POPULATION, PERSONAL INCOME, AND EARNINGS BY STATE PROJECTIONS TO 2000 FOR OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BY BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS REGIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OCTOBER 1977 ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was performed by the staff of the Projections Branch of the Regional Economic Analysis Division of the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Eugene Janisch coordinated the project. He was assisted in all phases of the undertaking by Marian Sacks and Lyle Spatz. Edward Trott provided much of the work in developing the national aggregates. Computer programming and the graphic results were provided by Jane-Ring Crane and Evelyn Richardson. Teclinical and supervisory guidance was provided by Kenneth Johnson. ------- INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) prepares a comprehensive set of subnational economic projections as part of its regular work program. These projections -- commonly referred to as the OBERS Economic Projections -- arc regularly revised on a 5-year cycle. The most recent set was published in 1974 and many of the results, based on 1971 data, have since been invalidated by unanticipated economic developments which occurred during 1972-77. The Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) uses these projections in many of its planning programs and it therefore contracted with BE<\ to prepare revised projections of the State level results incorporating the most recent historical data. These revisions have been prepared through the year 2000. Local planners and other data analysts frequently have special knowledge of trends prevailing in their selected regions of the country. Therefore, it was decided that the validity of the final results would be considerably enhanced by the incorporation of local review comments on a set of "first-cut" projections. Review agencies in each State were identified by EPA and "first-cut" projections were transmitted for review. Following these reviews, BEA incorporated related critical comments (to the extent possible) into a finalized set of projections. The results of this effort are presented in this report. These projections should not be considered as part of the regular OBERS program. Revisions of the entire system of OBERS pro- jections will continue on the regular schedule. ------- - 2 - Local analysts utilizing these results should bear in mind that no pretext is made of having incorporated economic trends which are not yet apparent in history. Therefore, issues relating to such factors as energy availability and cost, the final recovery from the 1975 recession, and changing trends in migration patterns of the elderly have not been fully explored in the development of these numbers and,in general, cannot be fully reflected at this time. In brief, this data package is presented in the hope of begin- ning a common dialogue between the users and generators of projections. This set of projections will be monitored and the findings will be incorporated in the next set of formal 0R1ZRS projections due for publication in 1979. The data presented in the analytic package will assist individual users in understanding and evaluating the projections. Further comments from these users are welcome and encouraged. These projections are intended as a contribution to the planning and dec is ion-making processes. They arc neither goals nor constraints for any area's economic activity and they contain no expression of desirability or undesirability. ------- - 3 - RESULTS OF THE STATE REVIEW The "first-cut" projections were provided to each State and the District of Columbia for a critical review. Twenty-eight States communicated their impressions; three States felt that the initial projections (for their State) were too high, fifteen felt they were to low, and ten felt that the projected levels were approximately correct. It was assumed that the twenty-three States that did not ccmment were not in serious disagreement with the first-cut results. These projections were prepared within a preset level of total national population. Thus, in order for the level for one State to be increased, the level for one or more of the others must be lowered. If all requests were honored, and the noncommenting States were held at their "first-cut" levels, the national total would be exceeded in each of the projected years. This excess was 1.8 million in 1980, 4.7 million in 1990, and over 7.3 million in 2000. Obviously, requests by the individual States could not be directly honored without seriously affecting the national consistency of the results. Hence, post-review efforts at BEA concentrated on the redistribution of the national aggregate among the States in such a way as to best correct the anomalies noted, uhile at the same time staying within the national 1/ levels of population as projected by the Bureau of the Census. 1/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Scries P-2S No. 704 "Projections of the Population of the United States: 1977 to 2050," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1977. ------- - 4 - The review comments can be categorized according to the percent- age difference between the levels the local review groups felt were appropriate and the levels projected by BFA (both before and after the incorporation of the local input). These results are shown in table 1. The twenty-three noncommenting States are assumed to be within that group whose levels are within 2% of the levels projected by BEA. Table 1: Percent Difference Between BEA Levels of Projected Population and Levels Reouested by States: 1980 and 2000 Niimber of States a/ 1980 2000 Percent difference- "First Post "First Post Cut" Review Cut" Review +6.1 to +8.0 2 +4.1 to +6.0 +2.1 to +4.0 1 --- -2.0 to +2.0 41 42 34 28 -2.1 to -4.0 2 4 1 8 -4.1 to -6.0 1 1 4 9 -6.1 to -8.0 1 3 2 -8.1 to -10.0 2 1 -10.1 to -12.0 2 1 -12.1 to -14.0 1 1 -- -14.1 to -16.0 1 1 -22.1 to -24.0 1 -46.1 to -48.0 1 b/ 49 49 49 49 Total a/ A positive percent difference indicates that the HliA projection is considered to be too high. b/ Of tlie 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2 States disagreed but did not offer an alternative projection. They arc not included in this tabulation. ------- - 5 - As can be seen from table 1, after the comments were incorporated the level of agreement in the t 2% range improved by one State for ]9S0 but deteriorated by six States for 2000. There arc three factors which dictated this shift to lower post.-review results for the long-term levels. First, the Bureau of the Census published updated population pro- jections and the final national totals were reduced. The effect was small in 1980 but appreciable by the year 2000. This had the effect of increasing the previously noted disparities between the national levels and the sum of the State levels. The impacts of these revisions are shown in table 2. Table 2: National Population Projections (adjusted for Overseas Population) (In Thousands) 1980 1990 2000 Series II, August 1975 221,769 244,075 261,494 July 1977 221,559 242,913 259,778 Difference 210 1,162 1,716 Second, among the States that did not comment, it is thought that some were motivated by the feeling that the "first-cut" projections prepared by BEA exceeded their expectations. (Traditionally, those States feeling that the BRA projections are too low have been somewhat, more vocal than others). While it is probable that some of these "noncommenting" States either did not have their own projections, or else lacked the staff required to make ------- - 6 - an appropriate review, the probability of a reduction in the levels of a noneommenting State was somewhat higher than for a State which had verbally declared its agreement. Finally, the internal review by the BEA staff of the "first- cut" levels revealed, in several cases, discrepancies which tended to suggest that they were somewhat too high in the case of longer-term projections. Adjustments for these discrepencies resulted in lower projections for the year 2000 in a number of States. The preceding companr-on was Based on the national projection of population prepared by the Census Bureau, prior to an adjustment for the estimate of the 1970 census undercount. A discussion of the impacts of undercount adjustments is presented in the next section. ESTIMATE OF THE CENSUS UNDERCOUNT The Census Bureau estimates that approximately 5.3 million people were emitted in the 1970 census. This amounts to an underenumeration of about 2.5 percent for the Nation as a whole. In I960, this rate was approximately 2.7 percent. The estimated national percentage rates of underenumeration are presented,. by color and sex, in table 3. ------- 7 Table 3: Percent Undercount: 1970 Census Total White Black Total 2.5 1.9 7.7 Male 3.3 2.4 9.9 Female 1.8 1.4 5. 5 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 56, "Coverage of the Population in the 1970 Census and some Implications for Public Programs." U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.. 1975. For a number of reasons, (including the differentials by color) these rates of underenumeration vary considerably by State. Since the projections are to be used to determine physical requirements, it was concluded that a projection which recognized the magnitude of the undercount would be preferred. Contact with the Bureau of the Census revealed that they arc in the process of completing a study relating to the incidence of underenumeration for each State. The results will be published in the near future. The study's progress apparently was hampered by a lack of specific data for testing the various alternative methods. The Census' final report will present several psrimnte-A for each State. The range of these estimates within any one State is not great ------- - 8 - (amounting,generally, to no more than 2 percent between the highest and lowest estimates). On the other hand, the variation among States is substantia] (from zero to over nine percent). The Census Bureau provided BEA with preliminary results and, after studying the draft report, it was determined that there were no substantial reasons for selecting one alternative over another. But since a specific estimate was required, HI LA averaged the Census' seven alternatives and obtained the estimate used in adjusting the post-review projections. These rates were applied to the population projections in each of the projected years. This implies that an underenumeration of a given percentage in the ]970 census will result in a projection which is low by that same percentage. hTiile this approach is not strictly correct, it should not be a source of appreciable error. A deviation from this assumption was made at the national level. Rather than assuming that the percentage undercount provided the proper adjustment to the national projection, the absolute amount (5.3 million) of the 1970 undercount was held constant throughout the projection period. The percentage adjustment in the States was allocated to provide agreement with this absolute and, hence, declines slightly over the projection period. (Nationally, the percentage adjustment declines from 2.5 percent to about 2.0 percent by the year 2000). ------- - 9 - State population projections, after the adjustment for the Census undercount, are presented in table 10 of this text. Preadjustment projections are presented in table 10 of the analytic package. A comparison between the initial projections, following the State reviews, and the final projections, after adjustment for the undercount, is not strictly appropriate since the national totals have been changed. However, with this qualification in mind, the results in table 4 are presented in order to indicate the considerable impacts of the undercount adjustment. Although most States are aware of the undercount problem, it is doubtful that it was included in the levels they requested. Thus, the slightly "too high" nature of the post-adjustment BRA levels should be interpreted with care and the Bureau of the Census report should be studied when this interpretation is made. ------- - 10 - Table 4: Percent Difference Between Final BD\ Levels of Projected Population and Levels Requested by the States: 1980 and 2000 Number of States a/ 1980 2000 Percent difference "First "Final" "First "Final" Cut" Cut" + 6.1 to + 8.0 1 2 1 + 4.1 to + 6.0 5 4 + 2.1 to + 4.0 1 13 8 - 2.0 to + 2.0 41 27 34 21 - 2.1 to - 4.0 2 2 1 10 - 4.1 to - 6.0 1 4 3 - 6.1 to - 8.0 3 - 8.1 to -10.0 2 1 -10.1 to -12.0 2 1 1 1 -12.1 to -14.0 1 -14.1 to -16.0 1 -18.1 to -20.0 1 -46.1 to -48.0 1 b/ 49 49 49 49 Total a/ A positive percent difference indicates that the BFA projection is considered to be too high. b/ Of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2 States disagreed but did not offer an alternative projection. They are not included in this tabulation. ------- METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCF.S The procedure used to prepare the projections was to: (1) develop national projections of earnings and other economic data by industry, (2) analyze historical trends in industrial earnings at the State level and develop preliminary projections of earnings, by industry, for each State, (3) resolve the differences between the aggregated State projections of earnings and the independently determined national aggregates, (4) incorporate the results of the State review:-,, (5) adjust these results for the Census undercount, and (6) constrain all results to the national aggregates. The projections of total earnings were used to project total per- sonal income by projecting the relationship of earnings to total person- al income for each State relative to the Nation. Similarly, total personal income was used to project total population by projecting the per capita income for each State relative to the Nation. The differences between the aggregated State projections of both total personal income and population and the independently established national totals were, again, resolved prior to proceeding. Projections for 19S0, 1990, and 2000 were developed sequentially with most effort being spent in establishing a valid 1980 projection. Intuitively, it is difficult to establish a valid 1990 or 2000 projection level in the absence of a valid 1980 number, so this priority system seemed appropriate. In general these projections arc conceptually and methodologically consistent with those published in the latest set of OBHRS projections. ------- - 12 - The reader is referred to 1972 OBERS Projcctioas/Regional Economic Activity in the U.S./Series E. Population, Volume 1, "Concepts, Methodology, and Summary Data," for a more complete discussion of these procedures.-'1' The variety of data sources incorporated into these projections is briefly summarized below. 1. National population projections are as presented in the Census Bureau's July 1977, Series II projections with two adjustments. The Census results were discounted by 600,000 people (assumed to ap- proximate the overseas population) and augmented by 5.3 million (as an approximate adjustment for the 1970 census undercount). U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 704, "Projections of the Population of the United States: 1977 to 2050," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1977. 2. Current data for total population, by State, arc taken from the Federal State Cooperative Program for Population Estimates. U.S; Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 642, "Population Estimates and Projections," U.S. Government Print- ing Office, Washington, D.C. 1976. 3. Preliminary data from the Census Bureau were used to develop and estimate on the 1970 census undercount, by State. The Bureau of the Census will publish a report in the near future describing the alternative approaches to estimating the undercount, by State. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Scries P-23, No. 65, "Developmental Estimates of the Coverage of the Population of States in the 1970 Census: Demographic Analysis," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 2/ ' This document may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Stock No. 5245-0015, April 1974, $3.55. ------- - 13 - 4. National controls for the economic projections were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' preliminary projections of gross (duplicated) product and employment to 1990. BliA converted BI.S employment to earnings, extended the projections to 2000, and, in some cases, modified them to reflect more recent data -- particularly for coal, crude'petroleum, and natural gas mining (unpublished). 5. Projections related to agriculture are derived from the Department of Agriculture's production projections (Series E'), converted to earnings. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1972 OBI IRS Projections, Stock No.052-045- 00020-7, "Series E' Population Supplement, Agriculture Projections, "U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 197S. 6. Historical annual data (through 1975) for total personal income and earnings, by industry, were obtained from the Regional Economic Measurement Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, as were earnings data for the 16 quarters ending with the first quarter of 1977. 7. The knowledge gained from analyzing the output of the Regional Economic Analysis Division's Projections Monitoring System was used in this project. U.S. Department of Commerce, 'Tracking the BRA State Economic Projections," Survey of Current Business, Volume 56, No. 4, April 1976. 8. The knowledge gained from analyzing the review comments from the States was incorporated, to the extent possible. ------- - 14 - ANNUAL PROJECTION'S: 1976 - 1980 The Environmental Protection Agency, in requesting these projections, felt that annual projections through 1980 would be of help in their work. BEA does not generally prepare such projections because the analytic proce- dures for projecting the regional business cycle arc not available. However, a "normalized" annual series for the period 1976-1980 was prepared as part of this project. These numbers represent "best guess" estimates of the approxi- mate levels which would prevail in the absence of business cycle effects. They should not in any way be taken to imply that the States will immediately recover from the 1975 recession; nor do they describe the path of the eventual recovery. These comments are included because comparisons of recent history to the levels projected for 1980 frequently imply a dramatic growth rate not apparent in the growth rates projected for the post-1980 period. Apparently, this is considered to be a deficiency in the projection system by many users. Just as growth trends from 1973 to 1975 (at a time when the nation suffered an economic slowdown) are not appropriate for projections;trends from 1975 to 1980 (when the Nation, according to our assumptions, will experience a recovery) are not indicative of prevailing secular growth trends. Also, in comparing historical population trends with these projected levels, it is important to recall that the projections have been adjusted for underenumeration, while the historic numbers have not. The Census report on rates of underenumeration, by State, will provide the information needed to determine the amount of change between 1970 and 19S0 associated with actual growth versus that associated with the adjustment of underenumeration. ------- - 15 - NATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONTROLS Five tables relating to the notional controls used for these projections and the national controls used in the latest OBERS projections are presented on the following pages. As indicated in the data sources section, national projections of economic activity prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics provided the basis for the final national controls used in this project. BEA extended these projections to the year 2000, after converting gross (duplicated) pro- duct to the BEA earnings concept. Comparisons of the basic assumptions regarding the national economy in the latest OBERS projections and those related to these revisions are presented in table 5. The impact of these changes on the overall projected level of national economic activity was relatively minor as can be seen by comparing the results in tables 6 and 7. Changes in the industrial aggregates at the national level probably have a somewhat greater impact on the projections for the States. The changes-- on an industry-by-industry basis--between the latest OBERS pro- jections and these revisions can be seen by examining the results in tables 8 and 9. The effects of these changes on State projections vary with the relative importance of the industry in the State and, of course, with the overall magnitude of the change. While both the changed national ------- - 16 - assumptions and the changed national industrial mix exerted some influence on the changes in State-level projections, the most significant changes resulted from the incorporation of data on the subnational trends which have emerged since the last projections were prepared. At the time when the latest OBF.RS projections were prepared, the last year for which data were available was 1971. Since then data through the first quarter of 1977 have become available and have been incorporated into the revisions. ------- - 17 - Tabic 5: National Assinnpt ions Interim Revisions vs 1972 OBERS Projections 1980 1985 1990 2000 Civilian unemployment rate 1972 OBERS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Interim revisions 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Average hours per year (-.3510 1972 OBERS a/ 1,856 --- 1,794 1,731 Interim revisions h/ 1,868 1,832 1,805 1,743 Labor force participation rate 1972 OBERS a/ .591 --- .599 .602 Interim revisions b/ .623 .632 .636 .639 Total military (in thousands) 1972 OBERS' 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 Interim revisions 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 Domestic 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567 Gross product per hour ($1958) 1972 OBERS 6.70 --- 8.92 11.87 Interim revisions 6.44 7.36 8.38 10.86 Government: Percent of civilian employment 1972 OBERS....'. 16.2 --- 17.3 18.1 Interim revisions 17.8 17.5 17.2 17.2 Personal income: Percent of GNT 1972 OBERS 85.9 --- 88.0 89.7 Interim revisions 89.4 90.5 91.5 93.4 Earnings: Percent of personal income 1972 OBERS 78.5 --- 77.6 77.1 Interim revision 77.4 77.0 76.6 76.1 Fertility rates (completed) 1972 OBERS 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Interim revisions 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 NB This is the Census Bureau's Series II fertility assumption; it is the approximate equivalent of the original Scries E. Scries I assumes a completed' fertility of 2.7, and Series III, a completed fertility of 1.7. Labor force, age 14 and above. b/ Labor force, age 16 and above ------- - 18 Table 6: Historical and Projected National Aggregates Selected Years, 19SO - 2000 , GNP Domest ic Domestic Domest ic Domest ic TP1 Earnings ] Population Per Capita PI (Rill ion (Bill ion $67) (Billion $67) (000) ($67) 1950 555.3 312.2 257.5 151,237 2,064 1955 438.3 380.0 317.6 165,053 2,302 1960 487.7 444.6 364.7 179,954 2,471 1965 617.8 566.4 457.0 193,451 2,928 1966 658.1 602.0 488.5 195,486 3,080 1967 675.2 629.2 507.3 197,360 3,188 1968 706.6 665.7 535.8 199,297 3,540 1969 725.6 696.1 561.2 201,29S 5,4 58 1970 722.5 715.1 567.1 203,795 5,509 1971 745.4 736.3 578.4 206,199 5,571 1972 792.5 781.9 615.9 208,217 5,755 1975 859.2 826.5 655.2 209,832 5,959 1974 S24.5e 811.2 635.5 211,390 3,838 1975 809.3e 810.8 620.5 213,121 5 ,S04 Interim revisions 1980 1,069.9 1,089.9 843.0 221,559 4,919 1985 1,270.2 1,310.7 1,007.8 232,280 5,643 1990 1,480.1 1,545.3 1,182.6 242,913 6,361 1995 1,695.5 1,788.5 1,365.5 252,150 7,093 2000 1,981.7 2,110.4 1,605.9 259,778 8,124 Rate of increase AAGR 1950-73 5.8 4.3 4.1 1.4 2.8 1975-90 3.4 3.7 3.6 .9 2.8 1990-2000 ,5.0 3.2 3.1 .7 2.5 e estimated ***** ' Table 7: Projected National Aggregates , 1972 OBI;RS Series E GN'P Domestic Domest ic Domest ic Itomcst ic TP I Earnings Populat ion Per Capita TP1 (Billion $58) (Billion $67J (Bi 1 Lion To7j (.000) ($67) 1980 1091.8 1068.5 837.5 223.5 4700 19S5 1294.2 1273.2 992.7 231. 5 5400 1990 1512.7 1517.2 1176.7 246.0 6100 2000 210^.4 2154.3 1657.5 263.8 8100 ------- Tabic R. Wit ioiinl l.ont rol lot.ils, Interim Kcvi^ions (data arc in million? of constant $67) 1980 1935 1990 2000 Total Personal income Total Population Total Earnings Agriculti'ire, fc-es'.ry ?. Fish Far.TS '< Agr. Services Forestry £ Fishing Mining Coal Mining Crude Petroleum, Natural Gas Metal Mining Nonnieta lie Mining & Quarrying Contract Construction Manufacturing Food S-Kindred Predicts Tcxtile Mil 1 Prc:uc:s Apparel i Otrcr* Textiles Printing i ?-jbl ish",ng Chemicals 6 Allied Products LtiTo-er Furniture Machinery (exe'i. Electric) Electrical Machinery Motor Veoic'£>5 Trans. Equip. (excl. M.Y.) Paper & Allied Products Petroleum Refining Primary Metals Fabricated Metals i Ordnance Miscellaneous Manuf. Transportation, Cc,.,.$ Pub. Util Railrcad Transportation Trucking S '.'are.iousir.g Other Transportation Services Co^iunicaticns Public ,Utili tic-s Wholesale S Retail Trade Finance,'Ins., I Real Estate Services,, Lodging ' Presonal Services Business & Repair Services Amusements ?. Recreation Private Households Professional Services lotal Government Federal Civilian Gov't Statei Local Gov't Hi lilory Per Capita Income 1,039,9-11 1 ,310,676 1 ,545,257 2,nc,:?.i 221,559 232,280 242,913 259,778 843,029 1 ,007,841 1 ,132,656 1,603,910 24,210 24,516 25,391 27,122 23,780 24,054 2<>,839 26,542 430 462 502 580 10,740 12,033 13,506 16,324 3,805 4,390 5,014 6,360 4,643 5,225 5,900 7,000 1,006 1,064 1,1 44 1,281 1,292 1,354 1,448 1 ,683 51,557 64,045 76,845 102,827 216,533 248,702 230,419 345,4 03 14,672 15,616 15,5^0 1 cj , 304 6,829 7,842 8,775 11,001 7,967 8,7S4 9,627 11,524 11,781 13,290 14,762 17,991 14,217 16,70* 19,253 25,285 9,435 10,831 1 2»09- 1 - , 6 -- 4 28,006 32,660 36,-22 44,323 21,630 24.902 23,872 37,253 18,000 21,31? 23,3!-:? 29.5°0 10,893 11,811 12,601 14,251 7,721 8,981 10,224 12,944 3,524 4,023 4 ,343 4,954 16,931 19,315 22,377 27,195 18,383 21 ,359 24,062 29,743 26,544 31,265 36,595 49,300 61,222 73,236 85,784 118,744 6,251 6,280 6,317 6,537 15,900 18,274 21,024 28,764 12,394 14,433 16,484 21,076 16,377 21,335 27,122 42,101 10,300 12,914 14,837 20,266 137,718 158.604 178,033 235,617 46,997 57,642 68,932 97,799 143,911 181,419 222.873 337,733 9,831 10,357 11,003 12,029 27,279 36,120 44,835 67,87? 5,013 5,891 6,719 0,629 3,922 3,858 3.687 :,399 97.8G6 125,193 156,623 . 24:.,ph4 150,135 187,644 230,823 3ll.',326 33,872 39,494 45,453 5;., 836 101,463 131,076 167,649 23;-. 8-9 14,800 16,2/4 17,721 21 ,G61 4,919 5,643 6,361 .'5,124 ------- iu - Table 9:--National Control Tot.ils, 1972 OCERS Pro.ieclion (data arc in millions of constant $67) 1980 1985 1990 2000 Total Personal Income 1,0GB 496 1 ,273 226 1 ,517 173 2 ,154 2C6 Total Population 223 532 234 517 246 039 263 830 Total Earninos 837 490 992 ,723 1 ,176 711 1,657 332 Agriculture, forestry S Fish 21 264 2? 122 23 016 25 856 Farms & Aqr. Services ?0 897 21 ,713 22 ,562 25 29? Forestry £ Fishinq 367 408 454 564 Mininq 6 498 6 896 7 31? 8 402 Coal 1 814 1 971 2 15 r 2 5/4 Crude Petrolc-um, fidtural Gas 2 528 2 588 ' 2 651 2 851 Metal Mining 972 1 041 1 115 1 293 Nonmetalic Mini no & Ouarryinq 1 184 1 288 1 403 1 6 79 Contract Constuction 51 910 60 857 71 347 97 5S4 Manufactori ng 219 486 252 98-1 291 595 388 479 Food S Kindred Products 16 016 17 444 19 000 22 785 Textile "i11 Products 6 721 7 382 8 10° 9 87 7 Apparel 1 Other Textiles 8 736 9 82^ 11 084 14 027 Printing I, PuLl i shing 13 015 15 282 17 94 5 24 633 Chemicals & Allied Products 15 632 18 774 22 549 32 251 Lumber S Furniture 8 925 10 036 11 236 14 329 Machinery (excl. electric) 24 539 28 103 32 1 93 42 123 Electrical Machinery 25 073 30 529 37 166 54 4^3 Motor Vechicles 15 523 18 012 20 SO..' 23 070 Trans. Equip, (exel M.V.) 11 634 12 845 14 13'' 17 166 Paper ?< Allied Products 8 378 9 734 11 311 15 22/1 Petroleum Refininq 3 385 3 765 4 183 5 213 Primary Metals 14 302 15 317 14 404 19 033 Fabricated Metals ?. Ordnance 19 479 22 553 26 11? 34 939 Miscellaneous Manuf. 28 123 33 199 39 193 54 306 Transportation, Co-it1.. , Pub. Util 58 672 69 036 81 233 112 976 Railroad Transportation 5 612 5 502 5 396 5 162 Trucking I, V.'arehousinq 14 784 17 64 6 21 063 29 770 Other Transortaiion Services 12 408 14 278 16 132 21 743 Communicati ons 15 785 19 624 24 393 37 118 Public Utilities 10 083 11 857 13 944 19 183 IJholesale S Retail Trac'e 133 912 154 867 179 102 243 455 Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 48 461 59 224 72 377 106 885 Services 150 270 187 755 234 5R9 359 761 Lodging ?< Personal Sevices 11 433 12 600 13 883 17 014 Business ?< Repair Services 28 786 36 774 46 930 75 153 Amusements Recreation 5 3"5 6 179 7 187 9 644 Private Households 4 488 4 615 4 746 5 142 Professional Services 100 218 127 334 161 788 252 803 Total Government 147 017 178 255 216 133 313 934 Federa1 Civi1 ion Gov't 36 388 43 533 52 201 73 074 State & Local Gov't 95 158 117 156 144 239 215 755 Mi 1i tary 15 471 17 454 19 693 25 105 Per Capita Income 4,700 5,100 6,100 8,100 ------- - 21 ANALYTIC TABLES A\I) CHARTS, BY STATE Tabic 10 contains the final projected population levels for each State. Additionally, detailed economic information has been provided to EPA. For each State and the Nation, this information consists of 13 tables, with historical economic data for 1960-75 and projected economic data for 1970 to 20(10. These tables arc discussed in detail below. Also included arc tables with population and total personal income data for the Nation, the SO States, and the District of Columbia. The economic data are as described below for each State: Tables 1-2. Earnings, by industry (absolute data), in 1967 dollars. Table 3. Earnings, by industry, as a percent of total earnings. Table 4. Shares of the Nation for each industry. Table, 5. Location quotients computed on earnings. The location quotient for an industry within a State is the ratio of the industry's share of the State's total earnings and the saine industry's share of U.S. total earnings. Table 6. Indices of regional specialization. These indices are measured as the difference be- tween the share the industry comprises of the State all-industry total and the equivalent share for the Nation. The "overall index" is the simple sum of the pos it ivc indices of regional specialization (which is equivalent to the sum of the absolute values of the ncuativc indices). Table 7. Percent distribution of export status. These are computed as the ratio of tlie indices of special- ization to the overall index. ------- 22 - Tables 8-9. Export status by industry earnings. This provides a crude measure of the gross amount of export activity for each industry. It is the product of the index ot specialization and total earnings in each industry. Tables 10-11. Annual summary data on population; total personal income, by place of residence; earnings, by place of work; per capita income, relative to the U.S.; the ratio of earnings to total personal income, relative to the U.S.; percent share of the U.S.; and location quotients. Two additional tables present information parallel to that found in tables 10 and 11 on a quarterly basis, through the first quarter of 1977. Since these tables are presented for the historical base and the projected base, there are 21 tables in all of selected analytic infor- mation presented. The analytic package also contains a computer graph of the historical and projected trend for each industry in each State. These plots should assist the user in visually reviewing the results. For basic industries, both absolute earnings and a share of the Nation are plotted. For service industries, absolute earnings and a location quotient are plotted. In all cases, the scale of the vertical axis is determined by the magnitudes of the data being plotted. Hence, it is difficult to compare one graph Kith another as the scales probably differ in magnitude and sensitivity. The list of industries for which these projections were prepared is presented in table 11. ------- Table 10: - - I'opul.U ion Trci tv t ion-; bv St.itc ! ''SO-J(ilH) Adjust fur i '.t i: .in- ul i"~H I'l-iiMi'.-. UikIi i\'uu.i (ill t Iiihi^.iikIs) Slate and Region 1980 19R5 1990 2000 «"*TC0 STATES 220,859 flew England ^ 7g6 Main0 1*107 New Hampshire gjg Vermont ^2 Massachusetts 5 g;g Rhode Island *g/j3 Connecticut 3,326 ^cast 43,472 New Yo'^ 13,264 New Jcrs?y 7,SO? Pennsylvania ^ j.c^ [Jclcfrc' 'mo Mai y land 4, <105 District of Colu.'.bia 'gyg Great Lal-es 42 w ^chi^an 9^630 °h\° 10,967 Indians ^ ^j 111 inoi s ! Wisconsin 4,004 P1fins 17,172 mnncsota ^ Q2"j Iowa 2,925 Missouri 4*953 Worth DaKota South Dakota Nebraska 1,583 Kansas 2,325 Southeast 59 575 vi>"9inia 5^400 West Virginia ] g5g Kentucky 3*. 647 Tennessee 4,625 North Carolina 5*946 South Carolina 3 'l60 Georgia 5 ^429 Florida 10,225 A13bar.a 2 759 Mississippi 21^51 Louisiana ^ 933 Arkansas 2 300 So^'?st 20,415 ^k1aho:,'a 2,857 J,exd,s 13,627 New t,0* 1 c0 ^ 2~)$ Arizona 2,656 Rocky i'.O'jntain 6,242 Montana 7^7 Idaho 903 Wyoming ^ Colorado 2.852 Utatl 1,27 7 far West 31.453 Washington -> i?(t' Oregon Nevada Cal 1 fornia 23.145 Aiti^ko 'J 2 2 KaWd i 1 ................ 237,580 13.275 1,146 1,020 549 6,153 972 3,435 44,615 18,540 7.3S9 12.1C3 702 4,706 675 43,591 9,914 11,323 5,560 11,793 5,001 17,581 4,174 2,993 5,028 664 717 1,627 2,378 56,476 5,721 1,979 3,814 4,906 6,339 3,310 5,810 11,567 3.S54 2,523 4,149 2,504 22,159 2,991 14.823 1.310 3,035 6,696 774 969 456 3,118 1 .379 33 ,187 3,103 2,661 827 24,240 484 1,067 248,21 3 13,761 1.120 1.123 577 6.333 998 3,545 45,74] ia.au 3,172 12,313 762 5,007 671 4.;,731 10.198 11 .679 5,557 12,000 5,197 17,991 4,336 3,05S 5,133 C 73 723 1,666 2,432 60,056 6,041 2,006 3,977 5,183 6,731 3,459 6,189 12,904 3.948 2,595 4,316 2,707 23,831 3.124 16,002 1,344 3,411 7,146 780 1,033 468 3,383 1.482 34.906 4.076 2,866 939 25.323 543 1,154 265 ,078 14,523 1,222 1,305 607 6,614 1.033 3,741 47,119 18,922 8.74 7 12,365 841 5,533 661 <:5,9P3 10,3U 12,031 5,732 12,35E 5,553 18,502 4,505 3,101 5,225 690 730 1 ,734 2,517 6,755 2,003 4,224 5,573 7,419 3,700 7,053 15.049 4.140 2,740 4,659 2,970 27.050 3,396 18,059 1 .*136 4.149 8,025 802 1,183 484 3.863 1,683 37,586 4.417 3.203 1.141 26. 7r.r> 667 1,366 ------- 24 Table 11 .'--Industrial Detail of Projections Industry number Industry name SIC code, 1967 Manual Graphic plots Absolute Percent of U.S. Location quotients 1100 Agri culture 01,07 x X 1200 Forestry and fisheries 08,09 x X 2100 Metal 10 x X 2200 foal 11,12 x X 2310 Crude petroleum and natural gas 13 x X 2320 Nonmetallic, except fuels 14 X X 3000 Contract construction 15-17 X X 4100 Food and kindred products 20 X X 4200 Textile mill products 22 X X 4300 Apparel & other fabric products 23 X X 4400 Printing and publishing 27 X X 4500 Chemicals and allied products 28 X X 4600 Lumber products and furniture 24,25 X X 4710 Machinery, excluding electrical 35 X X "'?0 Electrical machinery & supplies 36 X X 10 Motor vehicles and equipment 371 X X 4820 Transportation equipment, excl. motor vehicles 37 except 371 X X 4910 Paper and allied products 26 X X 4920 Petroleum refining 29 X X 4930 Primary metals 33 X X 4940 Fabricated metals & ordnance 34,19 X X 4950 Other manufacturing 21,30-32,38,39 X X 5110 Railroad transportation 40 X X 5120 Trucking and warehousing 42 X X 5130 Other transportation & service 41 ,44-47 X X 5200 Communications 48 X X 5300 Utilities (elec., gas, sanitary) 49 X X 6000 Wholesale and retail trade 50,52-59 X X 7000 Finance, ins., ? real estate 60-67 X X 8110 Lodging places & personal serv. 70,72 X X 8120 Business and repair services 73,75,76 X X 8130 Amusement & recreation services 78,79 X X 8140 Private households 88 X X 8200 Professional services 80,81,82,84, X X 86,89 9110 Federal Government 1 except Fed. X X 1 State & local government 92,93 X X . ,0 Armed forces Part of 91 X X ------- CONCLUDING COMMENT Four sets of State-level projections have been referenced in this report; they are: (1) the "OBliRS" projections published in 1974, (2) the "first-cut" revisions prepared by BfA, (3) the "post-review" projections incorporating local comments and de- tailed review by the BEA staff, and (4) the "final" projections after adjustment for undcrcnumeration in the 1970 Census. Only the final results arc presented here. The results prior to the adjustment for undcrcnumeration are presented in table 10 of the analytic package. The "first - cut" results are not available for general distribution. The "OBERS" results, published in 1974, may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, as indicated on page 12. ------- STATE PROJECTION'S TO 2000 Computer Tape Availability- Price $250. (all States) Contact: David Cartwright 202 523 0938 Regional Economic Analysis Division Bureau of Economic Analysis U. S. Department of Commerce Washington D. C. 20250 ------- 1960 - 2000 TAP-NINfJS DATA 251 Logical Records 2008 Character Physical Records 9 Track 800 BPI EBCDIC Characters No Labels Position 1-2 Table number 3-4 FIPS State Code 5-9 Industry Code 10-11 Line Code 12-21 1960 Data* 22-31 1961 Data 32-41 1962 Data 42-51 1963 Rita 52-61 1964 Data 62-71 1965 Data 72-81 1966 Data 82-91 1967 Data 92-101 1968 Data 102-111 1969 Data 112-121 1970 Data 122-131 1971 Data 132-141 1972 Data 142-151 1973 Data 152-161 1974 Data 162-171 1975 Data 172-181 1976 Projected Data 182-191 1977 Projected Data 192-201 1978 Projected Data 202-211 1979 Projected Data 212-221 1980 Projected Data 222-231 1985 Projected aita 232-241 1990 Projected Data 242-251 2000 Projected Data Sort: 1-4, 10-11 *A "D" in the last digit of a data field indicates that tl)c data was suppressed in order to avoid publication of confidential data. ------- - 2 - Table Nurrbers 01 Earnings by industry (000 of $67) 03 Earnings by industry as a percent of total area (] decimal place) 04 Area earnings as a percent of U.S. earnings by industry (3 decimal places) 05 Location quotients, recional earnings (2 decimal places) 06 Indices of relative regional specialization (1 decimal place) 07 Percent distribution of exjrort status by industry earnings (1 decimal place) 08 Export status by industrv (000 of $67) 10 Population, total personal income by place of residence, earnings bv place of v;ork (absolutes, percent of U.S., location quotients) 12 Population by State (000) 14 Total personal income by State (000 of $67) 16 Per capita income ($67) 18 Per capita income relative to the U.S. (2 decimal places) Industry Codes 80000 Total earnings by place of work 81000 Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other 81100 Agriculture 81200 Forestry, fisheries and other 82000 Mining 82310 Metal mining 82100 Coal mining 82200 Crude petroleum and natural gas 82320 Mining and quarrying of r.oraretallic minerals 83000 Contract construction 84000 Manufacturing 84100 Food and kindred products 84200 Textile mill products 84300 Apparel and other fabricated textile products 84600 Lumber and furniture 84910 Paper find allied products 84400 Printing, publishing and allied products 84500 Chemicals ana allied products 84920 Petroleum refininq and related products 84930 Primary metals industries 84940 Fabricated rretals and ordnance 84710 Machinery except electrical ------- - 3 - Industry Codes (oont'd) 84720 Electrical machinery 84810 Motor vehicles and equipment 84820 Transportation equipment excluding motor vehicles 84950 Miscellaneous manufacturing 85000 Transportation, comnunication and public utilities 85110 Railroad transportation 85120 Motor freight and warehousing 85130 Other transportation services 85200 Communications 85300 Electric, gas and sanitary services 86000 Wholesale and retail trade 87000 Finance, insurance and real estate 88000 Services 88110 Lodging places and personal services 88120 Business and repair services 88130 Amusement and recreation services 88140 Private households 8820.0 Professional services 89000 Government 89110 Federal civilian government "'89120 State and local government 89200 Armed forces 91000 Total personal income by place of residence 92000 Population 99993 Per capita income 99994 Per capita income relative to the U.S. 99995 Earnings to TP I ratio relative to the U.S. 99996 Overall index (Table 06) 99997 Total exports (Table 08) 99998 Total residentiary (Table 08) Line Numbers These 2 digit nunbers refer to the line on which this data is printed on the standard tables. Records are in sort by these line nunbers (which differ in sequence from industry codes). For table 10 the line numbers serve the additional purpose of distinguishing between types of data: lines 00-15 Absolute data lines 16-29 Percents of U.S. lines 30-40 location quotients ------- |