FALL 2017 ISSUE Growth on the Horizon: Arizona’s 30-Year Outlook By George W. Hammond, Ph.D., EBRC Director and Research Professor September 1, 2017 to lose ground to the nation on a key measure of prosperity. A rizona continues to add jobs, income, and residents at a faster pace than the nation. However, gains are coming at a slow pace compared to the state’s own history. Demographics (aging of the baby boom generation) is likely playing a role here, and this will continue to be an issue in the long run. The 30-year forecast calls for Arizona to outpace the national rate of job growth. However, that is not likely to be true for the state’s growth in per capita income. This is expected to remain positive and outpace inflation, but the state is not expected to beat the national rate. That means Arizona is forecast During the past 40 years, Arizona has gradually fallen further and further behind in per capita income, with slow wage growth contributing to the divergence. One key factor driving this has been the trend in four year college attainment, which has drifted from well above the national average in the 1940s to significantly below average today. If Arizona’s college attainment rate continues to lag behind the national average, it will be very difficult to close the income gap. Arizona Recent Developments Arizona’s job growth continued at a moderate pace in the second quarter of 2017. Over the year, the state added 54,200 jobs, which translated into 2.0% growth. That was slightly slower than the 2.1% rate posted in the first quarter, but above the national rate of 1.5%. The Phoenix metropolitan statistical area (MSA) added 50,300 jobs over the year in the second quarter, for 2.6% growth. The Tucson MSA added just In This Issue Growth on the Horizon: Arizona’s 30-Year Outlook............................1 Ranking Arizona: Income and the Quality of Life..............6 Arizona, Mexico, NAFTA: Long Courtship, Marriage of Convenience, and Now Looming Separation?.........9 Forecast Tables.................15 Arizona Economic Indicators: State...............................16 Arizona Economic Indicators: Metro Areas......................20 Arizona Economic Indicators: Counties..........................25 “The 30-year forecast calls for Arizona to outpace the national rate of growth.” 700 jobs over the year, for 0.2% growth. “While job growth performance has not been particularly rapid so far this year, the buzz related to employment change has been unusually strong.” While job growth performance has not been particularly rapid so far this year, the buzz related to employment change has been unusually strong. The Economic and Business Research Center has been tracking firm announcements related to employment change since 1999. Exhibit 1 shows monthly announcements by firms related to both employment increase and employment decrease. This particular dataset tracks the number of announcements, not the number of jobs associated with the announcements. These announcements appeared in the major news outlets around the state, including the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star, among many others. Most of the announcements related to future expected employment changes at firms. While these announcements are related to future changes in published job data, the connection is loose. Nonetheless, our analysis suggests that there is currently a lot more buzz about employment increase so far this year than in the past. According to preliminary data, Arizona’s personal income rose by 3.8% over the year in the first quarter of 2017, a bit above the national growth rate of 3.1%. Gains in the first quarter reflected increases in net earnings from work (up 3.9%); dividends, interest, and rent (up 3.8%); and transfers (up 3.3%). The increase in net earnings from work was a bit disappointing, given that the state’s minimum wage increased substantially in January. Indeed, average wages per worker (calculated as total wage and salary disbursements divided by total nonfarm jobs) rose just 1.8% over the year. Keep in mind, however, that the preliminary wage and salary data are estimated based on nonfarm job growth and an econometrically-estimated “scale factor.” The revised data, available in September, will provide a better indication of the impact of Exhibit 1: The Buzz About Arizona Employment Is Strong announcements per month Monthly Number of Firm Announcements Related to Job Increase or Decrease twelve month centered moving average 20 announcements of job increase 16 12 announcements of job decrease 8 4 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 2 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona 14 16 0 October, 2017 Fall Issue Exhibit 2: Job Growth Slows in the Long-Run for Both Arizona and the U.S. Annual Growth Rates Arizona and the U.S. percent 12 8 4 Arizona 0 U.S. -4 1970 1980 1990 2000 the minimum wage increase on income, since wage and salary disbursements in that release will be based primarily on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Arizona Outlook in the Long Run Exhibit 2 shows the long-run history and forecast for Arizona and U.S. job growth. The forecast calls for Arizona to add 1.6 million jobs during the 2017 to 2047 period, which translates into annual growth of 1.5% per year. That is well below the state’s average growth rate during the 30 years before the Great Recession and below the state’s average growth rate during the previous 30 years (1986-2016) of 2.4% per year. However, Arizona is forecast to far outpace the national average rate of 0.7% per year. Slower growth for both Arizona and the U.S. is driven by a major demographic transition, as baby boomers retire in large numbers. 2010 2020 2030 2040 Service-providing sectors account for most of Arizona’s job growth during the forecast. Indeed, education and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities; and professional and business services together account for 60.7% of total job gains during the next 30 years. The remaining service-providing industries together account for 35.3% of state job growth. Which leaves 4.0% for the goods-producing industries (mining, construction, manufacturing). With solid, but slowing job growth during the next 30 years, Arizona’s population is projected to increase as well. The state is forecast to add 3.2 million new residents during the 2017-2047 period, for annual growth of 1.3% per year. That is a bit more than double the national rate of 0.6% per year. That growth is increasingly driven by net migration, as natural increase (the annual difference between births and deaths) decelerates due to the aging of the population. -8 “Education and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities; and professional and business services together account for 60.7% of total job gains during the next 30 years.” azeconomy.org | 3 Steady job gains translate into continued income growth, which is forecast to average 2.6% per year during the next 30 years, after adjustment for inflation. That outpaces the U.S., which is forecast to generate income growth averaging 2.0% per year after adjustment for inflation. Arizona’s income growth reflects gains across all three major sources: net earnings from work; dividends, interest, and rent; and transfers. “Phoenix is expected to add 2.6 million new residents during the period, which translates into 1.5% growth per year.” Both the Phoenix and Tucson MSAs are forecast to add jobs, population, residents, and income during the forecast. However, growth is expected to be much more rapid in Phoenix than in Tucson. Exhibit 3 shows population growth for Phoenix and Tucson during the next thirty years. Phoenix is expected to add 2.6 million new residents during the period, which translates into 1.5% growth per year. Tucson is forecast to add 227,000 residents, which translates into growth of 0.7% per year on average. Thus, growth in Phoenix is just over double the national pace, while Tucson’s growth is just slightly above the nation. Risks to the Outlook In the long-run, the risks to the outlook revolve around the major drivers of economic development: labor force growth, productivity and innovation, investment in the physical capital stock, and human capital development. Slowing labor force growth, driven by retirement of baby boomers, is already built into the baseline forecast. If growth turns out to be even slower, that will reduce state growth as well. The national baseline forecast assumes that productivity growth rebounds from the weak performance of recent years. If that fails to materialize, look for slower than expected gains nationally and in Arizona. Investment in the private physical capital stock is expected to slow during the forecast, but if growth turns out to slow more Exhibit 3: Population Growth in Phoenix Outpaces Tucson Annual Growth Rates Phoenix and Tucson percent 10 8 Phoenix Tucson 6 4 2 0 70 80 90 00 10 20 4 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona 30 40 -2 October, 2017 Fall Issue than expected, it will reduce overall economic performance. In addition, remember that infrastructure (highways, roads, water, sewer, airports, border ports, rail, telecommunications) matters as well. Human capital (typically measured by educational attainment) will continue to matter. For Arizona, this is particularly important, because the state already lags well behind the nation. If Arizona’s education gap rises during the next 30 years, it will set the stage for ever larger per capita income gaps with the U.S. Finally, water remains a concern for the long run. Shortages in the West have the potential to drive up residential and business costs and restrict growth. “Human capital (typically measured by educational attainment) will continue to matter. For Arizona, this is particularly important, because the state already lags well behind the nation. If Arizona’s education gap rises during the next 30 years, it will set the stage for ever larger income gaps with the U.S.” azeconomy.org | 5 Ranking Arizona: Income and the Quality of Life By George W. Hammond, Ph.D., EBRC Director and Research Professor “Arizona’s cost of living was roughly in the middle of the pack, ranking 26th in the nation.” While Arizona is a rapidly growing state, it does not fare so well in terms of monetary measures of its standard of living. As Exhibit 1 shows, the state’s per capita personal income, after adjustment for inflation and the cost of living, ranked 47th in the nation in 2015. That was 14.5% below the U.S. average. It was also well below most western states, with the exceptions of Utah and New Mexico. This analysis uses the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity population estimate for Arizona, in contrast to the Census population estimate used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which publishes the data. Arizona’s per capita income ranked low in large part because wages tend to be low in Arizona. It was also related to the state’s relatively low employmentpopulation ratio (driven by demographics), income from dividends, interest, and rent, and transfer income. The cost of living, as estimated by the BEA, covers all the main costs faced by households: housing, food, transportation, as well as many other goods and services. The 2015 data are the latest available from the BEA, because there are long data lags in the estimation of housing costs. Exhibit 2 shows that Arizona’s cost of living was roughly in the middle of the pack, ranking 26th in the nation at 3.8% below the national average. The state’s cost of living was well below that of Exhibit 1: Arizona Per Person Income Ranked Low In 2015 U.S. State Per Capita Personal Income adjusted for inflation and the cost of living $70,000 $60,000 U.S. $43,996 $50,000 Arizona $37,595 Rank: 47 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $0 Connecticut Dist. of Columbia North Dakota Massachusetts Wyoming South Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire Alaska New Jersey Minnesota Kansas Maryland New York Virginia Iowa Pennsylvania Oklahoma Rhode Island Illinois Washington Colorado Wisconsin Ohio Texas United States Vermont California Delaware Missouri Louisiana Tennessee Indiana Michigan North Carolina Florida Oregon Montana Alabama Arkansas Maine Georgia Kentucky Nevada South Carolina West Virginia Idaho Arizona Hawaii Utah Mississippi New Mexico $10,000 6 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue Exhibit 2: Arizona’s Cost of Living Was in the Middle of the Pack Percentage Difference Between U.S. and State Cost of Living in 2015 percent above/below U.S. 25 20 15 Arizona 10 -3.8% Rank: 26 5 0 -5 -10 -20 Hawaii Dist. of Columbia New York California New Jersey Maryland Connecticut Massachusetts Alaska New Hampshire Washington Colorado Virginia Vermont Delaware Illinois Florida Oregon Rhode Island Maine Nevada Pennsylvania Minnesota Utah Texas Arizona Wyoming Montana New Mexico Michigan Idaho Wisconsin Georgia North Dakota North Carolina Indiana Louisiana Nebraska Kansas Iowa South Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Missouri Ohio West Virginia Kentucky South Dakota Arkansas Alabama Mississippi -15 most western states, particularly California. It was slightly above the levels estimated for New Mexico and Idaho, and very close to Texas. standard of living available to residents of that state. I use PUMS ACS Five-Year (2011-2015) domestic migration estimates from the Census Bureau. While Arizona ranks low on pecuniary measures of the standard of living, it is important to remember that money is just one dimension of a state’s quality of life. Other measures might include climate, crime, pollution, and myriad other factors. The problem for economists boils down to how to combine all of these dimensions down into one indicator or ranking. One method that has been proposed in the economic literature is a “voting with your feet” ranking, which exploits domestic migration flows across states. The idea is that the number of people moving to/ from a state tells us something important about the overall The method is based on competition: each state is pitted against the other in the competition for migrants. If state A attracts more residents from state B than it loses to state B, then state A wins and we put a +1 in state A’s win/loss column. If state A loses more residents to state B than it attracts, then state A loses and we put a -1 in its win/loss column. Then we sum the wins/losses for state A, which gives us state A’s win/loss record. We do this for all states versus all states and then rank states by their win/loss records. Exhibit 3 shows the results from one such analysis. States that azeconomy.org | 7 “If Arizona’s college attainment rate continues to lag behind the national average, it will be very difficult to close the income gap in the future.” rank high are shaded darker rank higher than states shaded lighter. Note that states in the Southeast, South, and West tended to rank highest. States in the Northeast and Midwest tended to rank lowest. Arizona ranked in the top 10, which is quite a contrast with its per capita income rank. This reflects the fact that Arizona’s climate is a powerful draw and a significant part of its attractive standard of living. One issue to keep in mind, however, is that the analysis so far reflects the decisions of all migrants, including retirees. If we restrict the analysis to migrants under the age of 65, then Arizona drops out of the top 10 and into the middle quintile. Thus, while Arizona is an attractive migration destination, it is not quite as attractive to those individuals most likely to move to improve their economic prospects. During the past 40 years, Arizona has gradually fallen further and further behind the nation in per capita income, with slow wage growth contributing to the divergence. One key factor driving this has been the trend in Arizona’s four-year college attainment, which has drifted from well above the national average in the 1940s to significantly below average today. If Arizona’s college attainment rate continues to lag behind the national average, it will be very difficult to close the income gap in the future. Exhibit 3: Arizona’s Standard of Living Ranked in the Top 10 Ranking Based on Domestic Migration Data from PUMS ACS 2011-2015 Migration Rank 1 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 51 8 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue Arizona, Mexico, NAFTA: Long Courtship, Marriage of Convenience, and Now Looming Separation? By Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, Ph.D., Senior Regional Scientist and Associate Professor of Geography Life in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands has traditionally been, in words of the University of Arizona historian Oscar Martinez, one of conflict and accommodation [1]. It has always been influenced by decisions, or lack of them, in the respective capitals, Washington and Mexico City. In the early days a major complaint of “borderlanders” was that national decision-makers were not only far away, but more importantly, disinterested in the region’s remoteness, aboveaverage poverty, and other obstacles that the international boundary presented to residents of the border region. In the absence of national-level interest, borderlanders developed their own coping strategies to deal with scarcities of goods, uneven distribution of job opportunities, and long established familial ties on both sides of the border. One of the geographically most pronounced expressions of regionally specific developments was the emergence of border twin cities, which in more or less informal ways established crossborder exchanges of goods and people, and over time wove a deep interdependence into their economic and social fabrics. Beginnings of a Formal Framework One of the first national-level “interventions” in the economies of the border region was the Bracero program. Faced with a shortage of agricultural labor during WWII, the U.S. government enacted a guest worker program allowing temporary immigration of Mexican residents to work in fields in California, Arizona, Texas, and about twenty other states. As the need for migrant labor diminished over time, the program was abolished in 1964 leaving a large number of Mexicans without jobs,mostly in border states. The resulting high unemployment in Mexican border states was one, although not the main, reason for the next bi-national economic intervention known as the Maquiladora program introduced in 1965. The Maquiladora program was specifically “Mexican” in name only, but otherwise known as “production-sharing” or “offshore production,” a widespread practice of (mostly) U.S. manufacturing companies, through which low cost labor in less developed countries was used for assembly procedures contributing to overall lower production costs of final products. Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore were among first to allow foreign capital investments into assembly plants for the purpose of exporting the assembled products back to the parent company in a foreign country. In a simplified production-sharing model, the parent company was a clear beneficiary; the low-wage regions praised the new way of globalizing production-sharing practices for job creation, whereas the more or less gradual loss of manufacturing production jobs in the U.S. was assumed to be offset by new jobs in more skill demanding final manufacturing processes, azeconomy.org | 9 including design, marketing, and logistics of delivering final products to markets. In the early Maquiladora program, the Mexican government allowed U.S. companies to invest in the establishment of assembly plants in a narrow border zone with specific provisions under which U.S. components were imported duty free, but after being assembled had to be exported back to the U.S. Aside from the initial investment, the parent company was obliged to pay only for value added in Mexico, which basically consisted of wages, utilities, and other operation-related services. On the U.S. side, the arrangement was matched by specific provisions in the Harmonized Tariff System allowing for duty free re-import of U.S. manufactured components assembled in Mexico. During three decades from the time the first maquila plants were opened up in Nogales, Sonora, and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, in 1965 to the signing of NAFTA at the end of 1993, the maquiladora sector in Mexico not only mushroomed in all border states, but eventually spread across the entire country. Measured in number of manufacturing jobs the employment in maquiladora plants contributed significantly to the industrialization of Mexico’s economy, especially in border states. Increases in U.S.-Mexico trade in electronics, electric appliances, transportation and medical products was largely attributed to a growing crossborder integration in North American manufacturing sector within the maquiladora framework. The Dawn of NAFTA Writing at the dawn of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with deepest understanding of economic, political, and cultural complexities of U.S.-Mexico relationships, economist and foreign service officer Sidney Weintruab concluded that a free trade agreement was not only imminent, but at the time, the best of available solutions. In his seminal book, Marriage of Convenience, he presented the intellectual foundations for NAFTA arguing that the economies of the U.S. and Mexico were already highly integrated and that a policy of “managed integration” would allow each nation to extract maximum advantages from the integration[2]. As a trade agreement, NAFTA was designed to manage all aspects of doing business within North America involving crossborder exchanges of goods, money, and services, but not people. The six basic rules included elimination of tariffs on manufactured and agricultural products, removal of non-tariff barriers, safeguards for crossborder investments, intellectual property provisions, rules of origin, and government procurement. Under NAFTA the benefits enjoyed by the maquiladora establishments would eventually be granted to all export-oriented manufacturers in Mexico, including exportoriented services[3]. Unlike early maquiladoras, the productionsharing operations under NAFTA were granted considerable access to the Mexican market. Outside of the maquiladora framework, the removal of import tariffs especially benefited U.S. manufacturers of heavy equipment and exporters of agricultural products to Mexican markets. Early on, the implementation of NAFTA coincided with a forty percent devaluation of Mexican peso, thus making Mexican labor even cheaper, which many economists, such as Jesus Cañas and Roberto Coronado of the Federal Reserve 10 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue Bank of Dallas, considered the main reason for a big boost in maquiladora employment through the 1990s[4]. As a border state, and with an economy based on less traditional manufacturing than the “rust belt,” Arizona benefited from the expansion of maquiladora sector, and approached NAFTA with positive expectations. After all, NAFTA appeared to basically sanction economic relationships that the state had already developed with Mexico, and especially with the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora. Arizona was already home to a number of parent companies with maquiladoras south of the border, but did not suffer from “job exportation” to Mexico as did, for example, manufacturing industries in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Michigan. Aside from increased exports to Mexico, Arizona anticipated additional benefits from marketing its proximity to Mexico to companies interested in establishing or suppling maquila plants across the border. Moreover, Arizona and Sonora already had in place a formal institution — sister organizations Arizona-Mexico Commission and Comisión Sonora-Arizona — with binational committees that met twice a year to formally discuss matters of trade, manufacturing and maquiladoras, agribusiness, finance, border ports infrastructure, tourism, education, and cultural cooperation. Under the auspices of the two Commissions and in partnership with Arizona universities and the (then) Thunderbird School of Management, for the first time in history a series of truly binational reports was produced examining existing state of crossborder economic integration with recommendations for further improvements within the NAFTA framework. A prevailing atmosphere in Arizona in favor of NAFTA was based on long traditional economic relationships, and was also vividly influenced by ideas about borderless economies advocated by popular Japanese organizational theorist Kenichi Ohmae[5]. Major Challenges to the NAFTA Framework Not fully a decade in place, the NAFTA framework was challenged by two major events: China’s entrance into World Trade Organization (WTO) and the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. soil in 2001. The first caused shock waves which hit the maquiladora sector in Mexico hard almost eliminating the textile sector and seriously affecting all other manufacturing sectors by offering even lower labor costs. The maquiladora sector eventually recovered partially due to Mexico’s decisive shift towards building higher labor skills in its workforce through a multitude of governmentsupported technological institutes that focused on technical and engineering degrees, commonly in collaboration with industry representatives to match specific maquiladora needs. At the same time, many U.S. companies reevaluated the importance of physical proximity of Mexico’s locations versus trans-Pacific ones. The concept of “nearshoring” encompasses return of Mexico as the most favorable location inciting some companies to relocate their Asia-based operations back to Mexico. As efforts to safeguard national borders became a national priority in the post-9/11 era, it became clear that not only the vision of economic borderlessness was killed, but that crossborder trade flows were profoundly affected by new and more stringent border crossing regulations. It was soon azeconomy.org | 11 realized that the more complex border crossing procedures and increased wait times encouraged maquiladora suppliers, for whom just-in-time delivery was crucial, to locate in Mexico in proximity of maquiladoras thus creating multilayer supply chain complexes surrounding the maquiladoras. With increasing availability of technical and engineering skills in Mexico, comparable manufacturing jobs in Arizona’s parent companies for the first time have faced direct competition from Mexico. Yet the trade data show Arizona’s growing exports to Mexico suggesting that eventual losses in some segments are being compensated in gains in other areas. One such bright spots is the automotive industry; although Arizona lies outside the North American “auto-alley,” exports in automotive parts to Mexico have significantly increased in the last several years, thanks mainly to the Ford Company in Sonora. However, as internal and external circumstances change, continuous adjustments are necessary to make the system more efficient and more beneficial for both sides. It is also true that since NAFTA was first implemented myriad of developments, some dramatic, have transformed the border region. Yet, it is also clear that in a highly complex and interdependent economic relationship any drastic change on either side would certainly cause significant shocks and disruption throughout the entire system. A sudden divorce proposed (again) by a faraway power center, and based on unsubstantiated allegations of betrayal and unfairness, should sensibly be out of question even if there may not be much love in the relationship. Arizona and Sonora as a Transborder Mega-Region Concept Revivified Numerous studies, including university prepared background reports for several Arizona Town Halls, emphasized the importance of Arizona’s trade with Mexico, and especially the high degree of economic interdependence between the economies of Arizona and Sonora[6]. The newly revivified concept of Arizona and Sonora as a transborder mega-region is based on the realization that both states benefit through collaboration in sharing physical assets, production, and labor skills[7]. So far, evidence suggests that Weintraub’s idea of “a marriage of convenience” has worked well for Arizona. 12 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue References [1] Martinez, Oscar J., Troublesome Border. University of Arizona Press, 2006. (Revised Edition) [2] Weintraub, Sidney, A Marriage of Convenience: Relations between Mexico and the United States. A Twentieth Century Fund Report. Oxford University Press, 1990. [3] In 2006, maquiladora industry was combined with car assembly plants and other export-oriented manufacturers and services in the IMMEX Program (Industria Manufacturera, Maquiladora y Servicios de Exportación). [4] Cañas, Jesus and Roberto Coronado, “Maquiladora industry: past, present and future,” Business Frontier, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2002. [5] Ohmae, Kenichi, The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the International Economy. Harper Business, 1990. [6] “Arizona and Mexico,” 2016; “Arizona as a Border State: Competing in the Global Economy,” 2005. Arizona Town Hall. [7] Gibson, Lay J. et al. ”Sun Corridor’ as a Transborder Mega-Region: Revivifying Economic Development in the Arizona-Sonora Region,” Studies in Regional Science, Vol.46, No.1, 2016. azeconomy.org | 13 Measuring Economic Performance: Growth, Prosperity, and Inclusion By George W. Hammond, Ph.D., EBRC Director and Research Professor Benchmarking economic performance across metropolitan areas requires us to think about activities across many different dimensions. Certainly, overall job, population, and income growth matters, but growth rates alone do not tell us much about prosperity. On that dimension, economists generally resort to measures like per capita income, per worker Gross Domestic Product (an indicator of productivity), and per worker wages. However, these standard measures of prosperity also have limitations. In particular, they do not tell us anything about how equally income is shared across a metropolitan area’s residents. “How do Arizona’s two largest metro areas stack-up in the Brookings Institution rankings of economic inclusion?” To address this dimension of economic performance, we need indicators of economic inclusion. The Brookings Institution recently constructed rankings of economic inclusion for the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. How do Arizona’s two largest metro areas stack-up? Brookings provides rankings for three overlapping timeframes: 2005-2015 covering the Great Recession; 2010-2015, the postrecessionary recovery period; and 2014-2015, the latest year for which there are data to calculate these measures (Figure 1). Figure 1: Brookings Economic Inclusion Rankings for Select Western Metros among the 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas Growth Prosperity Inclusion 2010 - 15 2014 - 15 2005 - 15 2010 - 15 2014 - 15 2005 - 15 2010 - 15 2014 - 15 2005 - 15 El Paso 17 60 88 10 33 91 2 1 2 Austin 1 2 8 18 12 80 10 12 4 14 30 14 4 76 8 50 29 15 4 8 27 14 10 64 26 60 26 Colorado Springs 50 47 13 80 92 97 81 45 29 Phoenix 58 39 37 88 82 95 58 61 32 Albuquerque 63 97 80 89 97 98 31 99 38 Salt lake City 12 13 17 13 61 50 15 9 48 Denver 11 10 6 32 36 17 35 18 66 Las Vegas 80 29 20 99 94 63 86 84 83 San Diego 33 38 35 25 39 55 47 73 90 Tucson 87 94 93 83 85 100 87 89 92 Portland San Antonio *Scores are from the Brookings Institution's Metro Monitor 2017 Dashboard database. 14 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue FORECAST TABLES Arizona Personal Income ($ mil)   % Chg from Year Ago Retail Sales ($mil)   % Chg from Year Ago Total Nonfarm Employment (000s)   % Chg from Year Ago 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 277,982 292,790 309,739 327,630 347,935 367,322 4.0% 5.3% 5.8% 5.8% 6.2% 5.6% 94,804 99,614 103,705 108,988 115,575 120,993 2.3% 5.1% 4.1% 5.1% 6.0% 4.7% 2,704.0 2,762.7 2,832.6 2,896.0 2,966.2 3,023.2 2.6% 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.4% 1.9% 6,835.5 6,935.4 7,051.8 7,170.0 7,286.9 7,403.9 1.1% 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% Residential Building Permits (units) 35,578 38,284 44,997 45,852 45,449 45,403   % Chg from Year Ago 23.1% 7.6% 17.5% 1.9% -0.9% -0.1% Population (000s), July 1st estimates   % Chg from Year Ago Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA Personal Income ($ mil)   % Chg from Year Ago Retail Sales ($ mil)   % Chg from Prior Total Nonfarm Employment (000s)   % Chg from Year Ago Population (000s), July 1st estimates   % Chg from Year Ago Residential Building Permits (units)   % Chg from Prior Tucson MSA Personal Income ($ mil)   % Chg from Year Ago Retail Sales ($ mil) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 195,966 208,367 221,739 236,518 252,407 268,002 5.0% 6.3% 6.4% 6.7% 6.7% 6.2% 67,256 71,035 73,656 78,192 83,290 87,740 3.3% 5.6% 3.7% 6.2% 6.5% 5.3% 1,972.9 2,030.6 2,092.1 2,151.7 2,207.5 2,259.9 3.1% 2.9% 3.0% 2.9% 2.6% 2.4% 4,550.4 4,631.0 4,717.4 4,806.5 4,897.7 4,990.2 1.5% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 28,583 30,738 32,248 33,669 34,428 34,560 27.6% 7.5% 4.9% 4.4% 2.3% 0.4% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 39,963 41,350 43,151 45,251 47,526 49,660 2.7% 3.5% 4.4% 4.9% 5.0% 4.5% 13,060 13,563 13,819 14,371 14,999 15,466   % Chg from Year Ago 0.9% 3.8% 1.9% 4.0% 4.4% 3.1% Total Nonfarm Employment (000s) 373.4 376.8 382.1 387.5 393.1 397.0   % Chg from Year Ago 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% Population (000s), July 1st estimates 1,013.1 1,018.6 1,025.4 1,032.8 1,041.0 1,049.7   % Chg from Year Ago 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% Residential Permits (units) 2,466 2,633 3,054 3,236 3,571 3,684   % Chg from Year Ago 1.6% 6.8% 16.0% 5.9% 10.4% 3.2% Do you need more detailed and comprehensive forecast data and analysis? Learn about the benefits of becoming a Forecasting Project sponsor. Forecasting Project sponsorship allows your company or organization to access an in-depth menu of economic forecasting and consulting services, as well as quarterly forecast update meetings. Contact George Hammond: ghammond@eller.arizona.edu, 520.626.1679 The Forecasting Project is a community-sponsored research unit within the Economic and Business Research Center producing quarterly economic forecasts for Arizona and its metro areas. These forecasts are recognized as among the most accurate in the Western states. azeconomy.org | 15 ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS Arizona - Labor Force and Employment, SA Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 3,327.4 3,317.2 3,308.30 Persons (000s, seasonally adjusted), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS Civilian Labor Force   % Chg from Year Ago Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 3,324.0 3,331.2 3.3% 3.4% 3.2% 2.7% 2.20% 3,157.1 3,165.9 3,159.1 3,148.7 3,138.80 166.9 165.2 168.3 168.5 169.5 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s, seasonally adjusted), Current Employment Statistics, BLS Total   % Chg from Year Ago Total Private   % Chg from Year Ago Goods Producing Mining and Logging 2,736.1 2,742.6 2,745.2 2,751.1 2,745.30 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 1.20% 2,327.2 2,333.5 2,334.1 2,334.8 2,330.30 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 1.30% 310.4 314.2 311.7 311.7 311.7 11.6 11.4 11.4 11.3 11.2 Construction 137.2 140.0 138.3 137.0 137.7 Manufacturing 161.6 162.8 162.0 163.4 162.8 122.5 123.1 122.9 123.3 123.7 2,425.7 2,428.4 2,433.5 2,439.4 2,433.60 2,016.8 2,019.3 2,022.4 2,023.1 2,018.60 Durable Goods Non-Durable Goods Service Providing Private Service Providing Wholesale Trade 95.5 94.7 94.0 94.5 94 327.2 327.5 327.9 328.1 329.9 Transportation and Utilities 95.6 95.8 96.4 97.2 98.4 Information 44.8 45.5 45.2 43.8 42.9 Retail Trade Finance and Insurance 158.2 159.1 159.8 159.5 158.9 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 51.1 50.5 50.3 49.9 49.3 Professional and Business Services 416.5 414.0 416.2 417.0 414.6 142.3 140.8 141.3 142.2 142.1 32.1 32.2 31.8 31.8 31.9 242.1 241.0 243.1 243.0 240.6 59.0 60.4 59.8 58.8 59.1 359.9 361.3 361.6 363.1 360.9 39.9 41.0 40.1 40.3 41.9 283.1 283.3 284.6 284.5 282.2 86.0 86.2 86.5 86.4 86.5 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Administrative and Support Waste Management and Remediation Services Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Government 408.9 409.1 411.1 416.3 415 -0.4% -0.3% 0.3% 1.2% 0.90% Federal Government 55.3 55.0 55.4 55.2 55.5 State Government 86.7 87.1 85.6 86.8 88 Local Government 266.9 267.0 270.1 274.3 271.5   % Chg from Year Ago 16 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS Arizona - Earnings, Sales, Housing, Bankruptcy Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Average Hourly Earnings by Industry ($, not seasonally adjusted), BLS Total Private 24.69 25.26 25.00 24.74 25.37 4.1% 5.6% 3.4% 4.1% 6.9% Construction 25.82 25.46 25.27 25.60 25.81 Manufacturing 24.03 24.24 24.38 24.06 24.46 Financial Activities 28.25 29.07 28.68 28.37 29.02 Professional and Business Services 26.87 27.45 27.12 27.08 27.55 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 23.77 24.78 24.07 23.72 24.92 Education and Health Services 26.18 26.25 26.27 26.22 26.89 Leisure and Hospitality 14.94 15.00 15.13 14.82 14.61 8,766,762.9 8,339,754.0 8,456,200.1 8,257,519.6 5.1% 5.7% 6.5% 5.6% Retail Sales 5,714,988.3 5,376,042.3 5,557,814.2 5,524,978.8 Food, EBRC** 1,118,173.7 1,121,062.2 1,113,861.2 1,100,486.6 Restaurants & Bars 1,339,856.0 1,284,859.4 1,212,867.2 1,082,639.2 Gasoline, EBRC*** 593,745.0 557,790.1 571,657.5 549,415.0 542,584.9 245,958.7   % Chg from Year Ago Sales ($000s, accrual), ADOR Aggregate Retail Sales, EBRC*   % Chg from Year Ago Gallons, ADOT 266,134.0 250,018.0 253,731.7 241,820.0 642,521.3 646,347.8 743,000.0 925,694.5 Communications 168,479.7 164,596.5 162,837.0 177,089.4 Amusements 148,883.6 141,506.2 107,411.7 148,858.8 Utilities Rentals Personal Property 412,912.5 341,328.4 328,085.8 334,086.4 Contracting 920,632.0 845,084.3 972,238.1 996,662.0 Hotel/Motel 385,423.4 343,354.0 259,788.7 223,774.3 11,037.4 13,555.1 12,532.6 13,732.3 Mining, Oil, & Gas Production Mining Severance 71,741.2 72,577.9 81,174.6 41,145.0 Printing 20,052.6 19,668.3 23,036.2 18,178.5 Publishing 7,267.5 8,898.1 6,445.4 6,176.6 511,216.0 484,446.2 484,097.0 553,418.5 3,595 3,255 3,716 3,399   % Chg from Year Ago 40.8% 26.3% 6.1% -27.9% 1.9% Single Family Units 2,627 2,382 2,703 2,532 2,377 12.6% 6.8% 25.4% -1.5% 30.6% 40 32 49 60 33 928 841 964 807 77 Use Tax New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40 Total Units   % Chg from Year Ago 2-4 Unit Structures 5-plus Unit Structures 2,487 Bankruptcy Filings, U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Arizona District Total   % Chg from Year Ago Chapter 7 1,493 1,445 1,360 1,440 1,286 -2.0% 2.6% -3.4% 9.6% 2.7% 1,225 1,205 1,113 1,225 1,056 Chapter 11 4 10 14 10 9 Chapter 13 263 230 232 204 221 *EBRC estimates Aggregate Retail Sales by summing Retail Sales (ADOR), Food Sales estimated by EBRC (food is not taxable in Arizona), Restaurant and Bar Sales (ADOR), and Gasoline Sales estimated by EBRC using number of gallons sold in Arizona (ADOT) and current tax rate on gasoline (ADOR). **estimated by EBRC. ***estimated by EBRC using gallons sold (ADOT) and tax rate (ADOR). azeconomy.org | 17 ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS 2012 Arizona - Demographics and Vital Statistics 2013 2014 2015 2016 Demographics and Vital Statistics (July 1st Estimates, 000s), ADHS, ADOA & EBRC Population* 6,498.6 6,581.1 6,667.2 6,758.3 6,835.5 0.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 85.7 85.0 86.6 85.0 84.4 Birth Rate** 13.2 12.9 13.0 12.6 12.8 Residents Deaths 48.5 49.9 51.1 54.2 56.5 34.2 49.3 53.0 53.3 61.5   % Chg from Year Ago Resident Births Net Migration** *This population figure is from the Arizona Dept. of Administration, rather than the official Census population count. EBRC feels this figure is more accurate. **Birth rate and net migration are both calculated by EBRC using data from the Arizona Dept. of Health Services. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 36,349.6 36,799.8 38,356.5 39,560.7 40,805.2 3.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.1% 3.1% 48,170 49,070 50,083 51,002 2.9% 1.9% 2.1% 1.8% 236,220.3 242,181.5 255,731.8 267,361.1 Arizona - Personal Income and Earnings Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC*   % Chg from Year Ago Average Earnings per Job ($), BEA**   % Chg from Year Ago Personal Income Derivation ($ millions), BEA*** Total Personal Income   % Chg from Year Ago Earnings by place of work Less: Contributions for government social insurance 278,924.9 4.6% 2.5% 5.6% 4.5% 4.3% 158,853.5 165,510.0 172,673.2 180,699.2 190,186.0 16,540.0 19,323.9 19,999.4 20,974.3 22,008.6 Plus: Adjustment for residence 1,334.4 1,288.8 1,376.4 1,539.2 1,617.9 143,647.9 147,475.0 154,050.2 161,264.1 169,795.3 Plus: Dividends, interest, and rent 44,501.6 44,902.3 48,316.7 49,793.4 50,819.4 Plus: Personal current transfer receipts 48,070.8 49,804.2 53,365.0 56,303.6 58,310.2 119,041.4 122,681.9 127,830.5 134,025.2 141,253.8 Equals: Net earnings by place of residence Components of Earnings ($ millions), BEA*** Total Wages and salaries   % Chg from Year Ago 4.7% 3.1% 4.2% 4.8% 5.4% Supplements to wages and salaries 26,873.8 27,727.5 28,678.1 29,112.2 30,511.2 Proprietors' income 12,938.2 15,100.6 16,164.7 17,561.8 18,420.9 318.6 738.5 623.8 808.2 908.0 12,619.6 14,362.1 15,540.9 16,753.6 17,512.9 Farm Nonfarm *EBRC calulates per capita personal income using total personal income from BEA divided by population estimates from ADOA. ADOA counts differ from official Census counts, but EBRC considers them more accurate. **Average earnings per job is total earnings divided by total full-time and part-time employment. Earnings is the sum of three components of personal income--wages and salaries, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income. ***for detailed definitions, see BEA table SA4 “Personal Income and Employment by Major Component” Inflation and Prices - United States Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 244.16 243.85 243.79 244.05 U.S. Consumer Price Indices (seasonally adjusted), BLS All Urban Consumers: All Items   % Chg from Year Ago Western States - All Urban Consumers: All items   % Chg from Year Ago U.S. Producer Price Index for All Commodities (seas. adj.), BLS   % Chg from Year Ago 243.75 2.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 252.95 253.81 254.38 254.47 254.71 3.1% 2.9% 2.6% 2.5% 2.6% 191.50 5.2% 193.00 5.4% 192.90 4.1% 193.70 3.3% 193.40 3.0% 18 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS Arizona - Travel and Tourism Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Employment (000s, 12-month moving averages*), BLS Leisure and Hospitality 314.0 315.3 316.7 318.2 319.6   % Chg from Year Ago 4.2% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% Accommodation   % Chg from Year Ago 46.0 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 245,771.2 250,747.3 252,432.0 254,564.8 5.7% 7.1% 7.5% 7.6% Sales ($000s, accrual, 12-month moving average*), ADOR Hotel/Motel   % Chg from Year Ago Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (12-month moving averages*) Total Passengers   % Chg from Year Ago 3,610,569 3,619,066 3,624,968 3,627,744 3,630,238 -2.0% -1.7% -1.6% -1.4% -0.9% 277,303 279,926 280,503 281,359 282,224 3.9% 5.2% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% Tucson International Airport (12-month moving averages*) Total Passengers   % Chg from Year Ago *These data series are all quite volatile, thus the 12-month moving average yields more accurate information on trend. Arizona - Travel and Tourism, cont. Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016 International Border Crossings (Northbound) - Nogales District, Bureau of Transportation Statistics Pedestrians   % Chg from Year Ago Personal Vehicles   % Chg from Year Ago Personal Vehicle Passengers   % Chg from Year Ago Buses 571,170 567,787 550,338 645,141 663,625 8.7% 14.7% -5.1% 1.9% -2.2% 733,927 707,492 764,669 751,761 770,281 1.4% 1.9% 2.2% -1.0% 3.7% 1,396,210 1,307,610 1,425,482 1,399,858 1,504,678 -1.6% 0.4% 1.9% -1.8% 1.1% 1,122 1,009 1,092 1,133 1,217 -6.6% -0.8% -2.8% 6.9% 14.2% 19,232 13,878 14,419 16,047 19,434 1.8% 7.3% 3.9% 4.2% 24.0% Trucks 22,039 22,053 28,585 33,205 35,421   % Chg from Year Ago 12.9% 4.2% 5.6% 11.2% 7.8%   % Chg from Year Ago Bus Passengers   % Chg from Year Ago Trains   % Chg from Year Ago 62 59 50 57 63 -7.5% -3.3% -23.1% -1.7% 6.8% *Figures are totals of all Arizona border ports of entry (Nogales District): Douglas, Lukeville, Naco, Nogales, San Luis. Crossings are from Mexico into the United States. The latest data is through Dec. Arizona - Travel and Tourism, cont. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 19,221.3 20,703.7 22,427.9 23,438.1 Visits (000s) Arizona State and National Parks, NPS & ASPB Total Arizona   % Chg from Year Ago Northern Arizona   % Chg from Year Ago 19,030.6 -1.6% 1.0% 7.7% 8.3% 4.5% 16,552.4 16,626.2 18,027.4 19,531.4 20,419.6 -1.8% 0.4% 8.4% 8.3% 4.5% Historical 1,147.4 1,070.3 1,114.5 1,177.8 1,158.9 Scenic 6,369.7 6,521.0 6,933.8 7,670.8 7,838.9 Water-based 9,035.3 9,034.9 9,979.1 10,682.8 11,421.8 Southern Arizona 2,478.2 2,595.1 2,676.3 2,896.5 3,018.5   % Chg from Year Ago -0.2% 4.7% 3.1% 8.2% 4.2% Historical 382.2 359.4 384.8 425.4 434.1 1,729.7 1,869.3 1,903.1 2,059.9 2,160.9 366.3 366.4 388.4 411.2 423.4 Scenic Water-based azeconomy.org | 19 ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - MSAs Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA - Monthly Data Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 2,307.1 2,294.0 2,284.0 2,301.4 2,299.0 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.5 4.6 Persons (000s), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s), Current Employment Statistics, BLS* Total Nonfarm Employment 2,017.3 2,020.9 2,009.9 1,982.7 1,968.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Construction 107.2 109.5 109.0 109.0 111.1 Manufacturing 121.0 121.7 121.6 123.3 123.5 Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 387.9 386.1 386.9 387.0 388.1 35.9 36.4 36.4 35.3 34.8 Mining and Logging Information Financial Activities 181.6 181.6 181.7 181.2 180.6 Professional & Business Services 341.6 340.8 340.2 340.9 340.4 Education and Health Services 299.3 300.5 300.1 297.2 294.5 Leisure and Hospitality 232.0 232.8 230.3 226.3 222.5 61.9 61.5 61.8 61.3 61.4 245.7 246.8 238.7 218.0 208.8 25.97 26.56 26.37 26.07 26.75 6,212,646,606 5,965,824,676 5,984,080,762 5,819,307,942 Other Services Government Average Hourly Earnings, Private, $, BLS Sales ($ accrual), ADOR Aggregate Retail Sales, EBRC Retail Sales Food 4,115,176,817 3,941,041,843 4,008,286,025 NA 732 735 738 740 Restaurants and Bars 984,071,019 931,329,516 875,276,370 762,286,119 Gasoline, EBRC 381,025,063 358,446,879 362,876,151 342,227,938 Amusements 116,087,499 108,855,815 83,262,667 121,430,909 336,410,937 Hotel/Motel 287,522,409 224,620,826 144,175,048 102,915,151 2,432 2,338 2,304 2,300 1,883 1,713 1,577 1,712 1,500 1,615 9,304 8,819 9,830 9,571 8,010 289,417 292,124 300,589 304,870 296,283 New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40 Total Units Single Family Units Housing Sales and Prices, ARMLS Units Sold Average Price ($) *Go to www.azeconomy.org for a more detailed breakout of employment categories. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA - Annual Data Population, ADOA*   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal Income ($000), BEA   % Chg from Year Ago Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**   % Chg from Year Ago 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 4,273,897 4,338,672 4,404,888 4,482,906 4,550,388 1.5% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 163,407,229 167,760,664 178,064,720 186,693,084 5.7% 2.7% 6.1% 4.9% 38,234 38,666 40,424 41,646 4.6% 1.1% 4.6% 3.0% 20 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - MSAs Tucson MSA (Pima Co.)- Monthly Data Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 481,256.0 476,968.0 475,920.0 473,360.0 472,584.0 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.9 4.9 Persons (000s), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s), Current Employment Statistics, BLS* Total Nonfarm Employment 378.2 377.3 375.2 364.7 362.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Construction 14.9 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.8 Manufacturing 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.7 23.3 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 59.1 59.1 59.2 58.9 58.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 Mining and Logging Information Financial Activities 17.5 17.7 18.0 18.0 17.8 Professional and Business Services 49.1 48.7 47.6 48.7 48.7 Education and Health Services 65.6 65.5 65.3 65.5 65.4 Leisure and Hospitality 47.4 46.8 46.9 45.2 43.8 Other Services 15.3 15.3 15.4 15.4 15.4 Government 79.2 79.1 77.7 67.9 67.8 Sales ($ accrual), ADOR Aggregate Retail , EBRC 1,188,356,417 1,148,968,172 1,143,503,471 1,116,831,738 Retail 772,271,268 737,174,793 Food, EBRC 160,029,796 160,423,260 160,810,804 161,192,428 Restaurants & Bars 176,927,677 177,057,229 161,648,489 144,238,659 79,127,676 74,312,890 76,820,622 74,490,762 Gasoline, EBRC 744,223,556 NA 72,429,148 Amusements 14,220,471 14,036,355 8,699,501 8,916,132 Hotel/Motel 47,077,969 33,848,853 28,507,799 24,352,020 276 223 271 277 227 224 218 266 272 222 New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40 Total Units Single Family Housing Sales and Prices, TAR Units Sold Average Price ($) 1,619 1,445 1,607 1,675 1,406 224,815 232,988 240,250 238,246 226,827 *Go to www.azeconomy.org for a more detailed breakout of employment categories. Tucson MSA (Pima Co.) - Annual Data Population, ADOA*   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal income   % Chg from Year Ago Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**   % Chg from Year Ago 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 990,380 996,046 1,007,162 1,009,371 1,013,103 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 1.1% 0.2% 35,985,709 36,453,218 37,893,093 38,922,402 3.6% 1.3% 4.0% 2.7% 36,335 36,598 37,624 38,561 3.1% 0.7% 2.8% 2.5% azeconomy.org | 21 ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - MSAs Flagstaff MSA (Coconino County) - Monthly Data Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS Private Government Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private, $, BLS Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 75.0 75.2 75.5 76.1 76.6 5.6 4.9 5.2 5.8 5.8 65.8 67.0 67.4 66.3 66.5 46.0 47.1 48.1 48.4 48.7 17.3 17.3 16.4 14.9 14.9 18.69 18.45 18.39 17.91 17.54 107,015,467 115,493,068 128,881,583 106,698,097 33 56 57 55 40 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Flagstaff MSA (Coconino County) - Annual Data Population, ADOA*   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal Income ($000), BEA   % Chg from Year Ago Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**   % Chg from Year Ago 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 134,313 135,695 139,372 141,602 142,560 0.7% 0.1% 1.0% 2.7% 1.6% 4,939,175 5,130,228 5,449,838 5,705,476 0.4% 3.9% 6.2% 4.7% 36,773.6 37,807.1 39,102.8 40,292.3 0.3% 2.8% 3.4% 3.0% *Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts to be the most accurate. **BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates. Lake Havasu City - Kingman MSA (Mohave County) - Monthly Data Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS Private Government Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private, $, BLS Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 81.8 81.7 81.9 82.6 83.2 5.7 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.1 48.6 48.9 49.1 48.3 48.6 40.9 41.2 41.3 41.1 41.4 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.2 7.2 22.16 21.44 21.51 22.33 62,489,553 145,058,779 145,057,153 21.88 150,108,520 87 72 88 64 69 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Lake Havasu City-Kingman MSA (Mohave County) - Annual Data Population, July 1st estimate, ADOA   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal Income ($000), BEA   % Chg from Year Ago Per Capita Personal Income, EBRC   % Chg from Year Ago 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 77,683 77,900 77,922 78,269 78,135 -0.2% 2.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 5,291,048 5,422,848 5,743,703 6,040,669 2.3% 2.5% 5.9% 5.2% 26,055 26,636 28,155 29,364 1.0% 2.2% 5.7% 4.3% *EBRC considers the ADOA population estimates more accurate than official Census population estimates. **BEA “total personal income” divided by ADOA population estimate. 22 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - MSAs Prescott MSA (Yavapai County) - Monthly Data Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS Private Government Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private ($), BLS Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 102.4 102.5 102.2 101.8 101.8 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.4 63.3 64.4 63.6 62.7 62.0 52.0 53.0 52.7 52.2 51.7 11.3 11.4 10.9 10.5 10.3 20.48 20.30 20.20 19.71 20.01 161,113,659 159,133,122 158,034,308 162,947,046 121 81 312 118 84 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Prescott MSA (Yavapai County) - Annual Data Population, ADOA*   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal Income ($000), BEA   % Chg from Year Ago Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**   % Chg from Year Ago 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 211,583 213,294 215,357 217,778 220,189 1.1% 0.2% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 6,623,513 6,936,360 7,491,508 7,900,004 3.7% 4.7% 8.0% 5.5% 31,305 32,520 34,786 36,275 3.5% 3.9% 7.0% 4.3% *Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts to be the most accurate. **BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates. Sierra Vista - Douglas MSA (Cochise County) Monthly Data Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 51.3 50.8 50.7 51.0 49.8 5.3 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 34.4 34.4 34.3 33.9 32.8 Private 23.0 23.0 22.9 23.2 22.8 Government 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.7 10.0 19.35 Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private ($), BLS Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 18.95 19.24 18.83 18.42 70,833,641 67,887,173 70,900,212 75,751,411 87 72 88 64 69 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Sierra Vista - Douglas MSA (Cochise County) Annual Data Population, ADOA*   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal Income ($000)   % Chg from Year Ago Per Capita Personal Income ($)**   % Chg from Year Ago 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 50,908 51,269 51,104 50,914 50,705 -0.4% 0.0% 0.7% -0.3% -0.4% 4,648,859 4,591,143 4,677,975 4,821,097 -2.2% -1.2% 1.9% 3.1% 35,555 35,072 36,088 37,340 -2.3% -1.4% 2.9% 3.5% *Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts to be the most accurate. **BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates. azeconomy.org | 23 ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - MSAs Yuma MSA (Yuma County) - Monthly Data Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 96.2 96.9 12.8 16.2 56.5 55.9 41.8 41.1 Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS Private Government Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private ($), BLS Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* Jul 2017 99.5 99.4 102.4 19.0 20.5 23.8 55.5 54.1 53.3 40.5 40.2 40.0 14.7 14.8 15.0 13.9 13.3 19.34 19.23 19.16 18.93 19.12 152,512,685 126,391,524 Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 Jun 2017 92 121,937,227 114,036,764 79 112 152 70 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Yuma MSA (Yuma County) - Annual Data Population, ADOA*   % Chg from Year Ago Total Personal Income ($000) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 61,500 63,007 63,718 64,180 64,018 1.6% 2.5% 1.1% 0.7% -0.3% 5,593,053 5,926,507 5,954,316 6,449,702   % Chg from Year Ago -0.9% 6.0% 0.5% 8.3% Per Capita Personal Income ($)** 27,260 28,313 28,085 30,000   % Chg from Year Ago -3.2% 3.9% -0.8% 6.8% *Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts to be the most accurate. **BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates. TABLES: SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS ADHS: Arizona Department of Health Services ADOA: Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics Co.: County ADOR: Arizona Department of Revenue ADOT: Arizona Department of Transportation MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area must have at least one core urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants. ARMLS: Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service PSHIA: Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport ASPB: Arizona State Parks Board SAAR: Seasonally adjusted at annual rates BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce TAR: Tucson Association of Realtors BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor USCBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Census C-40: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce Micropolitan SA: Micropolitan Statistical Area must have at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants. EBR: The Economic and Business Research Center, The University of Arizona. U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Arizona BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation NPS: National Parks Service 24 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona October, 2017 Fall Issue ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - COUNTIES Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS 20.1 19.8 20.0 20.0 19.6 Unemployment Rate 10.5 9.6 10.1 11.4 12.1 Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.2 16.6 Apache County Summary - Monthly Private Government Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.1 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.7 9.4 8,976,061 8,487,188 9,936,640 7,975,462 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Gila County (Payson Micropolitan SA) Summary - Monthly Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 21.1 21.0 21.2 21.4 21.3 6.1 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.3 14.5 14.7 14.8 14.7 14.5 Private 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 Government 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.0 26,201,754 27,574,687 29,531,055 28,581,909 19 12 18 12 11 Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 14.7 14.6 14.4 14.2 14.2 5.8 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.3 Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA 8.7 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 Private 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 2.8 Graham County Summary - Monthly Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Government Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.9 21,974,603 20,094,060 22,665,681 20,077,323 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Unemployment Rate 5.7 5.2 5.7 6.0 6.0 Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Private 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.4 Greenlee County Summary - Monthly Government Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 9,487,750 9,027,642 10,659,063 9,039,053 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. azeconomy.org | 25 ARIZONA ECONOMIC INDICATORS - COUNTIES Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS 9.2 8.9 8.8 8.6 8.5 Unemployment Rate 4.8 4.8 5.3 5.8 5.9 La Paz County Summary - Monthly Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.1 Private 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.0 Government Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 12,415,487 11,578,550 11,054,152 11,183,230 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Navajo County (Show Low Micropolitan SA) Summary - Monthly Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 41.9 42.3 42.9 43.3 42.7 7.4 6.7 7.0 7.6 7.9 Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA 27.9 28.7 29.1 28.7 28.1 Private 18.6 19.2 19.5 19.9 19.5 8.6 Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Government Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 9.2 9.5 9.6 8.8 73,043,472 69,739,191 82,923,438 78,246,727 24 21 31 39 16 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. Santa Cruz County Summary - Monthly Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS Unemployment Rate Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 19.5 19.2 19.3 19.3 19.0 7.8 7.2 7.6 9.4 12.4 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.6 11.9 Private 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.2 8.5 Government 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.4 29,830,415 28,407,489 27,110,981 29,986,805 9 8 7 3 Retail Sales ($, accrual), ADOR* New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40 *This retail sales figure does not include food, restaurant and bar, or gasoline sales. 26 | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona 7 October, 2017 Fall Issue KEEPING CURRENT Arizona’s Economy is published quarterly by the Economic and Business Research Center in the Eller College of Management. For continuous updates of Arizona’s economic indicators, check out our website’s Indicators page: www. azeconomy.org/data/economic-indicators/ There you can browse indicators by geography or topic and graph each series by clicking on the series title. SUBSCRIBE If you wish to be notified each quarter when a new issue of Arizona’s Economy is posted online, go to: www.azeconomy.org/subscribe/ We do not share our mailing list. FOLLOW US facebook.com/Eller.EBRC @Eller_EBRC ARIZONA ECONOMIC DATA AT YOUR FINGERTIPS Download the free AZ Economy App! Search on “Arizona’s Economy” in the iTunes App Store or on Google Play and download the Arizona’s Economy mobile app 2.0 for your iphone, ipad, or android phone today. George W. Hammond, Ph. D. Director and Research Professor (520) 626-1679 ghammond@eller.arizona.edu Subscribe to Arizona’s Economy at: https://www.azeconomy.org/subscribe/. Arizona’s Economy, published quarterly by the Economic and Business Research Center (EBRC) at the Eller College of Management, is provided as an educational service by The University of Arizona. Correspondence should be addressed to EBRC Publications, McClelland Hall Room 103, PO Box 210108, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0108. Arizona’s Economy is available online at: azeconomy.eller.arizona.edu As part of The University of Arizona’s public mission to improve quality of life for the people of Arizona and the nation, EBRC is dedicated to providing Arizona citizens and decision makers with high quality economic forecasts and analysis. Copyright © 2016 by The University of Arizona. Information contained in this publication may be copied or reprinted with credit to the Eller College of Management at The University of Arizona. Alberta Charney, Ph.D. Senior Research Economist (520) 621-2291 acharney@eller.arizona.edu Alan Hoogasian Research Economist (520) 626-6439 ahoogasi@eller.arizona.edu Daniel Kinnear Specialist, Business Research (520) 626-1673 dkinnear@eller.arizona.edu Pia Montoya Database Specialist (520) 621-2523 pmontoya@eller.arizona.edu Maile L. Nadelhoffer Research Economist & Webmaster (520) 621-4050 mln@eller.arizona.edu Thank you to our community sponsors for their ongoing support of Economic and Business Research Center programs. Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee Arizona Public Service Company BBVA Compass CBRE City of Tucson Elliott D. Pollack and Company JPMorgan Chase & Co. Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Central Arizona Project Pima Association of Governments City of Mesa Pima County City of Phoenix Salt River Project City of Tempe Tucson Electric Power Company Special thanks to for its ongoing support of the Economic and Business Research Center website! ebr.eller.arizona.edu Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, Ph.D. Senior Regional Scientist & Associate Professor of Geography (520) 626-0520 vkp@eller.arizona.edu Heather Peterson Technical Consultant (520) 621-4050 thpeterson@comcast.net Jennifer Pullen Research Economist (520) 626-4795 jkanipe@email.arizona.edu Valorie Rice Senior Specialist, Business Information (520) 621-2109 vrice@eller.arizona.edu McClelland Hall 103 P.O. Box 210108 Tucson, AZ 85721-0108 Phone: 520.621.2155 Fax: 520.621.2150 E-mail: ebrpublications@eller.arizona.edu