Upload
joegray11
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
1/55
For Release: 11/16/20129:30 A.M.
The Michigan Economic Outlook for 20132014
Joan P. Crary, George A. Fulton, and Donald R. GrimesUniversity of Michigan
I. Introduction
For many reasons, its not hard to feel upbeat about the Michigan economy. Were nearly three
years into a solid economic recovery after almost a full decade of recession. Michigan is frequently
referenced in news stories touting its strong standing among other states in job growth and other
economic performance characteristics based on the data index or survey du jour. Our signature auto
sector has been strong throughout the period, and one of Michigans weakest major sectors, housing, is
now showing signs of turning around. In general, the highest wage sectors have recorded the most
rapid growth over the recovery period. And the unemployment rate, which was in the 14 percent range
at the end of 2009, is now around 9 percent. Most important, the fundamentals seem to be in place for
the economy to keep expanding.
For other reasons, its hard not to feel a little disappointed as well. The rebound from the
recession has not been nearly as robust as most past episodes of recovery, and growth recently has
been particularly sluggish. Some sectors such as retail trade are having trouble getting out of first gear,
George A. Fulton, Director
Saul H. Hymans, Director Emeritus
Research Seminar in Quantitative EconomicsUniversity of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan
734-764-2567
rsqe.econ.lsa.umich.edu
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
2/55
2extent of labor underutilization in the state. Recently, the jobless rate reversed its hope-inspiring
downward trend and has floated back up to its reading of last December.
For yet more reasons, its hard not to feel downright troubled. If we switch perspective and
measure progress not from the trough at the end of 2009, but instead from the economic peak in mid-
2000, we then bring into the conversation the deep hole created in the first decade of the 2000s, and
the question of how far we have come in extricating ourselves from that hole. The news is not
encouraging: since the recovery in jobs that began three years ago, the state has regained only one-
fifth of the jobs that had been lost since mid-2000. Over the same period, the states workers have also
lost considerable ground to the nation on wage levels. Its a long haul to crawl out of a deep holebut
at least weve stopped digging in deeper.
In this report, we will examine the states employment and wage situation from a longer-term
perspective, and also consider some of the broader measures of labor underutilization. Our main focus
as always, however, is on our two-year forecast. The more forward-looking questions about the
recovery, such as whether it will be sustained over the next few years, how robust it will be, and the key
industry contributors to our economic health, are all addressed in the forecast section of the report, as
are the state revenue implications.
Before considering our perspective on how the Michigan economy will evolve over the next two
years, we first take a look at 2012, to learn more about what kind of year it has been and to gauge how
well we anticipated this years developments at last years Economic Outlook Conference.
II. Review of the Forecast for 2012
Today marks the forty-first presentation on the outlook for the Michigan economy since the State
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
3/55
3Table 1
Review of RSQE Forecast of Employment and Incomein the State of Michigan
Percent Change in Michigan Percent Change inWage and Salary Employment Michigan Personal Income
YearRSQE
1RSQE
1
Forecast Observed Forecast Observed
1973 4.6 5.4 9.6 12.3
1974 1.5 0.2 7.4 7.2
1975 1.3 4.3 5.8 6.4
1976 3.4 4.7 12.7 12.6
1977 2.1 4.8 11.4 12.6
1978 2.8 4.8 11.2 11.2
1979 0.6 0.8 8.3 10.0
1980 2.5 5.3 6.1 7.0
1981 2.2 2.3 10.8 7.1
1982 0.9 5.1 7.1 3.0
1983 1.0 0.9 7.0 5.8
1984 5.5 4.9 11.3 10.6
1985 2.6 5.3 8.0 8.4
1986 1.3 2.7 4.8 6.3
1987 1.8 2.1 3.8 3.5
1988 0.3 2.2 3.7 6.2
1989 1.8 2.7 6.4 7.4
1990 1.3 0.6 6.0 4.2
1991 0.4 1.6 5.0 3.2
1992 0.7 0.9 5.1 6.4
1993 0.3 2.0 4.9 5.0
1994 1.1 3.6 4.7 8.0
1995 2.1 3.1 6.4 4.5
1996 1.6 2.0 4.6 4.5
1997 1.6 2.0 5.1 4.9
1998 1.2 1.7 4.8 6.5
1999 1.4 1.6 3.5 4.1
2000 1.4 2.0 5.2 6.1
2001 0.5 2.4 4.6 2.5
2002 0.6 1.7 2.3 1.0
2003 0.3 1.6 3.5 3.7
2004 0.8 0.4 4.9 1.6
2005 0 8 0 2 4 7 2 0
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
4/55
4At last Novembers Economic Outlook Conference, we foresaw correctly that in 2012 the Michigan
economy would continue its recovery, but at a more subdued pace than occurred in 2011. Based on
the data we were working with at this time a year ago, we forecast that growth would back off in 2012 to
the 0.8 percent rate reported in the last line of the table. With one quarter of data yet to come, our
current estimate is that employment will register a 1.3 percent increase for 2012, half a percentage
point higher than what we forecast a year ago.
It is productive to seek out the sources of our underestimate, and we do so by consulting the
underlying industry data. We find that most of our underestimate of job growth is in two sectors:
manufacturing, and professional and business services. Consistent with our underestimate of job
creation for manufacturing, we were too light on our forecast of both U.S. vehicle output and total light
vehicle sales, and due to the latter, we were too bearish as well on Detroit Three vehicle sales.
Offsetting this to some degree, we were a little too high on the Detroit Threes market share of total light
vehicle sales.
Much of the shortfall in the employment forecast for the professional and business services sector
stems from the interconnectedness of many of its constituent industries with the manufacturing sector,
whose strength we underestimated. Also, the strengthening local economy overall resulted in a more
favorable commercial environment.
On the income side of the ledger, we were also too pessimistic. Based on the data available as of
last November, we forecast a significant slowing in personal income growth, from the rate then of 5.8
percent for 2011 to 3 percent in 2012, a difference of almost 3 percentage points. The rate for 2011
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
5/55
5Most of the forecast error in personal income can be traced to two factors. First, and most
important, we underestimated growth in the wage and salary disbursement component, the result of
being too light on both employment growth and earnings per worker. Much of the reason we were too
low on earnings per worker is that our largest underestimates of employment were in higher-wage
industries.
Second, we were also too low on the labor-related components of nonwage income, in particular
other labor income and proprietors income.
This review gives us a broad picture of a state economy that continues its upward trajectory in
2012, but that has also cooled off a bit from its pace of a year ago. Before we explore developments
beyond 2012, we need to take a more detailed look at the current state of the economy, and we turn to
that now.
III. Current State of the Economy
Michigan is about to register its third consecutive year of recovery following a nearly decade-long
recession. To better understand where the economy sits at the launching point for our 201314
forecast, we will examine the current recovery in a longer-term context, as we have done in previous
reports. This time, we explore employment and wage movements in Michigan among a range of
establishment size classes, over both the most recent recession and the current recovery to date. The
purpose is to gain some insight into the comparative situations of smaller and larger businesses over
phases of the business cycle, and to learn where the state economy is now positioned as it prepares to
continue moving forward, eleven years after the initial stages of what evolved into the most severe
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
6/55
6public despite the growing economy, we also consider in this section alternative measures of under-
employment and identify some of the demographic groups that are overrepresented in those measures.
Following that, we focus on 2012 to take a closer look at whats been happening so far during the
year, concentrating this time on our more traditional employment breakout by major industry grouping.
A. Past and Present Employment and Wage Movements by Establishment Size
For our profile on Michigans employment and wage behavior by establishment size, we
assembled a data set from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and then compiled series on both private-sector employment and wages by
four establishment size classes for both Michigan and the nation.1 The data on establishment size are
available only for the first quarter of each year, and we selected the first quarters of 2001, 2010, and
2012 for our analysis.
We start by noting a few additional limitations on these data. First, the data are by establishment,
not by firm, and a firm can have more than one establishment. Second, the self-employed are, by
definition, not included in the establishment data, and would be predominantly in the smallest size class
if they were. Third, and perhaps most important, the dynamics over time in employment or wages
within a size class include both growth (or shrinkage) of establishments in that class and movement of
establishments across classes. Both effects are in play, and it is not possible to isolate them, but there
are lessons to be learned from the data nonetheless.
The private-sector employment distribution among the four establishment size classes are shown
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
7/55
7the nation at that time (24
percent versus 18.9 percent),
and a correspondingly smaller
share in the two smallest size
categories (those under 100
employees). By the first quarter
of 2012, Michigans employment
share in the largest size
category fell substantially, from
24 percent to 20.4 percent.
Although Michigan remains
more big-establishment heavy than the United States, its employment concentrations did shift toward
the smaller establishments over the eleven-year period.
The next table reveals the dynamics behind Table 2. The employment change by size among
establishments is shown over the eleven-year period in Table 3, divided into the interval from the first
quarter of 2001 to the first
quarter of 2010 to represent the
recession in Michigan, and the
interval from the first quarters of
2010 and 2012 to represent the
current recovery period.
Mi hi l t 724 100
RSQE: November 2012
Mich.Employment(Thousands)
U.S.Emp.Share(%)
Mich.Emp.Share(%)
Mich.Employment(Thousands)
U.S.Emp.Share(%)
Mich.Emp.Share
(%)
EstablishmentSizeIntervals
First Quarter 2001 First Quarter 2012
Total 3,783.9 100.0 100.0 3,265.8 100.0 100.0
1 to 19 835.3 22.1 25.0 785.4 24.0 27.2
20 to 99 1,023.6 27.1 29.6 904.4 27.7 30.6
100 to 499 1,017.1 26.9 26.4 908.8 27.8 25.5
500 or more 907.9 24.0 18.9 667.2 20.4 16.6
Table 2
Private-Sector Employment Distribution by Establishment Size
Michigan and the United StatesFirst Quarters of 2001 and 2012
Mich.(Thousands)
U.S.(%)
Mich.(%)
Mich.(Thousands)
U.S.(%)
Mich.(%)
Job ChangeFirst Quarters 200110
Job ChangeFirst Quarters 201012Establishment
SizeIntervals
Table 3
Private-Sector Employment Change by Establishment Size
Michigan and the United States
First Quarters of 200110 and 201012
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
8/55
8which dropped by 36.3 percent compared with an overall job loss of 19.1 percent. Indeed, employment
in the largest size category fell by more than one job in three over the period (329,500 out of 907,900
jobs in that category), making up just under half of the total job loss over the interval (329,500 of the
724,100 jobs lost). Correspondingly, the smaller size categories did relatively better over the earlier
period in Michigan, posting a smaller, yet nontrivial, pace of decline. The job loss for the United States
over the size classes was much less pronounced: the largest category, which took the brunt of the
losses, was down by 17.7 percent, and the smallest category actually gained jobs.
The mirror image pattern emerges during the state recovery from the first quarters of 2010 to
2012. The largest gains in Michigan show up in the largest establishment size category, allowing it to
creep up from an 18.9 percent employment share in the first quarter of 2010 (not shown in the table) to
20.4 percent two years lateran improvement of 88,800 jobs (15.4 percent) compared with an addition
of 206,100 jobs (6.7 percent) overall. The largest size category expanded much more rapidly in
Michigan than in the United States during this period; thus, Michigan remains more top-heavy in the
largest establishments compared with the nation. To repeat: this expansion in the largest size class
reflects the likely net movement of smaller firms into larger size categories, in addition to job growth
within the largest categories.
This may explain the more
modest growth among the
smaller establishments.
We also investigated
wage behavior among the Mich. Mich.U.S. U.S. U.S.Mich.
First Quarter2001
First Quarter2010
First Quarter2012
Annualized Wage ($)
EstablishmentSizeIntervals
Table 4
Private-Sector Annualized Wage by Establishment Size
Michigan and the United States
First Quarters of 2001, 2010, and 2012
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
9/55
9for establishments in Michigan and the United States were much the same, although Michigan was
slightly higher in most size classes and exceeded the nation among all classes by 2.9 percent ($38,532
versus $37,436). In both Michigan and the United States, average wages increase monotonically with
increasing size of class.
By 2012q1, wages in every size category are substantially lower in Michigan compared with the
nation, and they are lower overall by 7.9 percent ($47,465 versus $51,541). The ground lost by
Michigan in the largest size class is not surprising, considering the retrenchment of the high-wage auto
sector and related industries over the period. In 2001q1, the annualized wages in Michigan for
establishments with 500 or more employees were 2.1 percent above the U.S. average ($53,847 versus
$52,739); eleven years later, wages were 17.4 percent below the national average ($64,805 versus
$78,414). Less visible is that the lost ground on wages has permeated the smaller establishments as
well.
The slower growth in total wages in Michigan compared with the nation conceivably could reflect
both slower wage growth in the state within size categories, and the larger reduction in the share of the
largest establishments that on average pay the highest wages. On the other hand, shift-share analysis
suggests that almost all of the relative loss reflects the comparatively slower growth in wages within
each size category, and not shifts in composition among categories.
What are the take-aways from this analysis? We suggest that there are four main points:
1. Over the past eleven years, the smaller establishments (those with fewer than 500 employees)
have become a larger share of the work force in both Michigan and the United States.
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
10/55
103. It remains to be seen whether the retrenchment and restructuring of some of the key large
establishments in Michigan, many of them auto-related, will translate into permanently larger
shares for the smaller establishmentsor whether cyclical movements will transport the work
force to business size configurations more similar to those seen at the end of the past expansion.
4. With respect to wages, Michigan has lost significant ground to the nation over the past eleven
years. This reflects slower wage growth in all of the establishment size classes analyzed here.
B. Labor Underutilization
Another important element of the labor market in Michigans current recovery is the status of the
unemployed. What is clear is that with the expanding economy over the past three years, the officially
measured state unemployment rate has dropped significantly, from a calendar-year average of 13.4
percent in 2009 to 10.3 percent in 2011, and by our estimate, to 8.9 percent in 2012. The recent rates
are still historically high, however, and more to the point in this section, do not reflect the extent of labor
underutilization in the state. In other words, the official, or so-called U-3, measure of the unemployed
excludes residents not officially in the labor force who nonetheless desire work, or who are in the labor
force and desire more work.
We provide some
measure of the magnitude of
these groups in Chart 1, which
shows for calendar-year 2011
estimates of how much the
Chart 1
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization
Michigan, 2006 and 2011
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%14%
16%
18%
20%
7.0
10.211.1
12.3
7.48.3
12.0
18.8
2006 2011
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
11/55
11labor. The U-3 measure for 2011 is 10.2 percent, 0.1 percent lower than the official rate, a difference
that can be written off to arithmetic. We now include in turn the measures for U-4, U-5, and U-6.
When discouraged workers are added to the U-3 measure, forming the U-4 measure, the labor
underutilization rate moves up from 10.2 percent to 11.1 percent. Discouraged workers are people who
are not currently looking for work because they believe that there are no jobs available for them. This
group in Michigan is disproportionately young and male.
The U-5 measure, which adds to the U-4 measure the category all other marginally attached
workers, yields a 12.3 percent rate of labor underutilization. These other marginally attached workers
are people who want a job and have searched for work sometime in the prior year, but have not looked
for work in the past four weeks for reasons such as family responsibilities or transportation problems.
This group in Michigan incorporates youth disproportionately to their share of the population.
The largest addition comes when part-time workers who would prefer to work full-time are
included, spiking the labor underutilization rate to 18.8 percent. The distribution of these involuntarily
part-time workers in Michigan is tilted toward females.
It should be noted that this pattern of labor underutilization is not unique to times of higher
unemployment, but also occurs in periods with lower unemployment. An example, shown in Chart 1,
would be six years ago in 2006.
We now turn to looking at 2012 to see whats been happening to employment so far during the
year, this time focusing specifically on the major industry groupings.
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
12/55
12pace of 3 percent. Over the following spring and summer quarters, job growth ratcheted back greatly to
a much more subdued annual rate of 0.5 percent, a gain of 9,700 jobs over the two quarters based on
preliminary data for the third quarter. The states job growth is similar to the national pattern so far this
year, and also traces a path similar to the surge-and-pull-back trajectory that occurred in the state in
2011although in neither case is the contrast between the two intervals as pointed as for Michigan in
2012. Initial indications are that there will be some upward revision in the establishment employment
numbers for 2012 when they are put through the annual benchmarking process early next year.
The top job producers so far during 2012 are concentrated in six industries: (1) motor vehicle and
parts manufacturing, 12,400 jobs; (2) professional, scientific, and technical services, 8,400; (3)
accommodation and food services, 6,600; (4) nonvehicle durable manufacturing, 6,200; (5) health and
social services, 5,000; and (6) finance and insurance, 4,400. The dominant supersectors this year, as
they were last year, are manufacturing, led by the auto industry, and professional and business
services, led by the professional, scientific, and technical services industry. Both of these industries are
among the most highly compensated in the Michigan economy. Together with some of the other
industries on the list of top job producers, they contribute to the continuing strength in the higher-wage
segments of the economy during the current recovery.
Several industries have shed jobs so far during 2012, in particular: (1) local government, 5,500
jobs; (2) retail trade, 5,200; (3) construction, 3,200; and (4) other services, 2,100. Local government
continues its downward trend as it adjusts to the stringent budget realities it now faces. The losses in
retail trade reflect the industrys ongoing change to a less labor-intensive way of carrying out its
business. The near-term prospects for construction seem to be more favorable. The loss of
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
13/55
13Going forward, the prospects for the Michigan economy depend on the ability of the national
economy to gain some momentum over the next two years. Before we offer our perspective on the
final quarter of 2012 and the two years that follow, we first turn to a brief review of the national and local
input assumptions that influence our forecast for Michigan through 2014.
IV. Inputs to the Forecast
Our Michigan forecast depends on the overall health of the national economy, national economic
policy, and a set of assumptions specific to the state model. Major elements of our national forecast
include the following:
In September, the Federal Reserve announced another round of quantitative easingthe
purchase of an additional $40 billion per month of agency mortgage-backed securities. Moreimportant, the Fed modified its forward policy guidance to commit to highly accommodativemonetary policy for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens, and indicatedthat the federal funds rate would likely remain low through mid-2015. In our forecast, it remainsbelow 0.25 percent at least through 2014.
The 3-month T-bill rate stays below 20 basis points throughout the forecast. The 30-year
conventional mortgage rate climbs slowly to 3.7 percent by the end of 2013 and reaches 4.1percent by the close of 2014.
The national elections did not significantly shift the balance of power, leaving many of the sameparties responsible for dealing with the significant short- and long-term federal budget issues onthe horizon. On the spending side, Congress agreed to a six-month continuing resolution fundingthe federal government at roughly fiscal 2012 levels through March of next year. On the tax side,however, either the lame duck session will agree on which expiring tax cuts to extend or else the
incoming members of Congress will have to pass new cuts to avoid the fiscal cliff. We assumethat the payroll tax cut will expire at the end of 2012, and that the Bush-era income tax cuts, or anincome tax cut of equivalent size, will be maintained along with temporary cuts to the AlternativeMinimum Tax. We forecast slow growth of federal expenditures over the next two years andmodest tax increases in 2014 as a result of bipartisan desire to reduce the federal deficit. On aNational Income and Product Accounts basis, the federal deficit decreases from $1.1 trillion in
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
14/55
14 We project output growth to follow an uneven path throughout our forecast horizon. Real GDP
slows this quarter but then accelerates to average 2 percent in 2013 and an improved 2.7 percentin 2014. In each year, expansion slows early due to assumed tax increases and then rebounds in
the second half. Slow growth in disposable income holds consumer spending to a modest 1.9percent growth rate in 2013 before stepping up to a healthier 2.3 percent gain in 2014.
Light vehicle sales and residential building grow quite strongly throughout the forecast; lightvehicle sales reach 15 million units in 2013 and grow by another 600,000 units in 2014, whilehousing starts come up off the floor to register over one million in 2013 and almost 1.4 million in2014.
Business capital spending grows modestly after several slow quarters in 2012. Combinedgovernment purchases fall in real terms over most of the forecast period, but the rate of declineslows as government units make progress on reducing their deficits.
Payroll employment rises by 2.0 million jobs during 2013 and 2.3 million during 2014 (4th quarterto 4th quarter), after a projected gain of 1.9 million this year. The unemployment rate falls steadily
throughout the forecast, reaching 7.6 percent at the end of 2013 and 7.2 percent by the close of2014.
Consumer price inflation remains tame over our forecast horizon. Core CPI inflation (excludingfood and energy prices) picks up to 2.1 percent this year but then settles back to 1.7 percent in2013 and 1.8 percent in 2014. Higher food prices due to the drought cause increases in the all-items CPI slightly ahead of core inflation rates. Headline inflation averages just under 2 percentfor 2013 and 2014.
Some additional assumptions affect the outlook for Michigan, most notably with regard to the
automotive industry. The United Auto Workers and the Detroit Three automakers have entered the
second year of four-year contracts that run to September 2015. Increased pay over the course of the
contracts is in the form of lump sums, with no increase in base wages. A portion of the lump-sum
payment is performance-based. In our forecast we have assumed lump-sum payments that average
$1,300$1,400 per qualified worker across the three companies in each of the years 2012 through
2014 With regard to profit-sharing the current contract follows a new and more generous scheme; we
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
15/55
15As shown in Chart 2, we
are forecasting that total unit
sales of U.S. light vehicles
cars, minivans, sport utility
vehicles, crossovers, and
pickup truckswill continue to
improve, with a healthy
upward movement from the
12.7 million units recorded in
2011 to 14.3 million this year,
then rising further but at a
slower pace over the next two years, to 15 million in 2013 and 15.6 million in 2014. Pent-up demand is
significant, especially considering that the average age of a vehicle on the road today is at record
levels, and that vehicle sales remain historically low relative to the driving-age population. Sales do not
recover over the forecast period, however, to the 16 to 17+ million units sold annually in the years from
1999 to 2007.
The Detroit Threes share of the light vehicle market moved up two percentage points last year to
46.2 percent, due in part to a temporary boost resulting from the natural disasters in Japan. We see
their share backing off, to 44.4 percent in 2012, before drifting up to 44.7 percent in 2013 and 45
percent in 2014. The projections for total sales and the Detroit Threes share of that market, taken
together, yield our outlook for Detroit Three sales, which move up progressively from 5.9 million units in
2011 t 7 illi i 2014 W d l t f i th t t d ith
Chart 2
U.S. Light Vehicle Sales
Total vs. Detroit Three, 201114
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Total
2011 2012 20142013
Millions
of Units
15.014.3
12.7
15.6
Detroit Three
5.9 6.46.7 7.0
Annual % Detroit Three
market share
45.044.4 44.7
46.2
RSQE: November 2012
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
16/55
16V. The Forecast for 20132014
Michigan is now chalking up its third consecutive year of economic recovery, although its pace
has slowed during 2012. The recovery has been led by manufacturing, which in Michigan is the typical
trigger during the earlier stages of economic rebounds. Painting with the broadest brush, we see the
recovery sustained but moderately paced from now through 2014, the endpoint of our forecast period,
with some pickup in activity over the period. This would extend the recovery period to five years,
starting from the labor markets low point at the end of 2009.
The downshift in job
growth for 2012 is apparent
from the data in Chart 3, which
shows the calendar-year
change in wage and salary
employment for Michigan from
2011 through the end of our
forecast period in 2014. With
one quarter of data yet to come,
we are estimating that 2012 will
come in with a gain of 51,800
jobs, well off the pace of the 75,300 job additions posted last year. We see continuing additions to the
job count in 2013 and 2014, at a pace of 37,500 and 57,600 jobs, respectively. The moderate rate of
job creation in these two years reflects both our forecast of a slower rate of increase in Detroit Three
Chart 3
Change in Michigan Wage and Salary
Employment, 201114
20142011 2012 20130
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Change in
Employment
51,800
37,500
57,600
Total jobs Private-sector jobsRSQE: November 2012
59,100
43,300
62,800
Forecast
75,300
91,900
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
17/55
17The profile for the job market in the private sector is a little stronger than the total, since the total
is brought down by government employment, which continues to shrink over the forecast period. The
private sector adds more than 59,000 jobs in 2012, followed by gains of about 43,000 and 63,000 in
each of the next two years, respectively. As will be seen shortly, these data based on annual averages
do mask some of the dynamic movements of job creation that are better represented by the quarterly
data path.
Our calendar-year fore-
cast of employment is put in
broader historical context in
Chart 4, which shows the
annual job change in Michigan
since 1940. The job gain of
51,800 estimated for 2012 falls
a little below the average
change of 57,000 jobs per year
recorded from 1971 to 2000,
prior to the extended downturn
of the 2000s. The gain forecast for 2013 would fall well below this benchmark, but job growth in 2014
bounces back to essentially match the benchmark.
Next, we consider the quarterly path of employment over the forecast period, as well as the
underlying industry detail. We start with Chart 5, which shows our projected growth path for payroll
Chart 4
Change in Michigan Wage and Salary
Employment, 19402011
and Forecast, 201214
400
300
200
100
0
100
200
300
Forecast
WW II
Thousands
of Jobs
Average Change
19712000 = 57,000 jobs
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 14
RSQE: November 2012
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
18/55
18The left panel of the
chart substantiates a
comment made earlier on the
uneven pattern of growth seen
so far during 2012. A
manufacturing-led surge in job
growth in the first quarter,
spiking at an annual rate of 3
percent, was followed by
considerably weaker spring
and summer quarterssimilar
in pattern to the profile for 2011. Job growth for the middle two quarters of 2012 averaged an annual
rate of one-half of a percentage point, and we anticipate the final quarter of the year to come in at a
similar rate of 0.4 percent, with modest gains in the private sector more than offsetting losses in the
government sector.
The right panel of the chart shows our quarterly forecast path of job growth during 2013 and 2014.
We do see some pickup in the economy going into 2013 and continuing through 2014. Job growth
accelerates from its 0.5 percent pace over the last three quarters of 2012 to 1.2 percent at the
beginning of 2013, holding in that neighborhood throughout most of the year before bumping up its
tempo to settle in around 1.5 percent during 2014. For comparison, the average job growth recorded
over the first two years of the recovery (2009q4 to 2011q4) was 1.6 percent.
4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
Annual Rate (%)
Chart 5
Michigan Wage and Salary Employment Growth
Actual Forecast
10 2011 20142012 2013
1.5 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.5
57.8 63.8 43.4 49.6 61.5
4th Quarter to 4th Quarter Growth Rate (%)
4th Quarter to 4th Quarter Change (Thousands)
0.8
3.1 3.0
0.7
RSQE: November 2012
1.2 1.21.5
0.4
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
19/55
19More detail underlying the forecast path for total payroll employment is revealed by the
movements of some of the major sectors that make up the work force. The changes for total wage and
salary employment during 2011 and the forecast years 2012 through 2014, displayed at the bottom of
Chart 5, are duplicated (and rounded) in the first row of Table 5. The rest of the rows show the same
information for major sectors contributing to work force movements.
Michigans signature
sector, manufacturing, has led
the current recovery following
a decade of declining
employment. In the first two
years of the recovery, from the
end of 2009 to the end of
2011 (not shown in the table),
manufacturing contributed
50,000 jobs, more than 40
percent of the net gain in jobs
over that period from a sector that makes up a much smaller 13 percent of the work force. The sector
adds another 16,000 jobs during 2012, but by the second half of 2012 we see manufacturing settling
into a more moderate pace of job creation, contributing an additional 23,000 jobs from the end of 2012
through 2014. That would still amount to 25 percent of the total net additions over the next two years,
double its current share of the total work force.
Table 5
Michigan Wage and Salary Employment Changes
(Thousands of jobs)
2010q4
to
2011q4
2011q4
to
2012q4
2012q4
to
2013q4
2013q4
to
2014q4
Total wage and salary 64 43 50 62
Government 13 5 7 3
Manufacturing 23 16 10 13
Private educ. & health svcs. 11 5 7 8
Professional & business svcs. 28 17 15 12
RSQE: November 2012
Construction 0 1 10 9
Trade, transportation, utilities 9 1 10 13
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
20/55
20Construction has been plagued in recent years by the plunge in the building market, but we
anticipate some revival in this sector. By our estimate, construction added 3,400 jobs in the second
half of 2012, and we are projecting further gains averaging 9,500 per year over the next two years.
Recent data on the local housing market suggest that it might have begun to turn around. State
residential building permits are on the rise, and the Home Builders Association of Michigan is seeing an
improvement in new home building this year compared with the smaller gains recorded in 2010 and
2011. The home builders attribute the improvement to pent-up demand finally starting to move things
forward, which would bode well for construction employment in the next few years.
Along with manufacturing, the professional and business services sector has been Michigans
other top job producer over the past three years. This broad category includes a wide range of
industries from legal and engineering to temporary help. Much of the impetus for the sectors healthy
job growth in the earlier stages of the recovery emanated from the temporary help industry, but this
year the gains in temporary help have slowed. On the other hand, job growth in the well-compensated
professional, scientific, and technical services component has accelerated; so far during 2012, this
component has contributed five jobs in eight gained in the professional and business services sector.
We are forecasting that the sector will add another 27,000 jobs from the end of 2012 to the close of
2014, a quarter of the jobs gained in total, supported by a still-favorable commercial environment locally
and a continuing expansion of the manufacturing sector.
Almost 90 percent of the private education and health services sector is the health care segment.
This sector has been the most robust in the Michigan economy over the longer term, having added to
employment every year starting in 1999in fact, the only major sector to have done so. We see this
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
21/55
21Trade, transportation, and utilities (TTU) is the largest supersector in the Michigan economy,
consisting of both wholesale and retail trade, local transportation, and public utilities. After gaining
9,000 jobs during 2011, the sector gravitated to the negative side of the ledger in 2012, by our estimate
losing 1,000 jobs, with the losses concentrated in the beleaguered retail trade industry. We are
forecasting a bounce-back in 2013 for TTU, to job gains similar to those posted in 2011, as we see
some modest recovery in retail while other components of TTUwholesale trade, trucking, and
warehousingcontinue to benefit from their tie-ins to the expanding manufacturing sector.
The government sector has lost jobs in every year starting with 2003, and we are projecting that
trend to continue through the forecast period, with job losses of 5,000 during 2012 and 7,000 in 2013,
slowing to 3,000 in 2014 as all levels of government continue to adjust to their new budget realities. If
our forecast proves correct, there would be 91,000 fewer public-sector positions in the state at the end
of 2014 than twelve years earlier, at the end of 2002.
Overall, though, this is a good news story: the recovery continues for two more years, and activity
levels see some pickup over the periodthus cumulating to five years of growth after a decade of
decline. But how much ground are we making up in the recovery relative to what we lost? This is the
historical context question, when we assess our progress from the previous peak rather than from the
most recent troughand here the news is decidedly more somber.
The quarterly path of establishment employment from the start of 2000 to the end of 2014 is
shown in Chart 6, which neatly summarizes Michigans recent economic history and our view of its
near-term future. The dramatic decline in jobs from the states peak employment quarter in the spring
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
22/55
22downturn through 2014. That
would replenish one-third of the
jobs lost from mid-2000 to the
end of 2009progress indeed,
but also leaving us with a great
deal of ground still to be made
up.
There is also room for
improvement in the prospects
for the unemployed. The
Michigan unemployment rate came in at 9.3 percent for September 2012, a drop of 1.1 percentage
points since the previous September reading (comparable to the decline in the U.S. rate). But that
does not tell the story of the underlying dynamics. From July 2011 to April 2012, the Michigan rate fell
in every month, to 8.3 percent last April, a drop of 2.3 percentage points. Since then it rose in every
month until reaching 9.4 percent in August, an increase of 1.1 percentage points, before ticking down in
September. The net result of these down-then-up movements is that the Michigan rate is now the
same as it was last December. The gap between the Michigan rate and the lower U.S. rate had shrunk
to two-tenths of a percentage point by April, but it has now widened to 1.5 percentage points by
September.
We are forecasting that the state unemployment rate will tick down from its September reading of
9.3 percent to average 9.1 percent in the closing quarter of 2012, as shown in the box at the bottom of
Chart 6
Michigan Wage and Salary Employment
First Quarter of 2000 to Fourth Quarter of 2014
3,800
3,900
4,000
4,100
4,200
4,300
4,400
4,500
4,600
4,700
4,800
Forecast
Thousands of jobs
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Trough 09q4
12q3
14q4
Peak 00q2
RSQE: November 2012
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
23/55
23The labor force appears
to have reversed its five-year
slide at the beginning of 2012,
although the jury might still be
out on that one. Regardless,
we are forecasting a growing
labor force over the next two
years, as additional job
seekers are drawn in by
improving job opportunities
and that slows the decline in
the unemployment rate. As indicated in the U.S. forecast report, longer-term demographic trends can
be expected to soften a labor force recovery motivated by economic factors.
As shown in Chart 7, our forecast path for the state unemployment rate translates into calendar-
year averages of 8.9 percent for 2012, 8.7 percent for 2013, and 8 percent for 2014, following a rate of
10.3 percent for 2011.
The calendar-year jobless
rates we are forecasting for
2012 to 2014 are put in
historical context in Chart 8,
which shows the Michigan
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Chart 7
Michigan Unemployment Rate
201114
9.6 9.1 8.4 7.7
4th Quarter Unemployment Rate
10.3
8.9 8.78.0
2011 2012 2013 2014
RSQE: November 2012
Chart 8
Michigan Unemployment Rate, 19702011
and Forecast, 201214
10%
12%
14%
16%Forecast
Average Unemployment Rate
19702008 = 7.9%
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
24/55
242014 they gravitate down to a rate similar to the 7.9 percent averaged from 1970 to 2008.
Our forecast of inflation
and income growth is provided
in Chart 9. Local inflation,
measured by the growth rate of
the Detroit CPI, is shown in the
first panel. Inflation spiked to
3.3 percent in 2011, spurred by
a run-up in food and energy
prices. It backs off to 1.9
percent in 2012 and remains
subdued for the rest of the
forecast period, ticking down to 1.8 percent for both 2013 and 2014. Although the recent drought is
projected to raise food prices in 2013, fairly moderate economic growth in a high-unemployment
environment keeps inflation in check. Local inflation runs one-tenth of a percentage point below the
national rate in 2013 and 2014.
The income side of our forecast is summarized in the other panels of Chart 9. Personal income
growth decelerates from 5.6 percent in 2011 to 3.8 percent in 2012, corresponding with calendar-year
job growth that slows by seven-tenths of a percentage pointincluding a softening in the higher-paying
industriesand weaker growth in total nonwage income. Income growth slows further in 2013, to 2.6
percent, for the same reasons. With some pickup in employment and nonwage income growth in 2014,
Personal Income
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
5.6
3.8
2.6
4.5
Detroit CPI
2011 2012 2013 2014
Chart 9
Michigan Inflation and Income Growth
RSQE:November 2012
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
3.3
1.9 1.8 1.8
Real Disposable Income
1.11.5
0.5
1.8
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
25/55
25Growth in purchasing power then decelerates to 0.5 percent in 2013 with further weakening of nominal
income growth and a small increase in the growth of federal taxes. Growth in purchasing power
rebounds in 2014, to 1.8 percent, following the same pattern as nominal income growth.
Our income forecast has implications for the state revenue outlook, to which we now turn.
VI. The State Revenue Outlook
Last years tax reform legislation made major changes to the personal income tax and to the
primary tax paid by businesses. The net effect of those changes is a reduction in combined general
fund general purpose (GFGP) and school aid fund (SAF) revenue. In addition, taxes are shifted from
businesses to individuals and from the school aid fund to the general fund. In June of 2012, the
legislature enacted some temporary tax relief for individuals by accelerating a scheduled reduction in
the income tax rate and by raising the standard personal exemption.
Under current law (including tax reform and the June tax cut), the personal income tax rate
dropped by one-tenth of a percentage point, to 4.25 percent, on October 1three months sooner than
under the tax reform plan. The rate is then scheduled to remain at 4.25 percent. In addition, the
personal exemption, which had been $3,700 since the beginning of 2011, rose to $3,950 on October 1,
2012, and is scheduled to rise to $4,000 at the beginning of 2014. The personal exemption remains at
that level until the amount as calculated under prior law exceeds $4,000. All of the eliminations or
modifications to other exemptions and deductions that were part of tax reform are still in force, and the
phased-in taxation of pension income that began January 1, 2012, is proceeding as scheduled.
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
26/55
26On the business side, as of January 1 the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) was replaced with a
corporate income or profits tax that applies only to businesses organized as a traditional corporation (C-
corporation) under federal tax rules. The corporate tax disallows nearly all the credits offered under the
MBT, but some of the credits under the MBT are valid over a number of years. Those wishing to take
advantage of certain firm-specific credits may continue to pay taxes under the MBT until the credits are
exhausted, which could take a number of years. A portion of the MBT was earmarked for the SAF, but
as of fiscal 2012, all MBT and corporate income tax revenue accrues to the general fund. In total, the
new legislation reduced business tax revenue by about $1.01 billion in fiscal 2012. The business tax
cuts then grow to $1.64 billion in fiscal 2013 and $1.75 billion in fiscal 2014.
Two other pieces of legislation passed in June 2012 will result in a one-time shift in a portion of
sales tax revenue in fiscal 2013. To provide additional state funding to leverage federal aid for
highways, $100 million of sales tax revenue from motor fuel sales will be earmarked for the State
Trunkline Fund. In addition, $10 million from the tax on sales of aviation fuel will be designated for the
Aeronautics Fund. The two earmarks will reduce GFGP sales tax revenue.
Our forecast of state revenues for fiscal years 201314 is presented in Table 6. The upper
portion details general fund general purpose revenues, and the lower portion summarizes school aid
fund revenues. Based on preliminary data, GFGP income tax revenue rose by 8.7 percent in fiscal
2012, bolstered by withholding on pension income and quarterly estimated payments that reflected the
increase in tax liability under tax reform. We anticipate a surge in income tax revenue in fiscal 2013 as
annual payments for the 2012 tax year also reflect the tax changes. By fiscal 2014, the increase in
income tax revenue moderates to move more in line with taxable income growth. The vast majority of
27
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
27/55
27Table 6
State Revenues by Fiscal Year(Millions of dollars, except as noted)
Actual RSQE Forecast
2011 2012P 2013 2014
General Fund General Purpose
Personal income tax 4445 4833 5552 5869
(% change) (20.3) (8.7) (14.9) (5.7)
Consumption taxes 2083 2157 2125 2293(% change) (1.2) (3.6) (1.5) (7.9)
Sales 1067 1092 1013 1153
Use 734 782 835 868
Other consumption 282 284 278 272
Business taxes 1678 1585 697 694
(% change) (15.5) (5.5) (56.0) (0.3)
MBT/SBT/Corporate Income 1347 1232 332 318
Other business 331 353 365 376
Other GFGP taxes 69 41 48 51
(% change) (18.8) (40.6) (17.5) (7.0)
GFGP tax revenue 8274 8616 8422 8908
(% change) (12.7) (4.1) (2.3) (5.8)
Nontax revenue 539 467 355 332GFGP revenue 8813 9083 8777 9241
(% change) (14.3) (3.1) (3.4) (5.3)
School Aid Fund
SAF taxes 10521 10118 10363 10659
(% change) (4.0) (3.8) (2.4) (2.9)
Lottery transfer 727 770 745 739
(% change) (3.7) (5.9) (3.3) (0.8)
Earmarked state SAF revenue 11248 10888 11108 11398
(% change) (4.0) (3.2) (2.0) (2.6)
28
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
28/55
28per year in fiscal 2013 and 2014, but the one-time earmark of transportation-related sales tax revenue
yields a 1.5 percent drop in GFGP consumption tax revenue in fiscal 2013 followed by roughly an 8
percent gain the following year.
Most of the movement in business tax revenue through fiscal 2013 comes from changes in the
Single Business Tax (SBT)/MBT/corporate income tax. According to preliminary data, combined
revenue from the MBT and corporate income tax, net of any lingering refunds under the SBT, totaled
$1.23 billion in fiscal 2012 as taxpayers settled up their MBT liability for the 2011 tax year and began
making their estimated payments under the corporate income tax for the 2012 tax year. Some firms
are expected to file taxes under the MBT in future years to take advantage of outstanding credits.
When the implied MBT refunds are combined with a full year of corporate income tax collections,
revenue shrinks to $332 million for fiscal 2013 and to $318 million the following year. Business taxes
including taxes on insurance companies and on oil and natural gas extractionfell by 5.5 percent in
fiscal 2012 and are projected to plummet by more than 50 percent in fiscal 2013. In 2014, business tax
revenue dips by 0.3 percent.
GFGP revenue rose by 3.1 percent, to $9.1 billion, in fiscal 2012. All of that gain is wiped out in
fiscal 2013the result of a full year of business tax cuts and a sharp drop in nontax revenue. GFGP
revenue then rises by 5.3 percent in fiscal 2014, to $9.24 billion.
For the fiscal year just ended, revenue earmarked for the school aid fund dropped by 3.2 percent.
The loss of designated MBT revenue$739 million in fiscal 2011more than accounts for the falloff.
Among the major sources of SAF revenue, sales, use, and individual income taxes are all projected to
29
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
29/55
29VII. Conclusion
A. Summary of the Outlook
First, the good news. The Michigan economy is on the verge of completing its third year of
recovery, and we see that recovery continuing over the next two years, with some pickup in activity
over the period. Specifically, we are forecasting progressively increasing job gains through 2014,
amounting to 43,400 from the end of 2011 to the end of 2012, followed by additions of 49,600 during
2013 and 61,500 during 2014. As is typical in Michigan, the recovery has been led by manufacturing,
featuring a reborn auto industry, with a number of the other higher-wage sectors such as professional
and scientific services making major contributions.
Second, the less-good-but-not-bad news. The pace of recovery slowed in 2012, the 43,400 jobs
added over the year being considerably less than the gains of 57,800 and 63,800 posted during 2010
and 2011, respectively. And much of the growth in 2012 occurred early, in the first quarter of the year.
The job gains we anticipate over the next two years, while accelerating, would still be characterized as
moderate.
We are forecasting that improvements in the job market will allow the Michigan unemployment
rate to drift down from the 9.3 percent rate it posted in September of this year to 8.4 percent at the end
of 2013 and 7.7 percent at yearend 2014, at which point it will be five-tenths of a percentage point
above the U.S. rate. The jobless rates over the forecast period are on the high side historically, but by
mid-2014 they gravitate down to rates similar to the 7.9 percent averaged from 1970 to 2008.
30
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
30/55
30those related to the national outlook and those that pertain to the auto and housing sectors and the
labor market.
Risks associated with the national outlook. The risks highlighted in the current U.S. outlook
are also matters of concern for the state forecast. The Michigan economy seems a little more coupled
to the national economy in the past few years than it has been for a while. Domestically, important
sources of uncertainty identified in the U.S. forecast include risks related to the housing market, and the
fiscal cliff. Internationally, the primary risks pertain to the continuing evolution of the situation in the
Eurozone and the possibility of an even more significant slowdown of growth in the Chinese economy.
Risks associated with the auto sector. This item is permanently on Michigans risk list because
of the industrys dominance in the state economy, and its interdependence among many local
industries. While we are projecting the auto industry to continue growing over the forecast period, we
also anticipate that it will do so at a slower pace. To the extent that Detroit Three sales show greater
strength than we expect, due to the effects of pent-up demand and the aging fleet now on the road, as
well as some easing of credit standards, the auto sector could outperform our forecast.
Risks associated with the housing sector. The movements of this sector are particularly
difficult to peg, both nationally and locally, but they are important to gauging our economic prospects.
For example, and particularly relevant to Michigan, Morgan Stanley recently estimated that in 2013,
every 100,000 in new housing starts would translate into 300,000 vehicle sales. Recent data on the
local housing market, including the Case-Shiller home price index for Detroit as well as statewide
residential building permits, suggest the long-awaited turnaround in housing may have begun. This is
31
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
31/55
31Risks associated with labor market movements. Michigans labor force growth has been
notoriously difficult to forecast, and how accurate we are in doing so affects our success in pinning
down the path of the unemployment rate. It appears that the labor force has turned the corner in 2012,
growing again after five years of unabated decline, but this evidence is far from conclusive. Our
forecast is for continued growth in the labor force over the next two years, softening declines in the
unemployment rate. If job seekers do not return to the labor force in the numbers we anticipate, the
unemployment rate could drop more rapidly than we are currently forecasting. Complicating the
tracking of labor force movements is the nontrivial effect that demographic changes are having on
participation rates.
C. Closing Thoughts
If we assess where the Michigan economy is now and where we will be in 2014 from the
reference point of the previous peak in mid-2000, we are reminded of how deep a hole we are digging
out of. If our forecast proves correct, with five years of recovery to the end of 2014 we would replenish
only one-third of the jobs lost from mid-2000 to the end of 2009. And the debilitating state recession
that dragged on for almost a decade also caused us to lose significant ground to the nation on wage
levels, moving from a position a little above the U.S. average in 2001 to a position well below in 2012.
A lingering concern is that the unprecedented hit taken by the state economy during the first decade of
the 2000s may have left us with some permanent damageor at least with an overlong period of
recovery. Nevertheless, it is heartening that we are making forward progress now, and at rates of job
growth exceeding most other states.
32
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
32/55
Constant Adjustments in the RSQE Control Forecast for 20132014
The following adjustments have been used to correct for level drift and start-up error:
A.AEQGM Average Earnings per Quarter, Government
A.AEQPM Average Earnings per Quarter, PrivateA.BLDPER Residential Building PermitsA.ECCM Employment, ConstructionA.EFINM Employment, Financial ActivitiesA.EINFM Employment, InformationA.EMFOM Employment, Manufacturing other than Transportation EquipmentA.EMIM Employment, Natural Resources and MiningA.EMRESM Difference between Household and Payroll Survey EmploymentA.EMTEQM Employment, Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
A.ESBM Employment, Professional and Business ServicesA.ESHM Employment, Education and Health ServicesA.ESLM Employment, Leisure and HospitalityA.ESOM Employment, Other ServicesA.ETTUM Employment; Trade, Transportation, and UtilitiesA.HOUSEM Existing Single-Family Home SalesA.HRSM Average Weekly Hours, ManufacturingA.LFM Labor ForceA.PAAAGA Retail Price of GasolineA.PDIESE Price of Diesel FuelA.PSTKNR Current Cost Price Index, U.S. Nonresidential Capital StockA.SEVNR State Equalized Value for Real Nonresidential PropertyA.SEVR State Equalized Value for Real Residential PropertyA.STKNR0 Real U.S. Nonresidential Capital StockA.TBWMNS Beer and Wine Tax RevenuesA.TCIGMN Cigarette and Tobacco Tax RevenuesA.TCTF Comprehensive Transportation Fund RevenuesA.TDIESE Diesel Fuel Tax RevenuesA.TGASMN Gasoline Tax Revenues
A.TLIQMN Liquor Specific Tax RevenuesA.TOILM Oil and Gas Severance Tax RevenuesA.TRET Real Estate Transfer Tax RevenuesA.TRSNVM Sales Tax Revenues, OtherA.TRSVM9 Sales Tax Revenues, AutoA.TSEP State Education Property Tax RevenuesA.TUPM Utility Property Tax RevenuesA.TUSEMN Use Tax RevenuesA.TVEHRE Vehicle Registration Tax Revenues
A.WM Average Hourly Earnings, ManufacturingA.WUS Average Hourly Earnings, U.S. ManufacturingA.YENTM Proprietors IncomeA.YOLM Other Labor IncomeA.YPRM Dividends, Interest, and Rental IncomeA.YUCTRM Unemployment Benefits
The Michigan Economic Outlook for 2013-2014
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
33/55
RSQE Forecast, 16 November 2012
The State of Michigan
I N D E X O F T A B L E S
Table 1: Michigan Personal Income
Table 2: Employment in Michigan
Table 3: State of Michigan GFGP Revenue
Table 4: State of Michigan SAF and Transportation Tax Revenue
Table 5: Selected State of Michigan Tax Revenues
Complete Model Output
Non-zero Adjustment ConstantsExogenous VariablesEndogenous VariablesGrowth Rates of Endogenous Variables
Forecast Based onThe Econometric Model of the State of Michigan
RSQEResearch Seminar in Quantitative Economics
The University of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan 48109
RSQE Forecast Table 1 16 November 2012
Michigan Personal Income
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
34/55
c ga e so a co e
(Millions of Current Dollars, SAQR)
Actual Forecast
2012q3 2012q4 2013q1 2013q2 2013q3 2013q4 2014q1 2014q2 2014q3
Personal Income 93247.58 94044.66 93973.94 94893.57 95804.99 96769.49 98094.78 99105.64 100106.16
Wage and Salary 47805.00 48091.30 48493.10 48971.15 49384.71 49883.17 50363.45 50885.49 51333.94Private 40380.25 40678.75 41055.69 41510.41 41898.87 42411.02 42859.29 43348.66 43762.88Government 7424.71 7412.55 7437.42 7460.74 7485.84 7472.15 7504.15 7536.83 7571.06
Other Labor Income 11565.00 11623.17 11719.96 11796.89 11880.56 11966.92 12089.10 12178.65 12275.19
Proprietors Income 6663.00 6766.04 6874.37 6970.62 7074.63 7182.28 7286.69 7396.69 7511.31
Property Income 12864.00 13054.96 13191.34 13304.48 13462.47 13594.74 13721.01 13856.92 14051.64
Transfer Payments 20918.20 21093.14 21249.48 21446.96 21651.07 21843.25 22469.11 22670.98 22875.08
Residence Adjustment 464.50 469.08 473.70 478.37 483.08 487.84 492.65 497.50 502.40
Less:Social Ins Contrib 7032.10 7053.04 8028.01 8074.90 8131.52 8188.70 8327.22 8380.59 8443.40
Less:Federal Pers Taxes 7889.69 7968.84 8227.34 8347.37 8473.18 8605.02 9295.36 9431.09 9572.16Mich Withholding 1986.00 1892.16 1939.35 1944.37 2002.66 1970.47 2016.80 2023.79 2083.57
Equals:
Disp Personal Income 83371.89 84183.66 83807.25 84601.84 85329.15 86194.00 86782.62 87650.76 88450.42
ADDENDA:Consumer Price Index
Detroit 1982-84=100 216.37 217.23 218.22 219.24 220.21 221.14 222.08 223.07 224.14
Real Disposable IncomeMillions of 1982-84 $ 38532.10 38753.99 38404.11 38588.32 38749.50 38976.91 39077.54 39292.29 39462.71
RSQE Forecast Table 1 16 November 2012
Michigan Personal Income
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
35/55
g
(Millions of Current Dollars, SAQR)
Forecast Calendar Years Percent Changes
2014q4 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Personal Income 101185.74 358151.75 371676.49 381442.00 398492.32 3.78 2.63 4.47
Wage and Salary 51837.73 183000.25 190458.30 196732.14 204420.60 4.08 3.29 3.91Private 44240.42 154084.50 160907.74 166875.98 174211.26 4.43 3.71 4.40Government 7597.31 28915.75 29550.52 29856.15 30209.34 2.20 1.03 1.18
Other Labor Income 12367.54 44396.00 46074.92 47364.32 48910.48 3.78 2.80 3.26
Proprietors Income 7627.69 25069.25 26526.54 28101.89 29822.38 5.81 5.94 6.12
Property Income 14255.68 49359.00 51352.96 53553.03 55885.26 4.04 4.28 4.35
Transfer Payments 23092.05 81711.50 83442.34 86190.75 91107.22 2.12 3.29 5.70
Residence Adjustment 507.35 1769.50 1849.58 1922.99 1999.90 4.53 3.97 4.00
Less:Social Ins Contrib 8502.30 27153.50 28028.14 32423.13 33653.52 3.22 15.68 3.79
Less:Federal Pers Taxes 9720.70 29416.07 31401.98 33652.92 38019.31 6.75 7.17 12.97Mich Withholding 2051.31 7220.10 7810.96 7856.85 8175.47 8.18 0.59 4.06
Equals:
Disp Personal Income 89413.74 321515.58 332463.56 339932.23 352297.54 3.41 2.25 3.64
ADDENDA:Consumer Price Index
Detroit 1982-84=100 225.24 211.87 215.85 219.70 223.63 1.88 1.79 1.79
Real Disposable IncomeMillions of 1982-84 $ 39697.58 151767.87 154024.63 154718.84 157530.11 1.49 0.45 1.82
RSQE Forecast Table 2 16 November 2012
Employment in Michigan
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
36/55
(Thousands of Persons, Seasonally Adjusted)
Actual Forecast
2012q3 2012q4 2013q1 2013q2 2013q3 2013q4 2014q1 2014q2 2014q3
Total Employment 4231.50 4239.75 4252.46 4265.88 4279.67 4292.87 4308.44 4323.71 4339.77
Wage and Salary 3991.60 3995.56 4007.07 4019.23 4032.75 4045.14 4061.01 4075.81 4091.30
Private 3379.10 3386.96 3399.47 3412.63 3427.15 3443.54 3459.91 3475.21 3491.20Nat. Res. & Mining 7.50 7.50 7.45 7.40 7.38 7.38 7.40 7.41 7.40Construction 120.50 122.23 124.15 126.54 129.16 131.92 134.44 136.80 139.10Manufacturing 526.60 524.74 526.49 528.48 531.07 534.42 537.88 541.08 544.26Trans. Equipment 152.10 148.68 149.25 150.18 151.44 152.96 154.46 155.96 157.51Other Mfg. 374.60 376.06 377.23 378.30 379.63 381.46 383.43 385.13 386.75
Trade, Trans. & Util. 720.90 722.37 725.07 727.01 729.28 731.98 735.18 738.26 741.50Information 54.40 53.80 53.73 53.67 53.64 53.61 53.62 53.63 53.66
Financial Activities 200.10 200.96 201.73 202.50 203.23 203.98 204.65 205.35 206.02Prof. & Bus. Serv. 570.50 574.34 577.99 581.75 585.43 589.34 592.68 595.27 598.33Edu. & Health Serv. 630.40 630.97 632.43 634.33 636.30 638.29 640.32 642.36 644.42Leisure & Hospitality 380.70 381.74 381.93 382.37 382.98 383.80 384.67 385.69 386.81Other Services 167.50 168.31 168.50 168.57 168.68 168.80 169.07 169.35 169.68
Government 612.60 608.60 607.60 606.60 605.60 601.60 601.10 600.60 600.10
Non Wage and Salary 239.90 244.18 245.39 246.65 246.93 247.73 247.43 247.90 248.47
Labor Force 4661.60 4665.47 4670.25 4676.16 4681.95 4688.13 4695.09 4702.93 4711.05
Unemployment 430.10 425.72 417.80 410.28 402.27 395.26 386.65 379.22 371.28
Unemployment Rate (%) 9.23 9.13 8.95 8.77 8.59 8.43 8.24 8.06 7.88
ADDENDA: U.S. DATA(Billions of chained 2005 $,
except where noted)
Gross Domestic Prod 13616.20 13662.42 13735.41 13810.08 13897.94 13990.11 14075.76 14164.90 14272.50Business Fixed Invest 1478.20 1488.59 1506.03 1523.00 1544.28 1567.74 1589.12 1612.87 1639.16
Gross Vehicle Product 393.50 390.02 395.75 402.50 411.50 419.93 422.08 427.01 435.31Personal Cons Expend
New Autos + Trucks 218.70 223.81 227.13 229.86 234.54 238.48 237.68 240.61 245.56Light Vehicle Sales (mil) 14.46 14.63 14.70 14.85 15.12 15.35 15.26 15.42 15.70
Unemployment Rate (%) 8.05 7.85 7.77 7.71 7.67 7.62 7.55 7.47 7.35Personal Consumption
Deflator 2005=100 116.01 116.45 116.94 117.45 117.95 118.44 118.94 119.45 119.97Consumer Price Index
1982-84=100 230.30 230.25 231.77 234.45 234.77 234.70 236.17 238.88 239.28
RSQE Forecast Table 2 16 November 2012
Employment in Michigan
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
37/55
(Thousands of Persons, Seasonally Adjusted)
Forecast Calendar Years Percent Changes
2014q4 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Total Employment 4355.85 4177.08 4243.86 4272.72 4331.94 1.60 0.68 1.39
Wage and Salary 4106.66 3936.73 3988.52 4026.05 4083.70 1.32 0.94 1.43
Private 3507.56 3318.25 3377.37 3420.70 3483.47 1.78 1.28 1.84Nat. Res. & Mining 7.39 7.35 7.43 7.41 7.40 1.03 -0.28 -0.07Construction 141.22 124.90 121.36 127.94 137.89 -2.84 5.42 7.78Manufacturing 547.53 504.30 525.49 530.11 542.69 4.20 0.88 2.37Trans. Equipment 159.02 140.35 148.47 150.96 156.74 5.79 1.67 3.83Other Mfg. 388.51 363.95 377.02 379.16 385.95 3.59 0.57 1.79
Trade, Trans. & Util. 744.73 721.10 721.64 728.34 739.92 0.08 0.93 1.59Information 53.72 53.53 53.55 53.67 53.66 0.05 0.21 -0.01
Financial Activities 206.73 193.18 198.74 202.86 205.68 2.88 2.07 1.39Prof. & Bus. Serv. 601.65 550.48 571.29 583.63 596.98 3.78 2.16 2.29Edu. & Health Serv. 646.50 620.28 629.54 635.34 643.40 1.49 0.92 1.27Leisure & Hospitality 388.08 375.45 380.13 382.77 386.31 1.25 0.69 0.93Other Services 170.01 167.65 168.23 168.64 169.53 0.34 0.25 0.53
Government 599.10 618.50 611.20 605.35 600.23 -1.18 -0.96 -0.85
Non Wage and Salary 249.18 240.35 255.35 246.67 248.25 6.24 -3.40 0.64
Labor Force 4719.47 4657.80 4658.64 4679.12 4707.13 0.02 0.44 0.60
Unemployment 363.62 480.70 414.76 406.40 375.19 -13.72 -2.01 -7.68
Unemployment Rate (%) 7.70 10.32 8.90 8.69 7.97 NA NA NA
ADDENDA: U.S. DATA(Billions of chained 2005 $,
except where noted)
Gross Domestic Prod 14372.55 13299.10 13583.38 13858.38 14221.43 2.14 2.02 2.62Business Fixed Invest 1665.99 1378.15 1479.92 1535.26 1626.79 7.38 3.74 5.96
Gross Vehicle Product 440.83 361.50 399.38 407.42 431.31 10.48 2.01 5.86Personal Cons Expend
New Autos + Trucks 248.13 198.35 220.28 232.50 242.99 11.06 5.55 4.51Light Vehicle Sales (mil) 15.82 12.73 14.34 15.00 15.55 12.60 4.65 3.64
Unemployment Rate (%) 7.23 8.95 8.08 7.69 7.40 NA NA NAPersonal Consumption
Deflator 2005=100 120.49 113.79 115.81 117.70 119.71 1.78 1.63 1.71Consumer Price Index
1982-84=100 239.34 224.94 229.56 233.92 238.42 2.05 1.90 1.92
RSQE Forecast Table 3 16 November 2012
State of Michigan GFGP Revenue by Fiscal Years
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
38/55
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
Actual Forecast
2012q3 2012q4 2013q1 2013q2 2013q3 2013q4 2014q1 2014q2
NET PERS INCOME TAX 1610.00 1872.65 1744.34 2376.25 1781.50 1964.79 1837.69 2515.56Less: School Aid 494.50 528.34 521.47 660.16 511.82 549.89 543.00 694.98
Camp Fund 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00GFGP INCOME TAX 1114.50 1344.31 1222.87 1716.09 1268.68 1414.89 1294.69 1820.58
CONSUMPTION TAXESSales 288.65 283.63 243.59 295.40 190.05 291.00 249.55 303.87Cigarette Excise 50.60 45.94 43.25 47.26 48.63 44.30 41.83 45.79Beer and Wine 14.50 12.17 10.45 14.13 14.48 12.16 10.44 14.11Liquor Specific 10.10 11.41 9.00 10.95 10.24 11.53 9.11 11.05Use 197.30 206.23 199.09 215.33 214.22 211.96 207.14 224.76
GFGP CONSUM TAXES 561.15 559.38 505.37 583.07 477.62 570.96 518.07 599.59
BUSINESS TAXESSingle Business -57.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Michigan Business 763.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 -527.40 0.00 0.00 0.00Corporate Income 525.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 858.90 0.00 0.00 0.00Insur Co Premium 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 311.40 0.00 0.00 0.00Oil + Gas Severance 11.70 12.65 14.46 13.49 13.15 13.88 15.00 14.10Casino 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GFGP BUSINESS TAXES 1543.60 12.65 14.46 13.49 656.05 13.88 15.00 14.10
PROPERTY TAXESInheritance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utility Property 58.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.55 0.00 0.00 0.00Intangibles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00GFGP PROPERTY TAXES 58.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER GFGP TAXES -17.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL GFGP TAXES 3260.15 1916.34 1742.70 2312.66 2450.40 1999.73 1827.76 2434.26
NONTAX REVENUE 467.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 355.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL GFGP REVENUE 3727.35 1916.34 1742.70 2312.66 2805.40 1999.73 1827.76 2434.26
ADDENDAPers Income Adjusted 79361.48 80004.55 80752.47 81521.51 82285.44 83114.95 83952.90 84815.24Total Employment 4231.50 4239.75 4252.46 4265.88 4279.67 4292.87 4308.44 4323.71Wage + Salary Income 47805.00 48091.30 48493.10 48971.15 49384.71 49883.17 50363.45 50885.49
RSQE Forecast Table 3 16 November 2012
State of Michigan GFGP Revenue by Fiscal Years
(Milli f C t D ll NSA)
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
39/55
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
Forecast Fiscal Years Percent Changes
2014q3 2014q4 2012 2013 2014 2012-2013 2013-2014
NET PERS INCOME TAX 1872.87 2051.00 6949.50 7774.74 8190.91 11.87 5.35Less: School Aid 532.90 572.17 2115.30 2221.79 2320.78 5.03 4.46
Camp Fund 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00GFGP INCOME TAX 1338.97 1478.83 4833.10 5551.95 5869.13 14.87 5.71
CONSUMPTION TAXESSales 308.91 300.52 1091.85 1012.66 1153.34 -7.25 13.89Cigarette Excise 47.19 42.85 191.70 185.09 179.11 -3.45 -3.23Beer and Wine 14.45 12.16 51.10 51.22 51.16 0.24 -0.11Liquor Specific 10.35 11.67 41.00 41.61 42.05 1.48 1.06Use 223.64 219.77 781.70 834.86 867.50 6.80 3.91
GFGP CONSUM TAXES 604.55 586.97 2157.35 2125.44 2293.17 -1.48 7.89
BUSINESS TAXESSingle Business 0.00 0.00 -57.30 0.00 0.00 -100.00 NCMichigan Business -613.90 0.00 763.60 -527.40 -613.90 -169.07 16.40Corporate Income 932.40 0.00 525.60 858.90 932.40 63.41 8.56Insur Co Premium 319.20 0.00 300.00 311.40 319.20 3.80 2.50Oil + Gas Severance 13.80 14.59 52.90 53.76 56.79 1.62 5.64Casino 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NC NC
GFGP BUSINESS TAXES 651.50 14.59 1584.80 696.66 694.49 -56.04 -0.31
PROPERTY TAXESInheritance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NC NC
Utility Property 58.80 0.00 58.20 58.55 58.80 0.60 0.43Intangibles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NC NCGFGP PROPERTY TAXES 58.80 0.00 58.20 58.55 58.80 0.60 0.43
OTHER GFGP TAXES -7.40 0.00 -17.30 -10.50 -7.40 -39.31 -29.52
TOTAL GFGP TAXES 2646.42 2080.38 8616.15 8422.09 8908.18 -2.25 5.77
NONTAX REVENUE 332.40 0.00 467.20 355.00 332.40 -24.02 -6.37
TOTAL GFGP REVENUE 2978.82 2080.38 9083.35 8777.09 9240.58 -3.37 5.28
ADDENDAPers Income Adjusted 85674.48 86596.00 313235.23 324563.98 337557.56 3.62 4.00Total Employment 4339.77 4355.85 4231.80 4259.44 4316.20 0.65 1.33Wage + Salary Income 51333.94 51837.73 188861.75 194940.27 202466.04 3.22 3.86
RSQE Forecast Table 4 16 November 2012
State of Michigan SAF and Transportation Tax Revenue by Fiscal Years
(Millions of Current Dollars NSA)
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
40/55
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
Actual Forecast
2012q3 2012q4 2013q1 2013q2 2013q3 2013q4 2014q1 2014q2
SAF TAXESSales 1322.10 1315.26 1205.88 1310.72 1366.26 1354.46 1238.34 1347.54Use 98.60 103.11 99.54 107.66 107.11 105.98 103.57 112.38Income 494.50 528.34 521.47 660.16 511.82 549.89 543.00 694.98Mich Business 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Liquor Excise 10.10 11.41 9.00 10.95 10.24 11.53 9.11 11.05Tobacco 101.50 92.11 86.72 94.77 97.51 88.82 83.87 91.81State Education Property 1797.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1789.73 0.00 0.00 0.00Real Estate Transfer 49.00 37.08 32.18 40.54 48.01 39.01 34.76 45.48Ind and Comm Facilities 40.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Casino 114.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 106.30 0.00 0.00 0.00Other SAF Taxes 17.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL SAF TAXES 4045.50 2087.32 1954.80 2224.80 4096.08 2149.70 2012.65 2303.25
Lottery Transfer 770.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 744.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
EARMARKED STATESAF REVENUE 4815.50 2087.32 1954.80 2224.80 4840.78 2149.70 2012.65 2303.25
TRANSPORTATION TAXES
Diesel 27.80 27.48 23.40 27.15 29.32 27.82 23.92 27.71Gasoline 210.30 203.34 188.06 206.46 212.05 204.97 189.74 208.42Motor Vehicle Registration 882.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 902.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
RSQE Forecast Table 4 16 November 2012
State of Michigan SAF and Transportation Tax Revenue by Fiscal Years
(Millions of Current Dollars NSA)
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
41/55
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
Forecast Fiscal Years Percent Changes
2014q3 2014q4 2012 2013 2014 2012-2013 2013-2014
SAF TAXESSales 1406.07 1396.84 5074.10 5198.12 5346.40 2.44 2.85Use 111.82 109.88 390.80 417.43 433.75 6.81 3.91Income 532.90 572.17 2115.30 2221.79 2320.78 5.03 4.46Mich Business 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NC NCLiquor Excise 10.35 11.67 41.00 41.61 42.05 1.48 1.06Tobacco 94.62 85.91 384.40 371.11 359.12 -3.46 -3.23State Education Property 1814.10 0.00 1797.00 1789.73 1814.10 -0.40 1.36Real Estate Transfer 53.95 42.51 142.90 157.81 173.21 10.43 9.76Ind and Comm Facilities 43.50 0.00 40.90 42.00 43.50 2.69 3.57Casino 109.40 0.00 114.70 106.30 109.40 -7.32 2.92Other SAF Taxes 17.10 0.00 17.10 17.10 17.10 -0.00 0.00
TOTAL SAF TAXES 4193.81 2218.99 10118.20 10362.99 10659.40 2.42 2.86
Lottery Transfer 739.00 0.00 770.00 744.70 739.00 -3.29 -0.77
EARMARKED STATESAF REVENUE 4932.81 2218.99 10888.20 11107.69 11398.40 2.02 2.62
TRANSPORTATION TAXES
Diesel 29.98 28.40 105.00 107.35 109.42 2.24 1.93Gasoline 214.13 207.17 814.20 809.90 817.26 -0.53 0.91Motor Vehicle Registration 921.15 0.00 882.60 902.65 921.15 2.27 2.05
RSQE Forecast Table 5 16 November 2012
Selected State of Michigan Tax Revenues by Fiscal Years
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
42/55
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
Actual Forecast
2012q3 2012q4 2013q1 2013q2 2013q3 2013q4 2014q1 2014q2
NET PERS INCOME TAX 1610.00 1872.65 1744.34 2376.25 1781.50 1964.79 1837.69 2515.56Withheld 1894.00 2081.71 1914.93 1863.09 1909.88 2167.87 1991.41 1939.20Quarterly 190.00 86.20 185.66 283.01 197.68 87.75 193.99 296.55Annual 41.60 53.64 90.94 637.35 42.64 54.67 94.99 682.91Less: Refunds 515.60 348.90 447.20 407.20 368.70 345.50 442.70 403.10
Less: School Aid 494.50 528.34 521.47 660.16 511.82 549.89 543.00 694.98Camp Fund 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GFGP INCOME TAX 1114.50 1344.31 1222.87 1716.09 1268.68 1414.89 1294.69 1820.58
GROSS SALES TAX 1817.50 1808.70 1659.30 1802.40 1878.24 1862.62 1703.98 1853.04Auto Sales 220.70 192.34 202.93 223.50 241.85 208.33 213.40 234.19
Other Sales 1596.80 1616.36 1456.37 1578.90 1636.39 1654.29 1490.58 1618.86Less: Local Dist 180.70 185.78 185.04 170.03 184.38 191.99 190.56 174.62
School Aid 1322.10 1315.26 1205.88 1310.72 1366.26 1354.46 1238.34 1347.54Comp Trans 23.80 21.78 22.54 24.00 25.31 22.92 23.28 24.76Other Trans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Health Init 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
GFGP SALES TAX 288.65 283.63 243.59 295.40 190.05 291.00 249.55 303.87
GROSS USE TAX 295.90 309.34 298.63 322.99 321.33 317.94 310.71 337.14Less: School Aid 98.60 103.11 99.54 107.66 107.11 105.98 103.57 112.38
GFGP USE TAX 197.30 206.23 199.09 215.33 214.22 211.96 207.14 224.76
GROSS CIGARETTE TAX 254.40 230.85 217.35 237.51 244.38 222.61 210.20 230.10Less: School Aid 101.50 92.11 86.72 94.77 97.51 88.82 83.87 91.81
Medicaid Trust Fund 85.50 77.57 73.03 79.80 82.11 74.80 70.63 77.31Other Health Prog 16.80 15.24 14.35 15.68 16.13 14.69 13.87 15.19
GFGP CIGARETTE TAX 50.60 45.94 43.25 47.26 48.63 44.30 41.83 45.79
GROSS MICH BUS TAX 763.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 -527.40 0.00 0.00 0.00Less: School Aid 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GFGP MICH BUS TAX 763.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 -527.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
RSQE Forecast Table 5 16 November 2012
Selected State of Michigan Tax Revenues by Fiscal Years
(Millions of Current Dollars, NSA)
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
43/55
( , )
Forecast Fiscal Years Percent Changes
2014q3 2014q4 2012 2013 2014 2012-2013 2013-2014
NET PERS INCOME TAX 1872.87 2051.00 6949.50 7774.74 8190.91 11.87 5.35Withheld 1987.04 2256.81 7698.10 7769.62 8085.52 0.93 4.07Quarterly 207.04 90.04 702.30 752.54 785.33 7.15 4.36Annual 43.89 56.05 692.20 824.58 876.45 19.12 6.29Less: Refunds 365.10 351.90 2143.10 1572.00 1556.40 -26.65 -0.99
Less: School Aid 532.90 572.17 2115.30 2221.79 2320.78 5.03 4.46Camp Fund 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
GFGP INCOME TAX 1338.97 1478.83 4833.10 5551.95 5869.13 14.87 5.71
GROSS SALES TAX 1933.00 1920.89 6977.70 7148.63 7352.65 2.45 2.85Auto Sales 254.48 219.01 836.90 860.63 910.40 2.83 5.78
Other Sales 1678.52 1701.88 6140.80 6288.01 6442.24 2.40 2.45Less: Local Dist 189.56 197.60 710.80 725.23 746.74 2.03 2.97
School Aid 1406.07 1396.84 5074.10 5198.12 5346.40 2.44 2.85Comp Trans 26.21 23.68 92.00 93.63 97.17 1.77 3.78Other Trans 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.00 0.00 NC -100.00Health Init 2.25 2.25 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00 0.00
GFGP SALES TAX 308.91 300.52 1091.85 1012.66 1153.34 -7.25 13.89
GROSS USE TAX 335.46 329.65 1172.40 1252.30 1301.25 6.81 3.91Less: School Aid 111.82 109.88 390.80 417.43 433.75 6.81 3.91
GFGP USE TAX 223.64 219.77 781.70 834.86 867.50 6.80 3.91
GROSS CIGARETTE TAX 237.14 215.31 963.40 930.10 900.05 -3.46 -3.23Less: School Aid 94.62 85.91 384.40 371.11 359.12 -3.46 -3.23
Medicaid Trust Fund 79.68 72.35 323.70 312.51 302.42 -3.46 -3.23Other Health Prog 15.65 14.21 63.60 61.39 59.40 -3.48 -3.23
GFGP CIGARETTE TAX 47.19 42.85 191.70 185.09 179.11 -3.45 -3.23
GROSS MICH BUS TAX -613.90 0.00 763.60 -527.40 -613.90 -169.07 16.40Less: School Aid 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NC NC
GFGP MICH BUS TAX -613.90 0.00 763.60 -527.40 -613.90 -169.07 16.40
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
44/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
45/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
46/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
47/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
48/55
Exogenous Variables: 5 of 5 RSQE Forecast 16 November 2012
YPWS YSSTRM YUNB
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
49/55
YPWS YSSTRM YUNB
2012q3 5721.400 7687.210 75.0002012q4 5775.990 7756.520 66.2002013q1 5848.909 7968.530 62.4792013q2 5925.754 8048.680 62.9572013q3 6006.709 8128.820 63.9282013q4 6089.193 8208.970 64.7392014q1 6172.371 8445.360 65.2392014q2 6257.345 8525.780 65.4572014q3 6348.819 8606.200 65.2272014q4 6440.673 8686.610 64.895
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
50/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
51/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
52/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
53/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
54/55
7/30/2019 Michigan Economic Outlook 2013-14
55/55