The monthly general fund revenues report from the North Dakota Office of Management and Budget is out today. I’ll have a post on the numbers in a bit, but this from the report about income levels in North Dakota is pretty interesting. According to a study from the Council of State Governments, North Dakota lead the nation in median household income growth between 2007 and 2012.
That’s great news for North Dakota. Outside of North Dakota, though, things weren’t so bright. In all but five states, median household incomes declined and nationally when inflation was accounted for most households got poorer.
The Council of State Governments (CSG) recently released the results of its study of state median household income between 2007 and 2012. Nationally, median household income, when adjusted for inflation, has decreased from $55,627 in 2007 to $51,017 in 2012, a drop of 8.3 percent. During this time frame, “all but five states—North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming—saw median household income decline. Nevada and Hawaii saw the median income drop the most over this period, both by more than 20 percent.” North Dakota’s median income rose by 6.7 percent, which was
followed closely by Wyoming and Rhode Island, at 6.5 and 5.9 percent, respectively. Texas and Oklahoma each increased by less 2.0 percent.
CSG’s Midwest Region includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. Minnesota has the highest median income in the region at $61,795; North Dakota ranked second at $55,766. The lowest income in the region was Ohio ($44,375). On average, the region’s median income declined by 6.4 percent, from $55,165 to $51,635, between 2007 and 2012. Experiencing the largest decreases in the region were Ohio (-18.4 percent), Indiana (-12.2 percent) and Illinois (-11.0 percent).
Notice something in common with the states that saw growth. Of the five states, four are fossil fuel energy states experiencing major economic impacts from shale oil and gas booms.
It’s ironic that the Obama administration is so hostile to fossil fuels, when fossil fuel development has been one of the few bright spots of our national economy. So much so that fossil fuels and their economic impact may have been the difference between Obama winning and losing.