State by State, Year by Year, Employment by Sector & by Blue-Red Political Alignment [bumped]

This preliminary study started with a blog post I did several months ago entitled "New Jersey, the Sorry State", a deep dive into Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that my state is hardly generating employment outside the government sector.

The blame for this sorry state of affairs I heaped on NJ's political culture, which is high-taxing, heavily-regulating, pro-union, anti-business, and Democrat-dominated. As the power of Democrats, the self-proclaimed friends of the working man, has risen in this state, fewer working men have actually had work.

One of my readers suggested extending the work to all states. A daunting prospect, but I have made a start. It's back to the BLS data for 51 deep dives. This time I'm looking longer term, with data from 1990 to the present.

To try to get to grips with party politics in all states through time, I researched affiliations of the governor and two senators and the plurality of the House of Representatives delegations and the state senate and legislatures for each year since 1990, using wikipedia and such other sources as I could find. No doubt there are some errors at this stage, particularly in identifying the leanings of state legislatures 15 or more years ago. These errors are minor; it's unlikely that I could mistake Idaho for a blue state or Washington for a red state, for example.

Those two next door neighbors bracket my best ranking of the 50 states + DC by political complexion, from most Democrat to most Republican:

>> bluest: WA DC WV MA AR NJ CA MD IL HI DE
>> next: NY VT IA WI RI MI OR CT ME NC
>> middle: NM MN MT LA COPA NH ND IN TN
>> next: SD VA MS NV AL MO NE KS OK FL
>> reddest: KY OH AZ SC WY AK GA UT TX ID

Let me point out a few things by way of caveats and highlight a few preliminary conclusions.

Conclusion 1: Government is not just New Jersey's growth industry -- it's a growth industry in most states, Democrat or Republican. In fact, it is only in a handful of blue states and territories that government employment has been static or falling: MA, MI, NY, DC, and RI.

Conclusion 2: The predominant pattern in the last ten years has been for employment in goods-producing industry to be declining, in service-providing business to be growing somewhat, and in government to be growing fastest of the three. That pattern is seen in no fewer than 37 states: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, and WI; in MI it was declining but less than other employment. Government is growing at the expense of goods production. In the limit, this places fiscal drag on the economy, which reinforces the original trend and makes it worse. That is our New Jersey experience.

Conclusion 3: The states that have experienced the greatest declines in employment in goods-producing industry are (worst first): RI, MI, NJ, CT, NY, NC, OH, ME, MA, and PA. Mostly northeastern/midwestern, mostly unionized, and mostly Democrat.

Conclusion 4: The states that have done best in growing employment in goods-producing industry are (worst first): NE, CO, NM, SD, ID, MT, UT, WY, NV, ND. Near runners-up were TX, AZ, and OK. Mostly western, mostly right-to-work, and mostly Republican.

Conclusion 5: Only in Wyoming is employment growth in goods-producing industry consistently positive and higher than either services or government.

Caveat: A Democrat is not the same wherever you go, nor is a Republican. A Maine Republican is a very different animal than a Texas or Wyoming Republican; in fact, some say it is a RINO. A Mississippi Democrat in 2009 is not ever the same as a Massachusetts Democrat, nor does he necessarily resemble a Mississippi Democrat of twenty years ago.

Caveat, speaking of Massachusetts: In connection with the special election there on 1/19/2010, I and many others have taken to calling the Bay State "the bluest of all blue states." This is incorrect. Massachusetts yields to the blueness of the Washingtons (state & district) and West Virginia.

Caveat: Employment in goods-producing industry is not a holy grail and need not be the object of all economic policy. If someone leaves a job in the declining textile industry in North Carolina, retrains as a radiological technician and gets a better job in that field, no one argues that either that person or the state of North Carolina are worse off. The problem is when employment in the goods-producing sector as a whole is in total headlong decline. That means industry is giving up on a place. That means industry prefers to take its chances with the Chinese Communists than the Michigan Democrats.

Caveat: Productivity has improved in goods producing industry, meaning fewer workers are needed to do the same or greater work. I know that, of course. It's wonderful. But rising productivity itself should incentivize capital to come into a place and employ workers who have worked themselves out of their previous jobs. If it's not enough, other things are wrong, and the benefit of workers' productivity is not for workers to share. Politicians must ask the question, what else is needed to attract and retain industry? Republicans always ask that question. Democrats ask instead what other self-defeating social costs and regulations they can impose on job-creating enterprise, and the dismal results are there to see.

Here's one final caveat, and it is important. I don't know which way the causation runs. I am not sure whether the growth states of the West are Republican because they are prosperous, or prosperous because they are Republican. I am more certain that employment grows in right-to-work states because it can, without restriction; that's just economic common sense. "Capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated," as the great Milton Friedman said.

This much is clear. The employment restrictions and the class struggle nonsense offered by those friends of the working man, the Democrats, are utterly failing him. In the the Democrat fastness of the post-industrial Northeast and Midwest, there's little tangible economic return from workers' long-term political investment.

I say if you want to work, go R. If you want to stand on the unemployment line complaining about the Man, go D.

_______________________

Notes:

1 My original post was inspired by William McGurn's article in the December 30 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, "New Jersey Is the Perfect Bad Example".

2 Next best alternative ranking is so similar to the first. Different methodology; of course the data set and workings are available:

>> bluest: DC WA WV MA AR MD CA HI NJ DE VT
>> next: IL RI NY MI OR CT IA WI LA NM
>> middle: NC ME MN ND MT IN PA VA NV CO
>> next: TN AL SD GA NH KY MS MO FL NE
>> reddest: AZ KS OH TX OK AK SC WY UT ID

3 It was Ted Kavadas, proprietor of the Economic Greenfield blog, who suggested doing the study nationally.

Read Reed Hundt's book, "In China's Shadow"

If you want to understand Democrat fantasies in the absence of financial constraint or common sense, read Reed Hundt's book, "In China's Shadow." Reed Hundt is a permanent member of the American politcal class, a Yalie, a partner in a high-powered law firm, head of Bill Clinton's FCC, and a member of Barack Obama's transition team.

Free money is Reed Hundt's great idea. Muggins, that is you & me, the hard-pressed American taxpayer, should buy everyone from Nome to Tierra del Fuego a pension, healthcare, and education. By these means, the United States will win in the economic competition with China that furnishes the title of his book and a small fraction of its other content.

No, it's not a joke. People with power and influence really think this way.

Don't Re-Elect Jon Corzine

I get the feeling that Google and its various organs such as Adsense sometimes make sport of their users.

I'm a Republican. I try not to be excessively political, I avoid beating people over the head with it, but you can probably tell from the values I express on this blog and, previously, in my writings for worldlyinvestor.com if you remember the good old days. My values are the values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, equality of opportunity for all, free trade, open markets, strong national defense, and sound public finances.

So it is queer to see an Adsense ad for New Jersey's Democrat Governor Jon Corzine in the right margin. "Re-Elect Jon Corzine", it orders. "Committed to New Jersey Values Working for New Jersey's Success JonCorzine09.com".

Look, by all means click through. I need the money to pay taxes that are among the highest in the nation. But I'm not going to vote for Jon Corzine myself if he pays me hundreds of dollars, which research shows is pretty much how much this Goldman Sachs limousine liberal does pay for every vote he receives. His bad works and those of his Democrat predecessors and co-dependent Democrat legislators are catalogued in a previous article. And if you live here too, I hope you are not going to vote for him either.

Dispatches from the Front Line of the Real Estate Wars

In March, I contributed a piece called "The Coming Real Estate Recovery By The Numbers". I have also written extensively on various plans for real estate recovery policy, my own and other people's, and got some excellent feedback from people in the academic and policy establishment. But in general, the phone has not not stopped ringing. As Chris Mayer of Columbia told me, there is a loss of momentum for all real estate plans.

I can't just sit around writing, as I am among other things a real estate practitioner, a licensed salesperson in the state of New Jersey. Most of my work has been investment and commercial in the urban areas near New York City , but I do residential, I go out of my local market, and have trusted contacts all over the east coast and in California.

At the moment I am working with a couple who have two young children and want to buy in one of the elite towns with a top-rated school system. They have very particular requirements with respect to price, condition, proximity to public transportation, and several other factors. Even in a buyer's market, these limitations make the search challenging.

The action of several recent weekends and the treatment of various offers makes me believe that conditions are moving away from buyers having it all their own way.

On one miserable cold and wet Saturday morning, we found ourselves queuing up to see a new listing that had come on the market at the extreme low end of the price. The wife was hopeful. "It must be a wonderful opportunity at such a low price, and with so many people come to see it." Inside, what a let-down it was. Dirty, small, poor condition. Garbage, even at the price, and disgraceful really to market a house complete with dirt and cobwebs.

And yet the couple who viewed it before us stood across the street in the rain after finally letting us go in, with the husband gazing longingly at it all goo-goo as if it were Megan Fox in her birthday suit instead of a knock-down. The house went under contract immediately, probably to them. If they got any competition for it, no doubt they paid more than asking.

My clients did not compete for the dirty house. On the next one they saw, they did compete and aggressively so, through not one but two rounds of "best and final" offers. This house had the following good points: clean and tastefully decorated living room, dining room, and three good-sized bedrooms, all with good re-done hardwood floors. And it had the following bad points: lousy bathrooms, lousy kitchen, central air on its last legs, and washing machine separated from dryer by 25 feet of dirty unfinished basement. On balance I rated this house just OK, nothing special, and yet if the listing agents are to be believed (agents lie -- I make no judgments on these particular agents) there were a dozen offers. However many offers there were, my clients' full-price offer with 20% down and no house sale contingency was not successful.

If that sounds more like sellers' market conditions, so too did the response of sellers through their agent to my clients' next offer. This time they bid on a house they liked at 95% of asking price. The sellers countered at 99.6% of their asking price, essentially throwing my clients' offer back in their faces with little consideration. Moreover they told us haughtily not to come back without meeting a number of onerous conditions that are not customary in this market.

Guess what? We did not extend ourselves to meet those conditions, and we did not go back to them. My clients found something else instead and had their full-price offer accepted.

A few days later the haughty agent called, and was more than a little miffed that we had done exactly as she told us to do.

The general point is this. At current rates, the inventory in this town will take 10.3 months to clear compared to over 11 months around the county; however, there are micro-markets within the town that are much hotter than that and the behavior of buyers and sellers has to adjust accordingly.

There are other factors to note. One, the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit is going away soon if nothing is done, and the direction of policy-making in DC suggests nothing will be done. That provides impetus in this segment of the market, at least. Two, rising mortgage interest rates can also get buyers off the fence -- if they have been hanging in for lower rates and instead see them going the wrong way, they may be pushed to act for fear their inaction will cost even more later.

New Jersey, the Sorry State

William McGurn wrote an article entitled "New Jersey Is the Perfect Bad Example" in the December 30 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal. (http://tinyurl.com/94y8ll) It's all good, but the really arresting part was this:

From 2000 to 2007, says the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, the government added 54,800 jobs. To put that in proper perspective, that works out to 93% of all jobs created in New Jersey over those seven years.

This statistic was picked up and widely discussed by radio and TV talkers, but the problems of one small and increasingly insignificant northeastern state are of little enough interest even to its residents, never mind the rest of America. Since then it has been swept away by the stimulus package, the budget, the stockmarket fall and rise, the G20, Susan Boyle, torture memos, Carrie Prejean, Somali pirates and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. But as one of the people who hasn't left yet, and who paid his real estate taxes today, I want to linger over New Jersey, the sorry state.

I'm never satisfied by what I read, but have to check myself. The info is there for the taking at one of my favorite websites, from the BLS, at http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment.

What I found, using different beginning and ending points, is more or less the same, with some other disconcerting data as well.

In the ten years to February 2009, non-farm employment in New Jersey rose by ninety-six thousand. Population rose around 320 thousand. Labor force participation rose in the middle of the ten years but fell later to end the period where it began at 47%.

State and municipal employment increased by 87,200 over the period which is 91% of the total increase. The federal government, the US Postal Service, and the Department of Defense all shed jobs in the garden state.

The goods producing sector of the state economy is in a total free-fall, losing 138,600 jobs in the decade, or 25% of all jobs in the goods producing sector at the beginning of the period.

One-third of manufacturing jobs were lost, and now government workers outnumber manufacturing workers five-to-two, making a mockery of the old motto "Trenton Makes, The World Takes."

One-third of NJ workers now work for the government, or in health care which increasingly is much the same thing.

Does anybody imagine this state of affairs is satisfactory, or sustainable?

New Jersey's population growth in the decade, at 3.8%, was barely one-third of national population growth. The state has the nation's highest population density, so we can afford to let other places catch up on this measure. But to the extent that we are growing less because we offer an unattractive place to live, work, and do business, it is a problem.

UPDATE May 5 2009 . . . Newark Mayor Cory Booker was quoted today by Bloomberg saying “New Jersey will go bankrupt in 10 to 20 years because we cannot afford our employees as a state. I’m talking about every worker from the cities and counties to the state government. Eventually, we’re going to price ourselves out as a government or tax ourselves to death.” Although he's a Democrat, Booker talks like a pro-growth Republican. He gives the appearance of understanding that a diminishing private sector cannot indefinitely support a boundlessly growing public sector and hundreds of thousands reposing in the soft feather-bed of our ludicrously generous welfare state.

I wish him well. I like Newark, have done business in every neighborhood there, and know them so well at ground level that it horrifies my suburban Bergen County mother, who did her level best to prevent me ever knowing such places existed. The city of Newark is the biggest urban center of the state, but probably not the one that places the largest strain on the state's finances on a per capita basis. Cory Booker deserves our support.

As for this state, it is Booker's to run as governor in a future that is not too remote. No doubt he wants his prize to be worth something when he takes it in his hands. If he can get the ear of his party's apparatchiks, maybe it can be. The trends, however, are not encouraging.

Tax-Efficient Exchange via Sec. 1031 . . . Safe Ex?

The Section 1031 Exchange mechanism has been a means of affluent people getting and keeping fortunes since the 1920s. Though it has in recent years been reaffirmed by the IRS, one has to be concerned that the device may not survive the coming drive for higher tax revenue from high-income earners.

But on the other hand, the Obama administration is keen on big thinking. This is small beans in the overall scheme of things, and may just escape their attention. So for as long as it lasts, one ought to know what it is and how to use it.

I believe my article on Section 1031 Exchanges is the clearest, most informative, and overall best brief treatment of the subject. It is available for free for a limited time at http://www.dhsmith.net/1031s.pdf and I am glad to consult with readers on it.

Tax Filing Day Tea Party, Morristown, NJ.

So I went. I had business at my brokers, right across from the Morristown Green . . . but let's face it, I would have gone anyway.

Here are some pictures. There's the crowd in front of the dais (I arrived late for most of the speechifying):



There were some young guys carrying rather erudite signs noting a website called campaignforliberty.com -- I should check it out. One of them has a great hat.



The hat close up says GOLD IS MONEY. John Galt!



There was a Morristown Minuteman. I hear Morristown had a prominent role in the earlier American Revolution of 1776.



What I wore to the Tea Party to hand out anti-Corzine stickers was actually my own silkscreen design. Or rather, a take-off of Shepard Fairey who is known for his, um, sampling. Sarah Palin is the man . . . the best of the four top ticket candidates in 2008.