CEOs’ favorite states: lower incomes, less education, less health coverage

Big business and anti-tax groups have been making hay out of a story in CEO Magazine in which a survey of CEOs ranked Maryland 41st in business climate. But look closely: a lot of the things that made CEOs downgrade Maryland (and the other states that ranked low in this poll) are actually things you would want for yourself and your family.

The results are based on a survey of over 700 CEO’s on the subjects of “Tax and Regulation,” “Workforce Quality,” and “Living.” So, what have these CEO’s told us about the states they like and don’t like? Here are their top 10 and bottom 10 states:

CEO Magazine Top 10	CEO Magazine Bottom 10
1. Texas	50. California
2. Florida	49. New York
3. North Carolina	48. Illinois
4. Tennessee	47. Massachusetts
5. Indiana	46. New Jersey
6. Arizona	45. Connecticut
7. Virginia	44. Michigan
8. South Carolina	43. Hawaii
9. Nevada	42. Pennsylvania
10.Georgia	41. Maryland

To find out how well the CEOs opinions tracked with the actual economic data, I looked at some indicators related to these twenty states. Median household incomes. Growth in per capita incomes. Poverty rates. Health insurance coverage. Education attainment.

 

Sources: CEO Magazine, US Census, MBTPI calculations

 

In each of these indicators, CEO Magazine’s bottom 10 states outperform their top 10. The blue bars on the graph show the average ranking of CEO Magazine’s top 10 states on these indicators. The green bars show the average ranking of CEO Magazine’s bottom 10 states. For example, the top 10 states, as rated by the CEO’s actually averaged the 28th highest median household income. Household incomes in the states ranked in the bottom ten were much higher – ranking 11th on average. In fact, CEO magazine’s 10 least favorite states included 6 of the 10 states with the highest incomes.

And it goes on like that for category after category. The states ranked lowest by CEOs had faster income growth, lower poverty, more health insurance coverage and more college grads. These are all things we want for ourselves and our families: we want to make a good living, to avoid poverty, for our kids to have a good education, and to have access to health care.

As business managers focused on their bottom lines, some CEO's might like to operate where they can get labor cheaply and without being expected to provide a lot of benefits.

As citizens, though, we want to promote good jobs that can support families, broad access to education, and health services.

This is not just an article in a trade magazine. This divergence between the interests of the short-term profit for investors and managers versus workers and citizens has a real impact on families in the real world. I know, because there was one measure I found where CEO’s top 10 lined up with economic realities: job growth.

CEO Magazine’s top 10 includes 8 of the 10 fastest-growing states in terms of employment over the past decade. The CEO top ten ranked 10th on average in job growth. The bottom 10 ranked 21st on average (Maryland fared better on this measure, ranking 11th).

And this helps to explain why workers are no longer benefiting from increases in productivity and why nearly all of the benefits of economic growth are going to the top 1 percent. These new jobs in the CEO-preferred states are low-quality (for the worker) jobs--lower paid, lacking benefits, and with few prospects for advancement.

CEO Magazine's kind of employment strategy is not what we want in Maryland. We need to continue to focus on maintaining our high standards for education and quality of life, and on attracting and retaining jobs that will help Marylanders thrive.

At least CEO Magazine does not attempt to claim that its rankings are anything more than a popularity poll. In an upcoming blog post, we'll look at some of the other state rankings that claim to be objective or scientific. As economist Peter Fisher, author of a new report on such rankings from Good Jobs First, said: "When we scrutinized the business climate methodologies, we found profound and elementary errors...the factors often have to do with the advocacy agendas of the groups.”