Incomes climb in Michigan, but state still struggles with loss of manufacturing

The loss of 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs means that, even though, Michigan wages have climbed over the past few years, they’re still less than the nationwide average. (Shutterstock image)

 

Make no mistake: Michigan’s economy is doing well, but the days of leading the nation in weekly paychecks are long over.

The state’s workers once made substantially more than the average American household (6 percent more in 2000). Now, the median household income is 4 percent less than that of the nation, $60,449 in Michigan in 2018 compared to $63,179 nationwide.

The cause: the loss of nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs, many well-paying. And the jobs that have been created have largely been in the service sector and pay just over two-thirds, on average, what a factory job pays. 

Michigan is still a strong union state, with 658,000 people belonging to a local. But it’s becoming less so: The percentage of union members has fallen from nearly 20 percent of the workforce in 2008 to 14.5 percent in 2018 (compared to 10.5 percent nationwide), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The wage gap among genders in Michigan is just as profound as the nation: Women’s median weekly pay was $725 in 2017, compared to $928 for men. 

Still, Michigan incomes are growing. Total statewide personal income grew to $505 billion in 2019, up from $424 billion in 2015, while per capita income jumped to $46,055 in 2017 from $42,812.

 

Uneven wages, poverty

The economy isn’t lifting all people evenly.

Median annual earnings among minorities still lag, at $25,765 in 2018 for African Americans and $27,212 for Hispanics compared to $32,206 for all residents statewide. Since 2012, poverty rates have declined to 27.6 percent from 36 percent for African Americans and 19.7 percent from 29.4 percent for Hispanics. (The state average is 14.1 percent)

In Detroit and Flint, more than half of children under 18  and more than a third of all residents live in poverty. Median household income in Flint was $26,330 and $$27,838 for Detroit in 2018, according to the U.S. Census. 

In other parts of the state, median household incomes are far higher, like in Ann Arbor ($61,247), Grand Rapids ($44,369), Okemos ($74,568), Midland ($61,076) and in Metro Detroit suburbs like Northville ($107,500) and Warren ($45,611.) 

Again, education is a factor: In Okemos and Ann Arbor, more than 70 percent of adults have a college degrees. But in Detroit just 14.2 percent of adults have a college degree, while 12 percent do in Flint.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Matt
Mon, 02/10/2020 - 8:03am

What is total value of manufacturing output currently vs. pre manufacturing implosion? Maybe it's more of a manufacturing employment decline that an actual decline in manufacturing activity? If this is correct, productivity per employee has increased allowing lower prices (in many cases). Maybe Bridge readers and writers when not crying about low worker pay or pushing for increased benes, should consider the results of their unending demand for cheap stuff?

PLombard
Mon, 02/10/2020 - 9:10am

I appreciate the data and the visuals are mostly good. Clear, sourced, consecutive years. Zoomed in line charts. The only hiccup is the column chart visually misleading by not having the y axis start at zero. Suggest a line chart if you want to draw attention to the year-to-year increase or decrease. Or use a column charting year to year percentage growth (you'd still have to show zero.)
Thanks for the article and the data.