Thursday, September 22, 2011

Interesting Fact of the Day: N.D. Income +13.3%

The BEA released data today on State Personal Income for the second quarter of 2011.  Based on data in the report (but not reported by the BEA - it only reports quarterly growth rates), the annual growth in personal income from 2010:Q2 to 2011:Q2 for the booming oil-rich state of North Dakota was a phenomenal 13.31%, which was almost twice the growth rate for No. 2 Texas at 7.27% and No. 3 Iowa at 7.17%, and more than two times the national average of 5.47%.  

Updated: The next four states for the highest annual increases in personal income were Nebraska (7.16%), South Dakota (7.03%), Oklahoma (7.03%) and Kansas (6.84%).  What do the top seven states with the greatest annual percentage growth in personal income have in common?  They are all "right-to-work" states

Related: "The Economic Miracle of North Dakota, America’s Most Successful State" on the Enterprise Blog.

15 Comments:

At 9/22/2011 10:54 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Looks a lot like the boom in personal income in Silicon Valley in the late 1990s.

 
At 9/22/2011 11:26 AM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Another interesting fact about ND:

North Dakota is the #1 U.S. oil producer, with 92% of U.S. production, for ...

Canola.
:>)

 
At 9/22/2011 1:24 PM, Blogger AIG said...

I don't understand the fascination with ND. ND has as many people as a medium-sized city. What's the point we're trying to observe with ND?

 
At 9/22/2011 1:45 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Utah just reported median family income down to 1997 levels.

 
At 9/22/2011 3:43 PM, Blogger The Patriot said...

...but, but..don't you know that union states are the future of this country??? That is what our esteemed leader say and I believe him. Don't you?
It is re-education camp time for you...

 
At 9/22/2011 8:12 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I don't understand the fascination with ND. ND has as many people as a medium-sized city. What's the point we're trying to observe with ND?

Many people think that ND is the future of the country. After all, it is supposedly sitting on a great deal of hydrocarbons (true) that is locked in shale (true) that can be extracted using new techniques (true) at a decent profit (not true).

Because the state is small and has been attracting capital and drilling activity people are doing well, house prices have risen, and employment levels are high. The problem is that the activity is not economic for the shale producers which are the foundation of the pyramids. We have already seen the shale gas myth get crushed by reality and are now watching the middle innings of the shale liquids game. Eventually the game will end badly as the few companies with decent producing properties in the right formation are overshadowed by all of the failures by the rest of the producers. With depletion rates very high and drilling activity very expensive the demands to attract new cash are very large and that is where people like Mark come in. As they hype the shale story the average retail investor will supply hard earned capital to projects that make no sense to anyone other than acquiring companies that can use the accounting rules to hide their reserve declines.

 
At 9/23/2011 6:19 AM, Blogger Cloudesley Shovell said...

Your top ten list is dominated by states that benefit from energy production. Oil producers like North Dakota, Texas, and Oklahoma.

I suspect, without any hard evidence, that Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Kansas benefit primarily from ethanol and other outrageous and economically wasteful agricultural subsidies, and perhaps not so much from right to work laws.

Perhaps there's some data out there on what states benefit from ethanol and agricultural subsidies.

 
At 9/23/2011 10:02 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Perhaps there's some data out there on what states benefit from ethanol and agricultural subsidies"...

Well shovell you might find this 24/7 Wall St article from Aug. of last year interesting: The States Where America Spends The Most (And The Least) Per Person

 
At 9/23/2011 3:08 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 9/23/2011 3:10 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


They are all "right-to-work" states.

You mean slave states.

Never mind that the "business friendly states" leave out promoting workers to come to their state, reserving the promotions for the business to move.

 
At 9/23/2011 3:14 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You mean slave states.

What do you have against the right to work?

Never mind that the "business friendly states" leave out promoting workers to come to their state, reserving the promotions for the business to move.

Say this fast three times in a row. Or write it more clearly. Your muddled thinking is showing.

 
At 9/24/2011 12:55 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 9/24/2011 12:56 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> You mean slave states.

Seth, just STFU. Really. I very, very, very rarely say that.

But you, you deserve it.

 
At 9/24/2011 1:03 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> After all, it is supposedly sitting on a great deal of hydrocarbons (true) that is locked in shale (true) that can be extracted using new techniques (true) at a decent profit (not true).

Vangel, I'm willing to make a bet that shale-based oil will be a profitable business BEFORE solar power is, if subsidies are removed from the profit numbers.

I'm not sure shale can become fully profitable, but apparently some people with lots of money -- all of it their own -- think otherwise, so I'm far more willing to bet WITH them than against them.

I'll take the OTHER side of solar, though. It will NEVER, EVER be profitable at all without massive subsidization by the government, on not only the development end, but also the production/manufacturing end and the consumer/user end.

 
At 9/24/2011 8:37 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Vangel, aren't you the idiot who actually, seriously believes in the ridiculous myth of profitable solar power?

No. Solar is a scam and would die quickly without massive subsidies. It is only appropriate for niche applications that are relatively few in number.

I'm will to make a bet that shale-based oil will be a profitable business BEFORE solar power is, if subsidies are removed from the profit numbers.

I agree that solar is a much less economic process than shale. Some shale companies could do very well as long as they stick to the sweet spots in core areas. But the shale industry is not really profitable and destroying capital just as the solar industry.

If you want energy look to coal and nuclear.

I'm not sure it can become fully profitable, but apparently some people with lots of money -- all of it their own -- think otherwise, so I'm far more willing to bet WITH them than against them.

Well, I talk to geologists and producers on a regular basis. They point out that knowing who THEM is can far trickier than you think. My preference is to invest based on fundamentals. Right now anyone who chooses shale over coal is a fool.

I'll take the OTHER side of solar, though. It will NEVER, EVER be profitable at all without massive subsidization by the government, on not only the development end, but also the production/manufacturing end and the consumer/user end.

I could not agree more. Solar is a destroyer of capital and only kept alive by subsidies and mandates. Take them away and the industry is toast. But that does not mean that we should put our money in shale.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home