Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

MinnPost logo 2014 Summer Member Drive

Readers like you make MinnPost possible
Become a sustaining member today

Minnesota's per capita personal income fell in 2009, the first decline in 60 years

Per capita personal income in 2009 fell 3 percent in the Twin Cities metro area and 3.6 percent statewide, both well above the national average of a 1.8 percent decline in major metropolitan areas and a 2.6 percent decline across the nation as a whole, according to a report issued this week by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

The last time per capita personal income actually fell was in 1949 in Minnesota and in 1954 across the United States as a whole, according to BEA data. The personal income drop has contributed to the drag in consumer spending, which makes up nearly two-thirds of the U.S. economy, thereby further slowing any recovery.

In the Twin Cities metro area, personal income per capita, or per person, fell by $1,903 to $45,750 from $47,653 in 2008. Across the state, personal income fell by $1,401 to $41,552 from $42,953. For the nation as a whole, income fell by $1,028 to $39,138 from $40,166 a year earlier, according to the BEA.

Personal income declined last year in 223 of the nation's metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), increased in 134, and remained unchanged in nine MSAs. On average, MSA personal income fell 1.8 percent in 2009, after rising 2.7 percent in 2008.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

While acknowledging that comparisons between metropolitan areas can be valuable, Neal Young, director of Analysis and Evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), prefers comparing Minnesota against the country as a whole and looking at changes in personal income by major industry category.

“For the most part, the recession has been across the board in nearly all metro areas, in nearly all industries,” Young said. “We’re doing better [than the nation as a whole] in some industries, worse in others.”

One employment category “really stands out significantly worse than the nation as a whole,” Young said. He pointed to a 19.4 percent drop in income for the nearly 70,000 Minnesota residents who derived income in the category described by BEA statisticians as “management of companies and enterprises.” This compares to a 5.2 percent decline in income among managers nationwide in 2009.

Young noted that if compensation for managers in the Twin Cities metro area had declined at the lower national rate, that would wipe out two-thirds of the gap between the metro’s total income decline and the national average.

The management category includes bank holding companies, other holding companies and management employees of corporate headquarters or subsidiaries.

Layoffs were not the cause of the decline in manager income, Young said. The number of management employees only dropped by 1.9 percent in 2009, so the majority of the income drop was due to reductions in wages per employee, he added. While Minnesota’s management employees are relatively well paid (averaging more than $100,000 in 2009, according to BEA data), that includes not just salary, but bonuses and contributions to pensions such as  401Ks, which were cut back by many companies in 2009.

Other employment categories in Minnesota, notably construction and wholesale, also saw larger declines in income than the national average. But none were as large as the managerial declines.

 “We try not to get terribly riled up about one-year trends,” Young said. “If we continued to see a trend over more than one year, that would be more significant.”

At the high end, personal income grew 14 percent in Jacksonville, N.C.  Naples, Fla., had the largest decline in personal income, 7.1 percent.

Inflation declined to 0.2 percent in 2009 from 3.3 percent in 2008, the BEA reported.

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

Comments (3)

Of course the income of those in the construction trades went down as the housing market sank into the black hole created by the wanton gambling of the Wall Street banks (a hole so large and deep, with losses so incredibly massive, that the taxpayers had to contribute a $30 billion bailout to fill it enough to keep the banks themselves from going down and, thereby, crashing the national economy)

Sadly, and strangely, the management of those banks - those who presided over turning banking into gambling, who should have been sucked into the black hole, themselves, were allowed to stay on top of the tide of red ink and paid massive salaries and bonuses at what can only be fairly described as being "at public expense."

As far as the decline in managerial income, I find myself wondering how much that decline was due to their income being based on the value of their company's stocks and hence the value of stock-based perks. Didn't the value of corporate stock across the board suffer massive declines in the time period in question?

Don’t forget the shenanigans of the Fannie and Freddie that guaranteed the mortgages to people who should NEVER have gotten a loan in the first place. These guarantees enabled the mortgages that then beget their trading. So lets consider all of the story here not just those “evil” wall street bankers.

30,000 residents of Georgia had a near riot in Atlanta this week to get a mere application for housing assistance in order to keep them out of total destitution. How do you measure that with your cult of statistics?