Management
Figure 20. NFIB Small Business Optimism Index
Figure 21. U.S. total light vehicle sales
7%
99.0
6%
5%
97.0
4%
96.0
3%
95.0
2%
94.0
1%
93.0
92.0
0%
91.0
-1%
90.0
-2%
6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15
Bar graph: Millions of units, annualized
100.0
18.0
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
8%
98.0
-2%
7/14 8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15
6/15
101.0
Source: National Federation of Independent Businesses
10%
40.0
5/15
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bar graph: Index; 1986 = 100
River
Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue; seasonally adjusted
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
7/14
12%
10%
17.5
8%
17.0
6%
16.5
4%
16.0
2%
15.5
0%
7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis; seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Line graph: Percent change over year ago
6/14
Page 7
AUGUST 2015
TABLE 1. SELECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS
May
2015
June
2014
123.6
122.9
117.2
0.6%
5.5%
112.5
112.3
109.7
0.2%
2.6%
109.1
109.3
104.7
0.2%
4.2%
109.2
108.9
106.0
0.3%
3.0%
8,816
7,388
9,895
19.3%
10.9%
70.4
65.5
53.5
7.5%
31.7%
109.8
110.5
108.0
0.7%
1.6%
83.6
82.2
80.5
1.7%
3.8%
University of Michigan Index of Consumer Expectations
85.4
86.9
73.0
1.8%
16.9%
ISM Index of U.S. Manufacturing Activity
52.7
53.5
56.4
1.5%
6.6%
442.0
443.2
435.4
0.3%
1.4%
126.3
125.9
126.2
0.4%
0.1%
6.6%
6.7%
7.6%
1.5%
13.2%
63,925
63,392
96,110
0.8%
33.5%
60.3
56.0
57.9
7.7%
4.1%
3.94%
3.86%
4.13%
2.0%
4.6%
18.33
18.51
18.07
1.0%
1.4%
780.65
779.04
755.18
0.2%
3.4%
94.1
98.3
95.0
4.3%
0.9%
U.S. total light vehicle sales
17.55
16.95
16.45
3.5%
6.7%
Gaming revenue
141.1
77.6
63.5
141.2
76.5
64.7
143.7
80.0
63.7
0.1%
1.4%
1.8%
1.8%
2.9%
0.4%
U.S. Leading Economic Index
Percent change from
May 2015 June 2014
2004 = 100. Source: The Conference Board
U.S. Coincident Economic Index
2004 = 100. Source: The Conference Board
Mississippi Leading Index
2004 = 100. Source: University Research Center
Mississippi Coincident Index
Economic Indices
June
2015
Indicator
Mississippi initial unemployment claims
Seasonally adjusted. Source: U.S. Department of Labor
Value of Mississippi residential building permits
Three-month moving average; seasonally adjusted; millions of 2004 dollars.
Source: Bureau of the Census
Mississippi income tax withholdings
Three-month moving average; seasonally adjusted; millions of 2004 dollars.
Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue
Mississippi Manufacturing Employment Intensity Index
2004 =100. Source: URC using data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Three-month moving average; index 1966Q1 = 100.
Source: Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers
Advanced one month. Source: Institute for Supply Management
U.S. retail sales
Components of the Mississippi Leading Index
2004 =100. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Current dollars, in billions. Source: Bureau of the Census
U.S. Consumer Price Index
2004 = 100. Source: URC using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics
Mississippi unemployment rate
Seasonally-adjusted. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Mississippi continued unemployment claims
ISM Index of U.S. Non-Manufacturing Activity
Advanced one month. Source: Institute for Supply Management
U.S. mortgage rates
Seasonally adjusted; 30-year conventional. Source: U.S. Federal Reserve
Mississippi average hourly wage for manufacturing
Seasonally adjusted; 2004 dollars. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Mississippi average weekly earnings for manufacturing
Seasonally adjusted; 2004 dollars. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
NFIB Small Business Optimism Index
1986 = 100. Source: National Federation of Independent Businesses
Millions of units seasonally adjusted at annual rates.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Coastal counties
River counties
Seasonally adjusted; millions of 2004 dollars. Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue
Miscellaneous Indicators
Seasonally adjusted. Source: U.S. Department of Labor
Page 8
MISSISSIPPI’S BUSINE SS
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
T
otal nonfarm employment in Mississippi slipped 0.1
percent in June according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) as seen in Table 2 below. However, May
employment was revised higher by almost 0.1 percent.
Following these revisions, Mississippi’s economy lost 1,100
jobs in June. Total employment in Mississippi was 1.0 percent higher in June compared to one year ago, the second
consecutive month with a year-over-year gain of 1.0 percent or more. In the first six months of 2015, the state’s
economy added 4,500 jobs, compared to 2,900 jobs added
during the previous six months.
In June, total nonfarm employment increased in thirty-one
states. Mississippi was one of seventeen states along with
the District of Columbia where employment fell in June
according to BLS. As in May, the largest increases in employment in June occurred in the states of New York, California, and Texas. The largest decreases in employment
occurred in the states of Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. West Virginia and Wyoming were the two states
reporting declines in employment for the month compared to June 2014.
Manufacturing experienced the largest absolute increase in
employment among all industries in Mississippi in June,
adding 1,000 jobs for the month. The largest absolute decreases in employment in June occurred in Health Care
and Social Assistance as well as Accommodation and Food
Services, as both sectors lost 3,100 jobs for the month.
These losses represented declines of 2.4 and 2.6 percent
for each industry, respectively.
The largest percentage increase in employment for the
month occurred in Educational Services, which rose 1.7
percent for an increase of 200 jobs. The Information sector also added 200 jobs for a similar increase of 1.5 percent.
The largest percentage decrease in employment in the
state occurred in Accommodation and Food Services,
which declined 2.6 percent for the month, closely followed by Health Care and Social Assistance at 2.4 percent
and Mining and Logging at 2.3 percent.
Four industries in the state employed fewer people in June
compared to one year ago: Mining and Logging, Construction, Arts and Entertainment, and Other Services.
Table 2. Change in Mississippi employment by industry, June 2015
Relative
share of
totalª
Change from
May 2015
Level Percent
June
2015
May
2015
June
2014
100.0%
1,129,000
1,130,100
1,117,600
1,100
Mining and Logging
0.8%
8,500
8,700
9,200
Construction
4.2%
45,400
46,100
Manufacturing
12.5%
142,000
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
19.7%
Total Nonfarm
Change from
June 2014
Level Percent
0.1% 11,400
1.0%
200
2.3%
700
7.6%
49,300
700
1.5%
3,900
7.9%
141,000
139,500
1,000
0.7%
2,500
1.8%
222,600
222,000
219,800
600
0.3%
2,800
1.3%
12.1%
136,000
135,300
135,600
700
0.5%
400
0.3%
Information
1.2%
13,500
13,300
13,000
200
1.5%
500
3.8%
Financial Activities
3.9%
44,500
44,500
43,400
—
0.0%
1,100
2.5%
Retail Trade
Services
35.9%
405,200
410,900
397,600
5,700
1.4%
7,600
1.9%
Professional & Business Services
9.1%
102,100
101,300
98,700
800
0.8%
3,400
3.4%
Educational Services
1.1%
12,200
12,000
11,600
200
1.7%
600
5.2%
11.1%
126,400
129,500
123,000
3,100
2.4%
3,400
2.8%
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts & Entertainment
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services
Government
1.0%
10,800
11,000
10,900
200
1.8%
100
0.9%
10.3%
3.5%
21.9%
115,400
38,300
247,300
118,500
38,600
247,200
114,600
38,800
245,800
3,100
300
100
2.6%
0.8%
0.0%
800
500
1,500
0.7%
1.3%
0.6%
ªRelative shares are for the most recent twelve-month average. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
4.0%
1,130
1.2%
9.5
2.0%
1,105
0.4%
1,100
0.2%
1,095
0.0%
50.0
5.0%
48.0
0.0%
46.0
44.0
-5.0%
42.0
-10.0%
40.0
-15.0%
224
2.5%
222
2.0%
220
1.5%
218
1.0%
216
214
0.5%
212
0.0%
45.0
44.5
2.0%
44.0
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
43.5
0.0%
-0.5%
43.0
-1.0%
-1.5%
42.5
-2.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (all figures); seasonally adjusted
Thousands of employees
9.0
Figure 22c. Construction
15.0%
144
10.0%
142
Figure 22e.Trade, transportation, and utilities
Figure 22g. Financial activities
3.0%
104
2.5%
103
8.5
-2.0%
8.0
-4.0%
7.5
-6.0%
-8.0%
7.0
-10.0%
2.5%
140
2.0%
138
1.5%
1.0%
136
0.5%
134
0.0%
132
-0.5%
130
-1.0%
13.8
13.6
13.4
6.0%
13.2
4.0%
13.0
2.0%
12.8
12.6
0.0%
12.4
-2.0%
12.2
102
4.0%
101
3.0%
100
2.0%
99
98
1.0%
97
0.0%
96
-1.0%
95
-2.0%
Percent change over year ago
0.0%
Percent change over year ago
10.0
Percent change over year ago
0.6%
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
1.4%
Percent change over year ago
52.0
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
54.0
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
1,110
Thousands of employees
1,115
Thousands of employees
0.8%
Thousands of employees
1,135
Percent change over year ago
1.0%
Percent change over year ago
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
1,120
Percent change over year ago
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
1,125
Percent change over year ago
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
Figure 22a. Nonfarm employment
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
Page 9
AUGUST 2015
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR, IN FIGURES
Figure 22b. Mining and Logging
Figure 22d. Manufacturing
3.0%
-1.5%
Figure 22f. Information
8.0%
-4.0%
Figure 22h. Professional and business services
5.0%
11.6
11.4
10.8
10.6
10.4
39.0
38.8
38.6
38.4
38.2
63.5
63.0
62.5
62.0
61.0
60.5
5.0%
126
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
11.2
0.0%
11.0
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
Figure 22m. Other services
-5.0%
110
-6.0%
109
39.6
3.0%
25.9
2.0%
39.4
2.5%
25.8
1.5%
39.2
2.0%
25.7
1.0%
25.6
0.5%
25.5
0.0%
25.4
-0.5%
25.3
-1.0%
25.2
-1.5%
25.1
-2.0%
25.0
-2.5%
-3.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2.5%
2.0%
61.5
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
60.0
0.0%
59.5
-0.5%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (all figures); seasonally adjusted
Figure 22k. Arts and entertainment
-4.0%
118
5.0%
119
4.0%
118
Figure 22o. State government
38.0
-0.5%
37.8
-1.0%
37.6
-1.5%
24.9
3.0%
161
2.5%
124
2.0%
123
1.5%
122
121
1.0%
120
0.5%
119
0.0%
117
3.0%
116
115
2.5%
114
2.0%
113
112
1.5%
111
1.0%
0.5%
160
159
0.5%
159
158
0.0%
158
157
-0.5%
157
156
-1.0%
156
-1.5%
Percent change over year ago
125
Percent change over year ago
11.8
127
Percent change over year ago
1.0%
Thousands of employees
Figure 22i. Educational services
Percent change over year ago
11.0
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
11.2
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
11.4
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
2.0%
Thousands of employees
11.6
6.0%
Percent change over year ago
3.0%
Thousands of employees
11.8
Percent change over year ago
12.0
Percent change over year ago
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
4.0%
Thousands of employees
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
12.2
Percent change over year ago
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
12.4
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
1/15
2/15
3/15
4/15
5/15
6/15
Thousands of employees
Page 10
MISSISSIPPI’S BUSINE SS
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR, IN FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure 22j. Health care and social assistance
3.0%
-0.5%
Figure 22l.Accommodation and food services
3.5%
0.0%
Figure 22n. Federal government
Figure 22p. Local government
160
1.0%
Page 11
AUGUST 2015
CHANGE IN MISSISSIPPI REAL INCOME IN 201 3
T
he U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released estimates of growth in real income
by state last month. Real income in Mississippi contracted by 0.1 percent in 2013, considerably below the average increase of 0.8 percent across all states.
While BEA has previously released estimates of changes in personal income by state for
2013 and part of 2014, last month’s real income data represents the first release to include
regional price parities (RPPs) for 2013. The RPPs account for differences in the price level
across states each year. By construction, the value of the RPP for the U.S. is 100.0 and the
values for each state are expressed as percentages of the U.S. value.
Table 3 at right lists the value of the RPP for each state for 2013. The state with the highest
RPP in 2013 was, not surprisingly, Hawaii with a value of 116.2. The value means that on
average in 2013 the prices of all items sold in Hawaii were 16.2 percent higher than for the
U.S. as a whole. At the other end of the scale, Mississippi had the lowest RPP in 2013 with a
value of 86.8. This value means that on average in 2013 the prices of all items sold in the
state were 13.2 percent lower than for the U.S. as a whole. Thus, the RPPs represent a way
of measuring the cost of living in each state. As Table 3 indicates, in addition to Mississippi, a
number of southern states had relatively low RPPs in 2013, including Arkansas, Alabama, and
Kentucky. Like these Southern states, most of the states found in the lower third of RPP
values have largely rural populations. The reason the cost of living in these states is relatively
lower is chiefly related to the cost of housing. Each of the values making up an individual’s
total expenditures are weighted, and in general housing costs represent the largest single
expenditure. Therefore, states with some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country—
which tend to have the most expensive housing markets—ranked among the highest RPP
values in 2013.
Once incomes for each state were adjusted for RPPs, they were adjusted for inflation using
the national personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The PCE price index is
similar to the more well known Consumer Price Index (CPI), but is generally considered
more comprehensive. The PCE uses more expenditures and weights their values according
to surveys of businesses as opposed to consumers, among other differences. As a result,
most of the time the value of the CPI runs higher than that of the PCE. The PCE is also the
Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation, as it includes purchases by groups other
than retail consumers. In 2013, the value of the PCE for the U.S. was 1.2 percent. On a
nominal basis, on average U.S. income grew 2.0 percent in 2013. Taking the difference between these two values results in the average increase in U.S. real income of 0.8 percent as
mentioned above.
Mississippi was one of ten states that experienced negative real income growth in 2013. The
only other state in the southeast region with negative income growth was Kentucky, where
real incomes grew by –0.2 percent. North Dakota experienced the largest decrease in real
income in 2013 as real incomes fell 4.4 percent—a decline several times larger than in any
other state.
The range of real income growth from 0.0 to 1.0 percent makes up the largest group of
states. A total of eighteen states experienced growth in this range, including the southeastern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Most states in the southeast region fell in the income growth range of 1.0 to 2.0 percent. Among the sixteen total
states in this range, the southeastern states included Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Six states experienced real income growth in 2013 of 2.0 percent or more. Interestingly, all
of these states were located west of the Mississippi River. The largest growth in real income
occurred in Idaho, where real income grew 3.5 percent in 2013.
Table 3. Regional Price
Parities by State, 2013
Hawaii
New York
New Jersey
California
Maryland
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Alaska
New Hampshire
Washington
Virginia
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Vermont
Florida
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Rhode Island
Maine
Minnesota
Utah
Arizona
Texas
Wyoming
New Mexico
Montana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Idaho
Georgia
North Carolina
Indiana
North Dakota
Louisiana
Kansas
Tennessee
Nebraska
South Carolina
Iowa
Oklahoma
Ohio
Missouri
Kentucky
West Virginia
Alabama
South Dakota
Arkansas
Mississippi
116.2
115.3
114.5
112.3
110.9
108.5
107.3
106.0
105.9
103.2
103.0
102.2
101.4
101.0
100.2
98.8
98.7
98.6
98.2
98.1
97.7
97.6
97.2
97.1
96.7
95.8
95.0
94.4
94.2
92.9
92.8
91.9
91.7
91.4
91.4
91.2
90.8
90.6
90.5
90.5
90.3
89.9
89.6
89.2
89.1
88.4
87.7
87.6
87.5
86.8
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Page 12
MISSISSIPPI’S BUSINE SS
CHANGE IN MISSISSIPPI REAL INCOME IN 201 3, CONTINUED
Using the values discussed previously, another measure of regional cost can be calculated for each state. By multiplying
a state’s RPP by the U.S. PCE, a price index known as the implicit regional price deflator (IRPD) can be found for each
state. The IRPD essentially adjusts the PCE for each state and therefore represents a measure of regional inflation
when viewed over time. Thus, the IRPD value for the U.S. remains the same as the PCE of 1.2. Because an IRPD is
calculated from two existing values, it is considered an indirect measure of inflation.
The value of the IRPD in Mississippi in 2013 was 93.1, indicating a 1.7 percent increase in regional inflation, a higher
rate than experienced nationwide. All values of IRPDs were positive for 2013, indicating the presence of at least some
inflation in every state. Interestingly, the maximum and minimum values of IRPDs in 2013 were found in states that
border each other. The lowest growth rate based on IRPDs in 2013 occurred in South Dakota, where the increase
was 0.1 percent, indicating very little regional inflation. The highest rate of growth in 2013 was found in North Dakota, where the IRPD increased 1.9 percent from the previous year. Thus, regional inflation in North Dakota outpaced
the nation as a whole in 2013.
The recently released data by BEA indicate real income growth in Mississippi has changed little since the end of the
Great Recession and remains among the lowest in the country. However, Mississippi was not alone in negative real
income growth in 2013 and other states (almost all outside of the South) experienced larger declines. Therefore, the
data represent another signal that Mississippi’s economy will require strong national economic growth in order to return to pre-recession levels. On a positive note, the cost of living in Mississippi was the lowest in the nation in 2013,
which, while not offsetting the negative income growth, moderates its effects on the state’s residents.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis