Devos v Granholm Debates

[GRDadof3]

The number of unemployed people did get higher, I'm sure. So I don't doubt that graph, but I also think it's misleading because it doesn't take into account the population growth. I can't find any straight numbers right now, but I think the population growth from 96 to 06 is at least 400,000 (if anyone has the actual number that would be good), and the change in unemployment from then and now looks like about 100,000.

So unemployment has risen, but slower than the population.

That's not an "unemployment rate" graph, it's a "number of employed" in the state graph. It's not misleading, these are the actual numbers. It doesn't have to be adjusted for population. "Labor Force" growth is more closely related to population growth. There were just around 4,606,863 employed persons in Michigan in Jan 96, and there were 4,726,096 in Aug 06. That's a 10 year total growth rate of around 2%. That would be an OK one year growth rate, but not a 10 year.

Here's the unemployment graph for Michigan (total number of persons, not percentage):

But to me, the best parameters are job and income growth. Not only is Michigan NOT adding jobs, but also average incomes are falling. I hate to say it again, but the only bright spot in Michigan right now is Grand Rapids (and possibly Traverse City).

And since some want to parse details, only 24,000 net jobs have been added since Jan. 03 in Michigan. That's not a "recovery". And since GR added 36,000 in that time period, that would mean the rest of the state lost the other 12,000. Just about every state had a SPIKE in unemployment, or employment loss, in 2003. They've all truly recovered from that and then some. Tulsa OK added more jobs since 2003 then the whole State of Michigan.

[Jasoncw]

That's not an "unemployment rate" graph, it's a "number of employed" in the state graph. It's not misleading, these are the actual numbers. It doesn't have to be adjusted for population. "Labor Force" growth is more closely related to population growth. There were just around 4,606,863 employed persons in Michigan in Jan 96, and there were 4,726,096 in Aug 06. That's a 10 year total growth rate of around 2%. That would be an OK one year growth rate, but not a 10 year.

I never said that graph was an unemployment rate graph, I was saying the opposite, which was my entire point. I think the number of unemployed people is only useful when it's compared to how many people there are total.

Think of a a healthy place with a skyrocketing population. If you showed a graph with only the number of people who are unemployed, then the number of unemployed people would also be skyrocketing. Showing the total population as well as the number of unemployed people gives a more realistic impression. I'm not saying that Michigan is that type of a place, but I'm saying that graph is misleading, and can't represent how healthy somewhere is, one way or the other.

Here's the unemployment graph for Michigan (total number of persons, not percentage):

But to me, the best parameters are job and income growth. Not only is Michigan NOT adding jobs, but also average incomes are falling. I hate to say it again, but the only bright spot in Michigan right now is Grand Rapids (and possibly Traverse City).

And since some want to parse details, only 24,000 net jobs have been added since Jan. 03 in Michigan. That's not a "recovery". And since GR added 36,000 in that time period, that would mean the rest of the state lost the other 12,000. Just about every state had a SPIKE in unemployment, or employment loss, in 2003. They've all truly recovered from that and then some. Tulsa OK added more jobs since 2003 then the whole State of Michigan.

Are those 36,000 GR jobs also net jobs, or are they simply jobs added? I don't doubt that Grand Rapids contributed to the net growth, but I want to make sure what you said is what you mean. We don't want any misleading word games or anything.

GR and Traverse City are the only bright spots in MI? That's rediculous, what about Ann Arbor, or various places in Metro Detroit? Those places are at least as healthy and vibrant as Grand Rapids. Unless you're talking about forum activity here at UP or something.

[GRDadof3]

I never said that graph was an unemployment rate graph, I was saying the opposite, which was my entire point. I think the number of unemployed people is only useful when it's compared to how many people there are total.

Think of a a healthy place with a skyrocketing population. If you showed a graph with only the number of people who are unemployed, then the number of unemployed people would also be skyrocketing. Showing the total population as well as the number of unemployed people gives a more realistic impression. I'm not saying that Michigan is that type of a place, but I'm saying that graph is misleading, and can't represent how healthy somewhere is, one way or the other.

Are those 36,000 GR jobs also net jobs, or are they simply jobs added? I don't doubt that Grand Rapids contributed to the net growth, but I want to make sure what you said is what you mean. We don't want any misleading word games or anything.

GR and Traverse City are the only bright spots in MI? That's rediculous, what about Ann Arbor, or various places in Metro Detroit? Those places are at least as healthy and vibrant as Grand Rapids. Unless you're talking about forum activity here at UP or something.

I'm talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. Are these places as healthy and vibrant? The numbers beg to differ. Not how nice or vibrant an area looks, or UP traffic. Jobs create revenue, increase the population, help keep people from leaving the state, and keep an area vibrant in the long haul. Here's another nice chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which it sounds like you have yet to look at), showing Grand Rapids - Wyoming MSA increased by a NET 36,000 jobs between Jan. 2003 - July 06

Source

The labor force of the GR MSA is also at an all time high. That cannot be said about any other MSA in Michigan.

Here's Ann Arbor MSA

Source

That to me looks like a downward trending line for Ann Arbor in 2006.

Here's Detroit - Warren - Livonia MSA

Source

And I'm sure you've heard from all the news outlets that the unemployment rate is the highest in the country and not coming down. So if the unemployment rate is holding steady at very high levels, and no jobs are being added, what do you think that means for the population? It cannot possibly mean the state is increasing in population, unless these people are moving here and staying out of the labor market.

My point in all this is that I don't think people grasp the situation that Michigan is in. People are not going to move to a state, or stay in a state, that is not creating JOBS. It's pretty simple.

Salt Lake City gained more jobs than the entire State of Michigan since 2003.

[RustTown]

The graphs only matter if one believes that a governor actually has much power at all to effect and economy. Graphs alone, without context, don't mean much of anything. What I see a lot of is if a = b, and b = c, then c = z. The correlation between a governor/president or any leadership offic and the economy has always been a weak one, which is why I don't blame Granholm for the economy, anymore than I blamed Bush for the recession. One can definitely pick apart specific good and bad economic tools or programs, but trying to correlate a leader and a good or bad economy is fuzzy math/science, at best, especially in our unfettered free market economy where the only thing that talks is money and resources.

[GRDadof3]

The graphs only matter if one believes that a governor actually has much power at all to effect and economy. Graphs alone, without context, don't mean much of anything. What I see a lot of is if a = b, and b = c, then c = z. The correlation between a governor/president or any leadership offic and the economy has always been a weak one, which is why I don't blame Granholm for the economy, anymore than I blamed Bush for the recession. One can definitely pick apart specific good and bad economic tools or programs, but trying to correlate a leader and a good or bad economy is fuzzy math/science, at best, especially in our unfettered free market economy where the only thing that talks is money and resources.

That's pretty convenient.

Oklahoma City gained more jobs than the entire State of Michigan since 2003.

[Jasoncw]

Those charts need populations next to them to see how good or bad they are realy doing. That one statistic is such a small part of everything that giving that alone is mis-informative.

Here are some more numbers, these being unemployment rates from key dates.

For GR:

Jan. 1996 - 4.8

Jan. 2003 - 7.5

Aug. 2006 - 5.9

For Ann Arbor:

Jan. 1996 - 2.5

Jan. 2003 - 3.9

Aug. 2006 - 4.6

For Metro Detroit:

Jan. 1996 - 5.7

Jan. 2003 - 7.6

Aug. 2006 - 7.0

This shows something that is more accurate, imo. The population has been considered, which is something that I think is important. Unemployment has risen in GR and Detroit from 96 to 2003, but since 2003 have dropped. Ann Arbor is rising, but is still the lowest out of all three.

After adding in more information, the picture completely changes. I'm sure as more information is considered, the picture would change even more, for better or worse, but my point is that the raw number of unemployed people is misinformative.

Politicians pick and choose which information they include to give them impression that they want to. Yeah, all of the facts they give are true, but they can still be misinformative.

edit:

Overall I agree with LMichigan, a Governer can only do so much either way. But how hard the governor tries and the kinds of programs and stuff the governor trys for is important to me. I personally like the types of things the Governor has been trying for.

[RustTown]

That's pretty convenient.

It's more than convenient; it's how I've always felt. If people want to pick apart a governor or presidents economic plans, I find that a very legitimate critique. Arguing over employment and unemployment numbers in a free-wheeling economy is not a legitimate critique unless one is deep enough in economics where they can pinpoint with some certainty the linke between the number and specific programs. The truth is not one leader, not one, governor or president, has ever cared about the Michigan economy since it began to flounder decades ago. Granholm is the very first one that has put specific programs in place to turn around this mess.

[GRDadof3]

It's more than convenient; it's how I've always felt. If people want to pick apart a governor or presidents economic plans, I find that a very legitimate critique. Arguing over employment and unemployment numbers in a free-wheeling economy is not a legitimate critique unless one is deep enough in economics where they can pinpoint with some certainty the linke between the number and specific programs. The truth is not one leader, not one, governor or president, has ever cared about the Michigan economy since it began to flounder decades ago. Granholm is the very first one that has put specific programs in place to turn around this mess.

Yes, in the past 6 months. What took her so long is what I am wondering? To me, that seems like she's just trying to look good now that her boss is checking the books. Perhaps you're right, perhaps the governor has nothing to do with the job market. I guess the China thing that the Democrats have been throwing against the wall is moot then.

This shows something that is more accurate, imo. The population has been considered, which is something that I think is important. Unemployment has risen in GR and Detroit from 96 to 2003, but since 2003 have dropped. Ann Arbor is rising, but is still the lowest out of all three.

What has changed by adding your stats? Again, it doesn't matter that A2's unemployment is lower than GR's at this very moment, how is it trending? If you are SO convinced that Ann Arbor's and Detroit's populations are growing, why have their labor markets stagnated (A2 Metro's) and decreased (Detroit Metro's)? If population was increasing at all, and the job market was shrinking, the unemployment rate would be skyrocketing into double digits. Hmm, wonder why it's not? Don't judge population growth and vibrancy by a bunch of new strip malls along M-59. What matters in this economy (I think moreso than unemployment rates) is how many jobs are being created year over year compared to other states. If the state keeps shrinking, all the other programs everyone holds so near and dear, including improving education, are going to be cut more.

Boise, Idaho grew by more jobs than the whole State of Michigan since 2003.

[Jasoncw]

If you only show the number of unemployed people, it looks like things are getting worse, but when you add in another peice of information it looks like things are getting better.

"Again, it doesn't matter that A2's unemployment is lower than GR's at this very moment, how is it trending?"

The trend is that in the two other cities, the unemployment rate has gone down since Granholm came in. Yeah, unemployment has risen in Ann Arbor, but I can play the fact manipulation game too, using your own charts.

oh my, look at that! Ann Arbor has seen a steady increase in employment since 1996!

But really, the unemployment rate is rising there too, which is bad, but at least that view is more informed, and probably more accurate.

And I agree that trends are important, but the size of the numbers is important too. For example, metro Detroit has a downward trend, but it still has over 2,000,000 employed people. Grand Rapids has less than a quarter of that, and while it's growing (which is awesome), it will still be a while before the two areas have the same amount of employed people, even with GR going up and Detroit going down. So while Ann Arbors unemployment is rising, it is still low, so it is a bright spot in the state. While Detroit's employment is going down, it still has a ton of jobs, and is also a bright spot. Grand Rapids is not the only bright spot in the state.

If it's taken so long for Granholm to start putting in some of those programs, then why did it take so long for the Republicans to start complaining about the SBT? And why haven't they done anything about it before now? They control more of the government than Granholm, but she gets all the blame for the entire state government. So it can go both ways.

[Michi]

Yes, in the past 6 months. What took her so long is what I am wondering? To me, that seems like she's just trying to look good now that her boss is checking the books.

I don't buy that. Episodes like "The Greenville" have happened through out Michigan during Granholm's tenure. She addressed them promptly, so it is a bit misleading that she didn't act until only 6 months ago.

Also, I'm just curious as to the source of the graphs. Thanks!

[GRDadof3]

I don't buy that. Episodes like "The Greenville" have happened through out Michigan during Granholm's tenure. She addressed them promptly, so it is a bit misleading that she didn't act until only 6 months ago.

Also, I'm just curious as to the source of the graphs. Thanks!

Sorry, I tend to be a big statistics nerd. You can find the graphs HERE Michi. Click on either the State you want from the map, or toggle down the left side for a specific metro area. You can then click on the little "Back Data" dinosaur icon for graphs and corresponding data.

What is the "Greenville"?

[francishsu]

http://www.milmi.org/ is another place where you can get some good labor market information for Michigan.

[Michi]

Thanks for the link, GRDad. I was just referring to the Electrolux refrigerator plant that moved its operations from Greenville to Mexico and how Jenny basically let them stay here "for free". A replacement company was eventually found and will hopefully replenish the devastation that the Electrolux departure created.

The Electrolux story is the last one listed in the contents of this link:

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/pwatch/pw040119.htm

It clearly illustrates that Governor Granholm is not immune to issues facing Western Michigan. If that was a valid argument, I would counter it with the fact that not too long ago, Republican legislation attempted to pass a bill that would have allowed Grand Rapids and a select number of Michigan cities to study and build public rail transit and would deliberately exclude Metropolitan Detroit. I love Grand Rapids to death, but I need not say more than "fairness".

Does anyone have any details on the company that is "replacing" the gap left by Electrolux in Greenville?

[GRDadof3]

Thanks for the link, GRDad. I was just referring to the Electrolux refrigerator plant that moved its operations from Greenville to Mexico and how Jenny basically let them stay here "for free". A replacement company was eventually found and will hopefully replenish the devastation that the Electrolux departure created.

The Electrolux story is the last one listed in the contents of this link:

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/pwatch/pw040119.htm

It clearly illustrates that Governor Granholm is not immune to issues facing Western Michigan. If that was a valid argument, I would counter it with the fact that not too long ago, Republican legislation attempted to pass a bill that would have allowed Grand Rapids and a select number of Michigan cities to study and build public rail transit and would deliberately exclude Metropolitan Detroit. I love Grand Rapids to death, but I need not say more than "fairness".

Does anyone have any details on the company that is "replacing" the gap left by Electrolux in Greenville?

Oh, I'm familiar with Electrolux. The company that is expanding in Greenville is United Solor Ovonics. We discussed it here:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23437

Electrolux (then Frigidaire) threatened to move to Mexico repeatedly starting in 1999 or 2000. I worked for one of their suppliers back then, and they didn't keep it a secret. I don't think anyone could have kept them here.

[GaryP]

It clearly illustrates that Governor Granholm is not immune to issues facing Western Michigan. If that was a valid argument, I would counter it with the fact that not too long ago, Republican legislation attempted to pass a bill that would have allowed Grand Rapids and a select number of Michigan cities to study and build public rail transit and would deliberately exclude Metropolitan Detroit. I love Grand Rapids to death, but I need not say more than "fairness".

Does anyone have any details on the company that is "replacing" the gap left by Electrolux in Greenville?

The bill that you are refering to was written by Jerry Kooiman from Grand Rapids and originally included metro Detroit until Craig DeRoche from Novi asked him to limit the bill to only Kent county. It's not a good example of the republican legislature favoring Grand Rapids.

Granholm did work hard to keep Electrolux in Greenville though.

[RustTown]

Poll: Granholm leads by nine points

Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

October 13, 2006

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has surpassed 50 percent support for the first time since last winter and now leads Republican challenger Dick DeVos by nine points, according to a new Detroit News/WXYZ-TV poll.

Granholm leads with 51 percent to 42 percent for DeVos and 5 percent undecided, the poll of 608 likely voters taken Tuesday through Thursday by EPIC/MRA of Lansing shows. The last time Granholm was over the 50-percent mark was in February, when she led DeVos 53-46.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/610130459

[snoogit]

Poll: Granholm leads by nine points

Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

October 13, 2006

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has surpassed 50 percent support for the first time since last winter and now leads Republican challenger Dick DeVos by nine points, according to a new Detroit News/WXYZ-TV poll.

Granholm leads with 51 percent to 42 percent for DeVos and 5 percent undecided, the poll of 608 likely voters taken Tuesday through Thursday by EPIC/MRA of Lansing shows. The last time Granholm was over the 50-percent mark was in February, when she led DeVos 53-46.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/610130459

You left out a big big big statistic from that article:

She has a 51-44 lead among male voters and a 50-40 margin among women.

Thats not just rare for a Democrat, but also for a female canidate to have a lead with male voters, even rarer to have a larger lead then among women.

[RustTown]

I posted this according to forum rules. I've been chewed out and even suspended for a short time for posting more than the first two sentences of a news article, as I'm used to doing that on other boads.

Speaking on the gender thing, though, local political journalist Tim Skubick as well as host of "Off The Record" made a very good point recently in asking the question whether the same women voters that hired Granholm will decide to fire her. That is a really good question, and really the only way she can lose, that is if she loses those women that voted for her before.

[Jasoncw]

608 doesn't seem like a lot of people to poll.

[RustTown]

The sample sizes for these polls are almost always around this size. Plus, EPIC/MRA are the best local pollsters out there. It's still just a poll, but they are the best around.

[snoogit]

The sample sizes for these polls are almost always around this size. Plus, EPIC/MRA are the best local pollers out there. It's still just a poll, but they are the best around.

I was looking in the GR Press today in the Religion section (yes America, the GR Press has a religion section) that had some interesting polls of where people of different faiths would vote, while Devos had a slight lead among protestants, when it came to Catholics and "Other" religions Granholm had the lead.

[hudkina]

A sample of 608 is enough to determine the percentages (with a margin of error) because of how the company collects the data. I'm not sure whether or not the article in the GR Press was a scientific poll or not, but EPIC/MRA uses an accurate model.

I'm surprised that women are lower than men in thier support of Granholm when you consider Devos' stand on reproductive rights. Maybe Granholm needs to focus a bit on his "anti-choice" view.

[RustTown]

It wouldn't surprise me that Granholm would be winning Catholics, as she's a church-going Catholic herself, and has great support in many urban areas which usually have a plurality (if not a majority) of Catholics among the other Christian denominations.

[monsoon]

Poll: Granholm leads by nine points

Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

October 13, 2006

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has surpassed 50 percent support for the first time since last winter and now leads Republican challenger Dick DeVos by nine points, according to a new Detroit News/WXYZ-TV poll.

Granholm leads with 51 percent to 42 percent for DeVos and 5 percent undecided, the poll of 608 likely voters taken Tuesday through Thursday by EPIC/MRA of Lansing shows. The last time Granholm was over the 50-percent mark was in February, when she led DeVos 53-46.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/610130459

This post violates our rules for posting copyrighted newsclippings. Please don't do it again.

[GRDadof3]

I was looking in the GR Press today in the Religion section (yes America, the GR Press has a religion section) that had some interesting polls of where people of different faiths would vote, while Devos had a slight lead among protestants, when it came to Catholics and "Other" religions Granholm had the lead.

FYI: A quick search will show you that a lot of newspapers have a separate weekly religion section:

LA Times

Atlanta Journal Constitution

Houston Chronicle

Newsday

Charlotte Observer

Washington Post

Dallas Morning News

etc etc etc

Like the GR Press, many of them run it on Saturdays as well.