Lake County Lags in Wages, Loses 6.6% in 2009

The Bureau of Economic Analysis just released its report on county compensation by industry for 2009. Average compensation per job increased 1.2%, to just about $57,000. Unfortunately, fewer people had jobs, so the total amount of compensation went down 3.2%. Some smalll relief: inflation was only 0.2%.

Two-thirds of our 3113 counties saw compensation go down in 2009. The map shows a familiar pattern (click image to enlarge):

The center of the country does better than the coasts. The most populous counties generally saw larger decreases in compensation (3.7%) than medium and smaller counties (2.2%–2.3%)

South Dakota looks pretty healthy, with lots of counties in the blue upper quintiles (remember, blue is good on this map, while gold shows where there's less gold). But hey, zoom in: what's that gold spot in East River South Dakota?
Discover the Unexpected™: Lake County bucked the statewide trend and landed in the lowest national quintile for compensation growth. Statewide, average compensation per job increased 1.3%, from $32,702 to $33,136. Total compensation statewide went down 0.7%. But in Lake County, the average wage decreased 1.8%, from $28,993 to $28,466. Total compensation in Lake County dropped 6.6%.

Only four counties—McCook, Marshall, Union, and Harding—saw worse declines on total compensation. Harding lost the most compensation, dropping 15.7%, with average wages per job dropping $3200 in one year. Weep not for Union County, though: they have the highest average wage per job in the state, just over $39,000.

2010 Initiative Job Growth Concentrated in Big Towns

Gotta beat Montgomery to the Pivot Tables!

Among the milk and honey Governor Rounds says flowed from his 2010 Initiative are job gains in South Dakota. Some folks say government can't create jobs, but I'll let Governor Rounds sort that out with his fellow Republicans. Let's just look at the numbers.

If I'm generous and look at the statewide seasonal numbers from the state Department of Labor, I find that from October 2002 to October 2010, South Dakota added 18,220 jobs, an increase of 4.5%. Over the same period, the size of our workforce increased by 24,480, a 5.8% rise.

But those job gains were not shared by every area of the state. 32 counties gained jobs. 33 counties lost jobs (Clark County broke even.) Minnehaha County led the pack, adding 5655 jobs. That's almost a third of the state's growth. Lincoln County added another 4780 jobs (a state-leading 29.7% job boom). The Sioux Falls metroplex, two counties, thus accounted for over 57% of the job growth of the last eight years.

The biggest losers by raw number? Meade County lost 570 jobs over the last eight years. Turner County lost 550. My home county of Lake lost 395. McCook lost 345. Hmm... all counties within commuting distance of a big metro county.

The full data is below. The data follow a pattern similar to the population growth numbers we discussed here back in March: South Dakota is growing, but the growth is happening mostly in a few urban centers at the expense of rural communities.

If I were the governor of the state trying to create jobs, I might try to spread that employment growth a little more broadly.

South Dakota Labor Stats, 2002-2010
Area	Jobs Gained	Job Gain %	Workers Gained	Worker Gain %
Statewide	17470	4.3%	24315	5.8%
Statewide Seasonal	18220	4.5%	24480	5.8%
Aberdeen MiSA	1080	5.0%	1215	5.5%
Brookings MiSA	1495	8.8%	1735	10.0%
Dewey-Ziebach LMA	45	1.4%	160	4.6%
Huron MiSA	600	6.8%	630	7.0%
Mitchell MiSA	265	2.1%	405	3.2%
Pierre MiSA	820	7.2%	930	8.0%
Rapid City MSA	2220	3.6%	3415	5.4%
Sioux Falls MSA	9540	8.4%	12115	10.5%
Spearfish MiSA	1115	9.3%	1300	10.5%
Vermillion MiSA	470	6.8%	530	7.4%
Watertown MiSA	220	1.2%	420	2.3%
Yankton MiSA	-85	-0.8%	75	0.6%
Counties
Aurora	95	6.6%	120	8.1%
Beadle	600	6.8%	630	7.0%
Bennett	-35	-2.6%	-15	-1.1%
Bon Homme	-335	-10.2%	-300	-8.9%
Brookings	1495	8.8%	1735	10.0%
Brown	1095	5.6%	1225	6.1%
Brule	-15	-0.5%	15	0.5%
Buffalo	-50	-10.1%	-20	-3.7%
Butte	310	6.3%	385	7.6%
Campbell	-85	-9.2%	-90	-9.4%
Charles Mix	-200	-4.7%	-135	-3.1%
Clark	0	0.0%	-20	-1.1%
Clay	470	6.8%	530	7.4%
Codington	205	1.4%	370	2.4%
Corson	-10	-0.7%	10	0.7%
Custer	390	8.9%	460	10.2%
Davison	140	1.3%	270	2.5%
Day	-245	-8.3%	-200	-6.6%
Deuel	-20	-0.8%	25	1.0%
Dewey	30	1.2%	155	6.1%
Douglas	75	4.5%	90	5.2%
Edmunds	-15	-0.7%	-15	-0.7%
Fall River	70	2.0%	125	3.4%
Faulk	-30	-2.6%	-25	-2.1%
Grant	-85	-2.0%	-25	-0.6%
Gregory	-125	-5.1%	-110	-4.3%
Haakon	-90	-7.3%	-85	-6.8%
Hamlin	15	0.5%	50	1.8%
Hand	-55	-2.9%	-60	-3.0%
Hanson	130	7.4%	135	7.5%
Harding	45	5.9%	55	7.1%
Hughes	725	7.6%	800	8.2%
Hutchinson	-25	-0.7%	0	0.0%
Hyde	-35	-4.5%	-30	-3.8%
Jackson	-5	-0.4%	25	2.1%
Jerauld	200	16.5%	205	16.5%
Jones	-40	-5.4%	-40	-5.3%
Kingsbury	-185	-6.1%	-140	-4.5%
Lake	-395	-5.9%	-255	-3.7%
Lawrence	1115	9.3%	1300	10.5%
Lincoln	4780	29.7%	5265	32.0%
Lyman	-40	-2.0%	0	0.0%
Marshall	130	6.8%	155	7.9%
McCook	-345	-11.9%	-295	-9.9%
McPherson	-150	-11.9%	-140	-10.8%
Meade	-570	-4.6%	-370	-2.9%
Mellette	-20	-2.2%	-5	-0.5%
Miner	50	4.4%	70	5.9%
Minnehaha	5655	6.3%	7650	8.4%
Moody	5	0.1%	110	2.9%
Pennington	2790	5.6%	3785	7.5%
Perkins	-170	-9.8%	-155	-8.7%
Potter	-65	-4.7%	-55	-3.9%
Roberts	335	7.5%	405	8.7%
Sanborn	-185	-12.2%	-170	-10.9%
Shannon	-100	-2.8%	125	3.3%
Spink	160	4.9%	170	5.1%
Stanley	95	5.3%	120	6.5%
Sully	45	4.6%	55	5.6%
Todd	245	7.6%	350	10.3%
Tripp	-200	-6.4%	-210	-6.5%
Turner	-550	-12.1%	-505	-10.8%
Union	505	7.1%	645	8.8%
Walworth	10	0.4%	55	2.0%
Yankton	-85	-0.8%	75	0.6%
Ziebach	15	1.8%	0	0.0%

p.s.: Yesterday Dakota War College urged us liberals to do more fact-checking. Dakota War College then ran a post parroting the state press release in praise of the 2010 Initiative. DWC, I say with all due respect: I check more facts before breakfast than you check all week. Pass the raisin bran.

Reich Reviles Rotten Reaganomics Rehash -- Congress Passes Stimulus II

Senator Tim Johnson was on SDPB Dakota Midday Tuesday insisting that he had no choice but to vote for the $858 billion Stimulus II that the Republican leadership and President Obama worked out. Funny: Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa thought he had a choice. So did twelve other Senate Democrats, six Senate Republicans, and one Senate Indy-Socialist (roll call vote #276 here).

South Dakota's last Democrat in Washington needs to read more Robert Reich. America's best darn former Secretary of Labor critiques exactly this false "have no choice" excuse. Reich says we ought to have the courage to choose something other than a rehash of failed Reaganomics:

Supply siders are also fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, that boom followed Reagan’s 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; most of it followed Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.

Nor did George W. Bush’s tax cuts trickle down. Between 2002 and 2007 the median wage actually dropped. And Bush’s record of job creation was pathetic relative to Bill Clinton’s, when taxes were higher. Under Clinton, America added 22 million net new jobs. Under Bush, barely 8 million [Robert Reich, "The New Tax Deal: Reaganomics Redux," blog, 2010.12.16].

Holy cow: our gal Stephanie and my man Dennis both voted aye! Michele Bachmann and Anthony Weiner voted nay. We should have more votes with alignments like that.

Wow: two empirical examples of significant tax increases followed by better economic growth than we got after the Bush tax cuts... ineffective cuts that we are now extending.

I know, it's all over but the shouting. But there are economic lessons we aren't learning... and I intend to keep shouting them.

South Dakota Cost of Living Spikes Above US Average

Here's news to straighten your curls: South Dakota's cost of living is higher than the national average.

Say what? The last time I ran numbers on cost of living and salaries, I found that in Quarter 1 of this year, South Dakota's cost of living was 92.8% of the national average, the 13th lowest in the nation. When I checked my usual source, the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC), I found South Dakota's cost of living jumped in the third quarter to 101.25% of the national average. That ranks us 32nd in the nation.

Hold on—really? I've been following these cost-of-living figures for some time, and South Dakota's has consistently floated around the 90% level. How did we suddenly, in just a couple quarters, boom up over 101%?

I emailed MERIC to find out if they could explain this strange stat. They replied (with admirable alacrity!) that Q2 saw "a huge increase in transportation, housing, and grocery costs" (dang—don't tell me Sarah Palin was right!) and that Q3 saw a big surge in health care costs. MERIC explains that sometimes some cities participating in the C2ER/ACCRA cost-of-living survey misreport or don't report for a certain period, while other experience some price volatility that mucks up the comparisons. MERIC says their own state of Missouri dropped out of its normal position in the top 10 for a couple quarters, then bounced back.

So what do you think, fellow South Dakota shoppers? Have we seen an unusual price spike in the last couple quarters that didn't happen in other states? Or is this sudden 101.25% cost of living just an artifact of gimpy data?

Just in case these numbers are legit, permit me to run my favorite cost-of-living calculation: teacher pay purchasing power:

State	Avg Teacher Pay (AY 2008-2009)	% US Avg	TP Rank	Cost of Living Index (2010 Q3)	COL Rank	Teacher Purchasing Power
SD	$35,070	64.56	51	101.25	32	63.77
ND	$41,654	76.68	50	98.59	24	77.78
MN	$51,938	95.62	20	103.4	34	92.47
IA	$48,638	89.54	26	94.51	16	94.74
NE	$44,957	82.76	42	90.78	6	91.17
WY	$54,602	100.52	16	99.61	29	100.91
MT	$44,426	81.79	46	99.43	28	82.26
US	$54,319	100		100		100

Short form: by current cost of living data, public school teachers choosing to live and work in South Dakota will have less than 64% of the purchasing power than the national average. If those teachers leave South Dakota for any neighboring state they will make more money and be able to buy more with that money. Even in Minnesota, with the highest cost of living in the neighborhood, teachers would enjoy 45% more purchasing power than they do in South Dakota... at least by Q3 numbers.

Ayn Rand's Atheism Worse Than Mine

My favorite Anglican fount of wisdom, Father Tim, reminds me indirectly that I don't have to make any excuses to my conservative neighbors about being an atheist... not as long they keep worshipping Ayn Rand:

The Economist's Good Guru Guide says, "Ayn Rand—the heroine of America's libertarian right—described her philosophy as 'the concept of man as a noble being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute'" [Gary Moore, "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Great Recession," Christianity Today, 2010.08.27].

Sounds like nefarious secular humanism to me.

Like The Economist, most observers see Rand as a political and economic philosopher. I believe she was first and foremost an anti-Christian philosopher. She didn't understand the faith. But she knew that Moses was a lawgiver, that Christ told us to "render unto Caesar," and that Paul told us to pay taxes and to "honor and respect" government leaders (Rom. 13). So she had to get rid of Christianity in order to get rid of government.

Rand once declared, "I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion." Randian evangelist Leonard Peikoff preached that "every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to him rests on a false metaphysical principle" [Moore, 2010].

Enemy of religion?! I've never declared myself that. I don't mind religion all that much, at least not when folks do it right... or when they put on good potato suppers.

Moore's article is chock full of sharp observations that make one thing clear: atheist Ayn Rand poses a greater threat to your Christian faith and moral compass (not to mention the healthy, regulated free market Adam Smith envisioned) than I ever will. Rand does not believe in any moral obligation to your fellow man. I do. So did that carpenter from Nazareth.

South Dakota 15th for Dependence on Gasoline

As you commute across South Dakota's wide open spaces this morning, you probably won't be surprised to learn that we South Dakotans spend more of their income on gasoline than many other Americans. In this report from March 2010, the National Resources Defense Council calculates that the average South Dakota driver spends over $1600 a year on gasoline. That's 4.3% of our average income.

By that score, we rank 15th in the nation, just a tick behind our bigger-spending but also bigger-earning neighbors in North Dakota. Poor Mr. Kurtz and his Montana neighbors rank second in the nation, spending over $2000 a year on gasoline, 5.9% of their annual paychecks. Gasoline eats up the largest chunk of paychecks in Mississippi.

State	Avg % Income spent on gasoline	Avg amt spent on gasoline	Avg income	Rank by gas %	Rank by gas amt	rank by income
Mississippi	6.22%	$1,880.95	$30,240	1	4	50
Montana	5.88%	$2,017.96	$34,319	2	1	38
Louisiana	5.26%	$1,908.72	$36,287	3	3	30
Oklahoma	5.12%	$1,830.77	$35,757	4	5	32
South Carolina	5.06%	$1,638.98	$32,391	5	11	44
Kentucky	5.02%	$1,583.50	$31,544	6	18	49
Texas	4.87%	$1,818.89	$37,349	7	6	26
Maine	4.65%	$1,700.66	$36,573	8	9	28
Georgia	4.64%	$1,595.08	$34,377	9	16	37
Idaho	4.54%	$1,467.33	$32,320	10	22	45
Arkansas	4.52%	$1,459.02	$32,279	11	25	47
Tennessee	4.49%	$1,568.96	$34,943	12	19	35
Utah	4.44%	$1,400.80	$31,550	13	35	48
North Dakota	4.33%	$1,717.29	$39,660	14	8	18
South Dakota	4.32%	$1,626.29	$37,646	15	13	24
New Mexico	4.30%	$1,437.33	$33,426	16	28	43
Michigan	4.20%	$1,436.89	$34,212	17	29	39
Kansas	4.13%	$1,585.31	$38,385	18	17	23
North Carolina	4.10%	$1,440.40	$35,132	19	27	34
Wyoming	4.07%	$1,930.68	$47,437	20	2	6
West Virginia	4.06%	$1,311.61	$32,306	21	40	46
California	4.04%	$1,727.67	$42,764	22	7	9
Missouri	4.02%	$1,463.53	$36,406	23	23	29
Iowa	4.00%	$1,486.22	$37,156	24	20	27
Rhode Island	3.94%	$1,622.61	$41,183	25	14	15
Wisconsin	3.91%	$1,461.35	$37,375	26	24	25
Hawaii	3.91%	$1,649.52	$42,187	26	10	13
Ohio	3.88%	$1,383.68	$35,662	28	37	33
Minnesota	3.78%	$1,601.12	$42,358	29	15	11
Alabama	3.76%	$1,257.58	$33,446	30	48	42
Vermont	3.75%	$1,446.03	$38,561	31	26	21
Indiana	3.70%	$1,264.65	$34,180	32	46	40
Virginia	3.67%	$1,264.48	$34,454	33	47	36
Oregon	3.60%	$1,302.80	$36,189	34	42	31
Nevada	3.54%	$1,403.87	$39,657	35	34	19
Arizona	3.53%	$1,188.45	$33,667	36	50	41
Delaware	3.52%	$1,419.34	$40,322	37	32	16
Illinois	3.44%	$1,434.47	$41,700	38	30	14
Nebraska	3.39%	$1,309.37	$38,624	39	41	20
Alaska	3.39%	$1,475.74	$43,532	39	21	7
Florida	3.36%	$1,291.67	$38,443	41	43	22
Washington	3.31%	$1,409.14	$42,572	42	33	10
Pennsylvania	3.27%	$1,315.34	$40,224	43	39	17
New Jersey	3.23%	$1,635.08	$50,622	44	12	3
Colorado	3.00%	$1,266.50	$42,217	45	45	12
New Hampshire	2.96%	$1,279.05	$43,211	46	44	8
Maryland	2.90%	$1,425.42	$49,152	47	31	4
Massachusetts	2.60%	$1,318.18	$50,699	48	38	2
New York	2.56%	$1,216.06	$47,502	49	49	5
Connecticut	2.52%	$1,391.18	$55,206	50	36	1

Spending on gasoline as percentage of income.
Income calculated from given data on percentage and amount spent on gasoline.
Source: NRDC, March 2010

Three interesting correlations pop out of these numbers. First, check out the oil-producing states. Down by the rigs and refineries in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, folks are still spending a higher proportion of their income on gasoline. North Dakota has more oil fields than South Dakota, and North Dakotans have similar open-country driving needs as South Dakotans, but they are paying more for gasoline. Alaska defies that apparent relation, paying less than most states for gasoline and ranking 40th on gasoline spending as percentage of income. But I wonder: given that possible relation—or lack thereof—between oil production and spending on gasoline, would South Dakota enjoy any gasoline savings if Hyperion built the Union County refinery?

A more solid numerical correlation: compare gasoline spending as percentage of income with income itself. I run those numbers through my spreadsheet and get a correlation of -0.69. In other words, the poorer the state, the bigger the chunk of income one spends on gasoline. That reflects, perhaps, the inelasticity of gasoline demand: even if you're making less, you still have to drive around. But a lot of those states at the bottom of the list are spending less in dollar terms as well as percentage terms. Places like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York also have pretty good mass transit.

One more correlation: the states spending higher percentages of income on gasoline look pretty conservative. The states at the other end of the list look pretty liberal. The point of the NRDC report was to highlight the states that are most vulnerable to oil price shocks. So we could read this data counterintuitively: the conservatives who could benefit most from getting America off its oil addiction and adopting energy policies that would insulate us from oil price shocks are the most inclined to oppose legislation on climate change and energy security that could get us off oil.

Or we could say the above split is perfectly logical: the liberal states are already kicking the gas habit, so they don't mind carbon taxes and other legislation that drive investment in other fuels and raise prices at the pumps they whizz by on their buses and bikes.

South Dakota Banks Making Big Money

All right, turkey's out of my system—let's get back to work!

While I was enjoying the grand American consumer bacchanalia in Lincoln, I read that Nebraska banks are having a great year. The FDIC says so far in 2010, Nebraska's banks have made $460 million in profit, their best three-quarter showing since 1993.

But they're pikers compared to South Dakota. The FDIC's State Banking Performance Summary says South Dakota's banks have made $7.97 billion in profit through three quarters. That's up 55% from the $5.14 billion profit posted at this point last year and up 6.5% from the September 2007 figure right before the economy went to heck.

Also worth noting: employment at South Dakota banks boomed by 50,000 full-time equivalents, a jump of nearly 28% from September 2009's 180,759 to the current 230,578.

Now hold on: jobs in the financial sector in South Dakota hardly number 30,000. Those FDIC-SBPS numbers cover all FDIC-insured institutions in South Dakota, and that apparently means FDIC counts al employees of those firms here and in other states. Look just at state-chartered institutions, and you find 4,347 full-time equivalents—well below the 5,086 FTEs at the beginning of the panic in September 2008, but up at least from last year's 3,855. Profits among the state-chartered institutions are up as well, at $123 million so far this year, up 26% from the same time in 2009.

---------------------
Looking nationally and historically, 149 U.S. banks have failed so far this year. That beats last year's total of 140. We also have a lot more "problem institutions"—FDIC is keeping an eye on 860 banks, compared to 702 "problem institutions" last year.

One more interesting note: following the savings and loan crisis and the early-1990s recession, FDIC had over 22,000 employees. Under the Bush Administration, FDIC's workforce was slashed to less than 5,000. Currently FDIC has 8,027 employees to insure our deposits and keep an eye on our banks.

Bush Tax Cuts Don't Trickle Down: Who Said That?

The following indictment of trickle-down economics comes from someone of a little higher pay grade your favorite liberal South Dakota blogger:

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

Who said that in a discussion of the need to extend the Bush tax cuts to save boost business and coddle capitalism?

Dennis Kucinich? Well, he has said things like that since the beginning of the Bush tax cuts, but the above quote isn't his.

The Socialist Party of America? No, the quote isn't from them—they have somewhat larger visions of economic reform.

Ariana Huffington? Well, her website republished the quote, and she'd agree, but the words above aren't hers.

Who says trickle-down economics doesn't work? A man in a position to do a lot of trickling: Warren Buffett.

Buffett must be having too many secret meetings with George Soros to plot the downfall of America, right?

South Dakota GDP up in 2009; Outperforming US Economy Since 1992

This week Governor Rounds cheered our solid GDP showing for 2009. South Dakota's economy grew 2.2% in a nationally dismal economic year. 38 states saw GDP decline in 2009; nationally, GDP declined 2.1%.

The growing GDP did not correspond with increases in sales tax revenue: Fiscal Year 2010, which ran from July 1, 2009, to June 30 of this year, saw South Dakota's taxable sales drop 1.5%.

Hmm: more GDP, more income per person, but less sales to tax. Could it be that an income tax would more accurately reflect the growing wealth and growing service needs of our state?

Expanding the historical perspective, South Dakota's economy has done fairly well over the last couple decades. Crunching numbers from the Census Bureau and from USGovernmentSpending.com, I find that since 1992, our state GDP per capita—i.e., the amount of economic activity divided by the number of people around to enjoy it—has grown at an annual rate of 4.8%. Compare that with our neighboring states:

GDP per capita:	SD	ND	MN	IA	NE	WY	MT	US
1992	21,005	20,295	25,611	22,042	23,848	28,434	18,162	24,869
1993	22,485	20,478	26,085	22,473	24,410	29,403	19,115	25,864
1994	23,968	22,358	28,070	24,797	26,829	29,622	19,957	27,217
1995	24,791	23,135	29,340	25,745	27,588	30,532	20,171	28,214
1996	26,576	25,653	31,387	27,671	29,743	32,811	20,668	29,554
1997	26,943	25,341	33,111	28,888	30,515	31,911	21,700	31,116
1998	28,706	26,742	34,691	29,289	31,219	30,591	22,852	32,539
1999	30,293	27,194	36,393	30,424	32,351	32,781	23,517	34,301
2000	31,771	28,462	38,194	31,858	33,404	34,511	23,945	35,268
2001	33,172	30,027	38,847	32,112	34,655	38,016	25,516	36,082
2002	36,184	32,228	40,111	33,639	35,504	38,737	26,128	36,978
2003	37,666	35,254	42,074	35,641	38,200	42,267	28,015	38,378
2004	39,505	36,673	44,754	39,435	39,958	46,315	30,093	40,498
2005	40,561	38,831	46,679	40,773	41,390	51,829	32,187	42,733
2006	41,154	40,938	47,785	41,937	43,482	59,906	34,089	44,873
2007	44,388	44,547	49,186	45,204	46,612	63,565	36,709	46,680
2008	46,970	48,714	50,573	47,456	48,317	72,383	37,057	47,446
2009	47,155	49,273	49,503	47,303	48,112	68,980	36,876	46,443
%incr	124%	143%	93%	115%	102%	143%	103%	87%
avg ann. incr	4.8%	5.2%	3.9%	4.5%	4.1%	5.2%	4.2%	3.7%

Annual State Gross Domestic Product per Capita, 1992–2009

In our neighborhood, only Wyoming and North Dakota have outperformed us in annual GDP per capita increase, and those two states have benefited from oil and coal. By this metric, all of us up here in the Northern Plains have outperformed the national average, with all but Minnesota more than doubling our wealth per capita since 1992. Nationally, per capita GDP has increased just 87%. Only in five years of the last 17—1995, 1997, and 2004 through 2006—has South Dakota's per capita GDP grown more slowly than the national average.