Championing the start-ups

7/31/2019 Championing the start-ups

1/37

Championing the start-upsNew jobs data shows decade-long pain for Illinois entrepreneurs, small business owners

by J. Scott Moody, Senior Fellow or Budget and ax Policy and ed Dabrowski, Vice President o Policy at the Illinois Policy Institute

able o Contents

IntroductionTe problem

Our solution

Why this works

Te three basic components o private sector job creation

Te births o new establishments and the deaths o existing ones

Te migration o businesses into and out o Illinois

Te expansion and contraction o existing business establishments

Notes and sources

Appendices

11

3

4

5

5

9

13

16

17


2/37

1

IntroductionTere are three basic components o private sector job creation: the births o new establishments and the deathso existing ones, the migration o businesses into and out o Illinois, and the expansion and contraction o existingbusiness establishments. Te most important component o these is the net jobs created rom the births o new

establishments and the deaths o existing ones. Tis new report presents detailed data related to the three basiccomponents o private sector job creation.

The problemIllinois increased the tax burden on businesses in 2011 by hiking corporate income taxes 46 percent. Inresponse, Sears and CME Group threatened to leave Illinois or states with lower tax rates. Tesecompanies wanted the state government to grant them special tax breaks to stay in Illinois. Fearing a mass exoduso jobs, state ocials agreed to their demands.

When companies such as Sears and CME Group threaten to leave Illinois, there is real reason or concern. Big

corporations employ a lot o people. Tey pay large tax bills. Tey can make or break a community. No one wantsto see yet another business head or greener pastures.

State ocials have doled out hundreds o millions o dollars in tax breaks and other incentives to keep Fortune 500names and other big businesses rom eeing Illinois. But were state ocials ocused on the right targets? Who andwhat matters most in job creation?

Te Institutes new analysis fnds the key to job creation in Illinois is jump-starting new establishment jobcreation. Creating an environment conducive to starting new businesses is vital to increasing the number ojobs available to Illinoisans. Company migrations and expansions play a role, but they pale in comparisonwith the net job creation resulting rom business births and deaths.

Tis nding is derived rom the latest release o the National Establishment ime-Series, or NES, a poweruldatabase o Illinois businesses.1 Based on the ar-reaching Dun & Bradstreet marketing inormation le, thisdatabase tracked more than 41.7 million business establishments nationally between 1989 and 2009.2 Te letracks businesses via an assigned DUNS number, which is the business equivalent o a Social Security number.As such, the NES database is the most comprehensive establishment-level census available.

Te NES database paints a dismal job creation picture in Illinois rom 1995-2009. Te state was 48 th in thecountry in generating jobs rom the creation o new businesses. Tose losses urther were compounded by jobslost rom ailed establishments, which Illinois ranked 19th.

Tis combination, ewer jobs rom new companies and job losses rom the closure o others, contributed most toIllinois being one o only six states to lose jobs in the nation between 1995 and 2009. Overall, Illinois ranked 50 th

dead last in total job creation (See Appendix 1). Graphic 1 shows how Illinois compared with its neighbors, allo which showed job growth during that period.


3/37

2

Graphic 1. Illinois only state among neighbors to lose jobs over 14 year period

Percent change in jobs between 1995 and 2009 (national ranking in parentheses)

Sources: National Establishment Time-Series Database, www.YourEconomy.org and Illinois Policy Institute.

Graphic 2 shows the net job destruction the state has experienced since 2001. Illinois lost more than 925,000 jobsrom 2001-09, largely because o a collapse in the jobs created by new businesses and by an acceleration o jobs lostto business closures.

Te graphic also highlights the exceptionally strong correlation between the net jobs created by business birthsand deaths and the states total job creation each year, particularly since 2001. Unquestionably, business birthsand deaths drive total job creation, much more so than the other two categories o private sector job creation: the

migration o businesses into and out o Illinois and the expansion and contraction o existing businesses.

Graphic 2. When new businesses arent creating jobs, Illinois isnt eitherJobs created from births and deaths of businesses

Sources: National Establishment Time-Series Database, www.YourEconomy.org and Illinois Policy Institute.

Kentucky (24th) 11.7%

Iowa (28th) 10.3%

Wisconsin (34th) 7.5%

Missouri (38th) 5.9%

Indiana (39th) 5.2%

Illinois (50th) -2.7%


4/37

3

However, Illinois policymakers should be concerned about two additional issues: one, the smallest o Illinoisexisting establishments are nding it necessary to leave the state or greener pastures; and two, total job creationin the expansion/contraction category is slightly below average; there is plenty o room to rev up that job creationengine as well.

Small business owners and entrepreneurs need someone to stand up and act on their behal, because the bottomline is this: When new businesses arent creating jobs, Illinois isnt either.

Our solutionI Illinois wants to create jobs, elected ocials must ocus most on the companies that dont have the big lobbyistsand ancy public relations rms. Instead, ocials must ocus on creating an environment that allows job creationand entrepreneurship to occur. Doing so will encourage entrepreneurs to turn their dreams into realities.

Illinois needs an environment that osters growth even in times o poor economic perormance. Strong credimarkets, low regulatory burdens and condent consumers mean that even struggling companies can make it

through tough economic times.

Illinois must end its decade-long anti-business environment. Here are some keys or bolstering job creation inIllinois:

Less regulation: Entrepreneurs and small companies need low regulatory and licensing hurdles to reduce thecost o launching new businesses. Lower workers compensation costs are needed to compete against statessuch as neighboring Indiana which has among the lowest rates in the nation.

Reduction in Illinois minimum wage: Illinois minimum wage, higher than all o its neighboring states, mustbe reduced so that businesses can add employees and invest in new equipment. Te same goes or the statesprevailing wage law, which makes labor costs or small businesses prohibitive.

Lower taxes: New businesses and small companies thrive in low tax environments where they can best survivethe risky startup period. According to the ax Foundations most recent State Business ax Climate, Illinoisranks h worst in business taxes, seventh worst in unemployment insurance taxes and sixth worst in prop-erty taxes. Illinois must work to reduce these harmul tax burdens in order to encourage business growth andimprove its ability to compete with neighboring states or economic activity.

Reorm state fnances: Illinois businesses need a scal environment that osters lower unemployment, strongdomestic in-migration, and high GDP growth. Illinois chronic decits, high debt loads and poor credit rating

do the exact opposite. Illinois must cut spending and balance the state budget to put it back on a path to scalrecovery.

Improved governance: Illinois must end its policy o picking winners and losers and begin ostering anenvironment in which all companies, big and small, can thrive. Small businesses cant aford to once againsufer the efects o massive tax increases, only to watch the government hand out hundreds o millions inspecial tax breaks to Illinois largest companies.


5/37

4

Why this worksIllinois can become a national leader in job creation i it develops a business environment conducive to entrepre-neurial activity. In order to be successul, this will take bold leadership. And Illinois wont be the only state makingchanges.

As Graphic 3 shows, Illinois is starting rom a poor relative position compared with its neighbors. Te ALEC-Lafer State Economic Competitiveness Index released in January 2012 ranks Illinois 48 th in the nation in itsorward-looking economic outlook index. Illinois bordering states have much better economic outlooks and mostare embracing signicant reorms.

Iowa

Rank: 22

Wisconsin

Rank: 32

Illinois

Rank: 48Indiana

Rank: 24

Kentucky

Rank: 39

Missouri

Rank: 72012 state rankings

1 5025best worst

Graphic 3. Illinois ranks 48th in economic outlook

2012 ALEC-Laffer state economic outlook rankings, Illinois and surrounding states.

Te Great Recession has increased the intensity with which states are looking to improve their relative competi-tiveness. Many see the crisis as a wake-up call or reorms. In order to attract job creators and entrepreneurs, somestates like Kansas, Missouri, Georgia and Oklahoma are looking to reduce their income taxes to zero. Other states

like Democrat-controlled Rhode Island, are taking on massive pension reorms in order to stabilize budgets andprovide an environment o stability or workers and taxpayers. Still others are implementing right-to-work lawsmost notably Indiana.

Te NES data show that Illinois total job growth is highly correlated with how well Illinois osters the creationo new companies and how well it provides an economic environment that promotes prots and success. Illinoismust reverse its negative trend and embrace a reorm agenda that lowers taxes, reduces regulation and burden-some red tape, ends corporate avoritism and restores Illinois scal order.

Only with a clear and certain path orward can entrepreneurs do what they do best create jobs.


6/37

5

The three basic components of private sector job creationTere are three basic components o private sector job creation. Te births o new establishments and the deathso existing ones, the migration o businesses into and out o Illinois, and the expansion and contraction o existingbusiness establishments. Te most important component o these is the net jobs created rom the births o new

establishments and the deaths o existing ones.

The births of new establishments and the deaths of existing onesTe births o new establishments and deaths o existing ones was the single, most closely correlated driver o totalIllinois job growth between 1995 and 2009. Tis section will show that births and deaths accounted or uctuationsin the total job creation numbers rom year-to-year and drove overall job creation patterns. As such, policymakersshould be ocused on establishing an environment that enables entrepreneurs to create new and healthybusinesses. Because when new establishments arent creating jobs, Illinois as a whole is not creating jobs.

A. Job creation resulting rom establishment births and deaths

Between 1995 and 2009, the birth o new establishments resulted in the creation o an average o 291,141 jobsannually. Meanwhile, the death o existing establishments resulted in the destruction o an average o 369,649 jobsannually. Te net result leads to an average annual job loss o 78,509.4

During the entire 14-year time-period examined in this study, the net job loss rom establishment births anddeaths was 1,099,120 jobs.5-6

Graphic 4 and Appendix 2show that Illinois year-to-year uctuations in employment are signicantly afectedby the net job creation rom establishment births and deaths. In act, the two are 95 percent positively correlatedwhich means they virtually move lock step in the same direction.

Graphic 4. When new businesses arent creating jobs, Illinois isnt eitherJobs created from births and deaths of businesses

Source: National Establishment Time-Series Database, www.YourEconomy.org and Illinois Policy Institute.


7/37

6

Graphic 5 and Appendix 2 shed light on whether establishment births or deaths are driving the overall trend.Surprisingly, births are more stable than deaths, with an average uctuation o 261,398 jobs (plus or minus) aroundthe average o 369,649 jobs destroyed. Deaths, on the other hand, show more volatility with an average uctuationo 140,848 jobs (plus or minus) around the average o 291,141 jobs created. However, this volatility in deaths isbiased by 2009, which saw an unprecedented destruction o 725,798 jobs because o establishment deaths.

Graphic 5. Illinois ranks 50th in net job creation from establishment births and deaths


Looking beyond the volatility in job creation, Graphic 5 and Appendix 2 also show that the vast majority o thenet job loss because o establishment births and deaths during this time-period has happened since 2002. A closerlook reveals that rom 1996 to 2001, births accounted or an average 367,693 new jobs a year; yet, rom 2002-09,

births accounted or an average o only 233,727 new jobs a year, a 36 percent drop. Tis persistent, down-shiingin job creation rom establishment births ails to provide a needed cushion to the volatility in job destruction romestablishment deaths.

Overall, this down-shiing in new establishment births is a decisive actor in explaining the year-to-year changein Illinois employment levels. Te volatility in job destruction rom establishment deaths appears, or now, to bedriven more by the one-time event in 2009. As such, the evidence suggests that when new establishments arentcreating jobs, Illinois as a whole is not creating jobs.

Overall, this analysis shows that jump-starting new establishment job creation is vital to increasing the totalnumber o jobs available to Illinoisans.

B. Te number o establishment births and deaths

Unlike the down-shiing in actual job growth, the number o Illinois establishments was on the upswing between1995 and 2009. Appendix 3 shows that during that period, an annual average o 62,538 new establishments werecreated. Meanwhile, an annual average o 46,582 establishments died, resulting in an average annual establishmentgain o 15,957.4

During the entire 14-year time-period examined in this report, the number o establishment births outnumbereddeaths by 223,393.


8/37

7

Additionally, Graphic 6 and Appendix 3 shed light on whether there were more establishment births or deathsover time. For almost the entire 14-year period, there were more births. More signicantly, since 2000 the rate onew establishment creation has accelerated. Beore 2000, an average o 46,619 establishments were born each yearSince 2000, the number o new establishments created annually has jumped by almost 50 percent, to 68,906.

Graphic 6. Establishment births outweigh deaths for 14 years


Unortunately, as discussed previously, this jump in new establishments has not translated into new job growthAppendix 4 shows the average number o jobs created by the birth o new establishments and the average number

o jobs destroyed by the death o existing establishments between 1995 and 2009. Overall, births created an averageo 5.1 jobs per establishment, while deaths destroyed 8.9 jobs per establishment.

Moreover, the average number o jobs created by new establishments has dropped signicantly since 2000. Beore2000, the average number o jobs created by new establishments was 7.2. Aer 2000, the average number o jobscreated by new establishments dropped to 4.2, and dropped even urther to an all-time low o just 2.4 jobs in 2008.Tis low number o jobs per new establishment is why Illinois has not seen a jump in new jobs despite a dramaticjump in the number o new establishments.

Overall, this analysis shows that its not just the number o new jobs rom overall establishment creation, but ratherthe number o jobs per new establishment that is vital to increasing the total number o jobs available to Illinoisans

C. Illinois national jobs ranking due to establishment births and deaths

Between 1995 and 2009, Illinois lost a net 1,099,120 jobs because o excessive establishment deaths and the lack obirths. Tis represents a 16 percent drop in the total number o jobs the state had in 1995. o put this job loss intocontext, Appendix 5 ranks this percentage against the rest o the country. In these rankings, Illinois perormanceis 50th, the worst in the country. In stark contrast, the state with the largest job growth because o net births wasFlorida, which had 19.6 percent more jobs in 2009 than it did in 1995.


9/37

8

O course, this also means that every neighboring state ranked higher than Illinois: Kentucky (0.4 percent, ranked14th), Iowa (-2.4 percent, ranked 25th), Wisconsin (-8.3 percent, ranked 37th), Indiana (-8.5 percent, ranked 39th)and Missouri (-9.5 percent, ranked 41st).

Additionally, Appendices 6 and 7 show the change in jobs created independently by both births and deaths rom

1995 to 2009, as a percent o employment, relative to the other 49 states. Tese tables help show the overall jobchurn in gross births and deaths. Illinois ranks a dismal 48 th in gross jobs created rom births (Appendix 6), but amuch higher 19th in gross jobs lost to deaths (Appendix 7).


10/37

9

The migration of businesses into and out of Illinois

Te second basic component o private sector job creation is the migration o businesses into and out o IllinoisWhile many people believe job creation is in large part driven by the migration o companies into and out o astate, business migration almost had no efect on Illinois job growth between 1995 and 2009. In act, jobs rom

businesses coming to and leaving rom Illinois mostly have canceled each other out.

Further, the average establishment that came to Illinois during this period was a medium-sized business with 20employees not the giant corporations that generate ront-page headlines.

Tis study nds that job growth rom migrations has been a small actor in total job creation. Even more, thenumbers demonstrate that migrations usually are made by small and medium size establishments not the largecorporations enticed to the state by expensive incentive packages.

A. Job creation resulting rom business migration

Te average annual number o jobs created by establishments that moved to Illinois between 1995 and 2009 was12,274. Te average annual number o jobs lost because o establishments leaving the state during that sameperiod was a similar 12,350. Netting these two gures, Illinois lost an average o 76 jobs annually to migrationduring these years.4

Over the entire 14-year time-period examined in this study, this category o job creation experienced a net loss o1,070 jobs.7

Graphic 7 shows the net job creation rom migrations per year (the dashed line) as compared with the yearly totachange in jobs in Illinois (the solid line). As is clearly demonstrated, net migrations almost have had no inuence

on Illinois total job creation. Further, its no surprise that the year-to-year uctuations in total Illinois jobs showvery little correlation with the net migration gures. In act, the two are only 52 percent positively correlatedwhich means migration is only weakly associated with the business cycle.

Graphic 7. Net migration has little inuence on Illinois job creation

Annual change in total job creation vs. jobs created from in- and out-migration



11/37

10

However, the net migration gures understate the total amount o movement that happens in any given yearGraphic 8 and Appendix 8 show that the highest level o job creation rom in-migrant establishments was 23,655jobs in 2008, while the highest level o job destruction rom out-migrant establishments was 25,683 jobs in 2009Between 1995 and 2009, Illinois gained 171,829 jobs resulting rom establishments that migrated into Illinoiswhile losing 172,899 jobs because o establishments that le the state.

Graphic 8. Neither in- nor out-migration impact Illinois job creation


Overall, this analysis ound that while the number o jobs lost annually to establishments leaving Illinois isrelatively small, the job loss is an irregular problem that creates a modest headwind or job creation in Illinois.

B. Te number o establishments migrating into and out o Illinois

Between 1995 and 2009, an average o 610 establishments moved to Illinois annually, while an average o 815establishments le the state resulting in an average annual establishment loss o 205.4

During that entire 14-year period, the number o establishments that le outnumbered those that came to Illinoisby 2,866.

Graphic 9 and Appendix 9 shed light on the pattern o establishments that migrated into or out o the state over

time. Tis study ound there was a net loss o establishments every year between 1995 and 2009.

Te number o establishments both coming and going has accelerated since 2000. However, the number oestablishments leaving has accelerated aster more than doubling rom an average o 392 establishments annuallybeore 2000, to an average annual loss o 984 establishments aer 2000. Te result is an obvious increase in thenumber o net migrations out o Illinois.


12/37

11

Graphic 9. Number of companies out-migrating from Illinois has accelerated

Change in number of Illinois establishments due to in- and out-migration


Appendix 10 shows the average number o jobs per establishment leaving and coming to Illinois. Tere are twoeatures o the data to note. First, the average size o migrating establishments has declined since 2000. Beore2000, the number o jobs associated with establishments entering Illinois was 41, while the average number o jobsor establishments leaving the state was 28.

Aer 2000, the number o jobs associated with establishments migrating to the state was 17.5; the number o jobsassociated with establishments leaving the state dropped to 13.3.

Second, over the entire study-period, establishments that moved to Illinois brought with them an average o 20.1

jobs. Meanwhile, establishments that le the state were smaller, averaging 15.2 jobs. As such, there is a sizable 5.0job diference in the average number o jobs rom establishments leaving and coming. Tis might suggest that thesmallest o Illinois businesses are nding greener pastures elsewhere.

C. Illinois national jobs ranking due to establishment relocation

Between 1995 and 2009, Illinois lost a net 1,070 jobs because o migration. Tis number represents a small losswhen compared with the total number o jobs the state had in 1995. Relative to other states (Appendix 11), Illinoissmall percentage loss ranks 29th best in the country. In contrast, the state with the largest job growth because opositive net migration was Nevada (+2.4 percent).

Tree border states, Indiana (ranked 17th), Iowa (ranked 22nd) and Kentucky (ranked 23rd), experienced small netjob in-migration rom 1996 to 2009. Wisconsin (ranked 30th) experienced little change, while Missouri (ranked38th) was a net loser to out-migration.

Additionally, Appendices 12 and 13show the gross change in jobs created by migration between 1995 and 2009as a percent o employment, relative to the other 49 states. Tese tables help show the overall job churn in grossmigration. Illinois ranked 22nd in jobs created rom in-migration (Appendix 12) and 23rd in jobs lost rom out-migration (Appendix 13).


13/37

12

While the overall 1,070 jobs lost by establishments leaving Illinois is small, o particular concern is the recentacceleration o establishments leaving since 2000 which partially has been ofset by a slower acceleration obusinesses coming to Illinois. Fortunately, this has not translated into a net loss o jobs because the averagebusiness leaving is signicantly smaller than those coming in.

Illinois policymakers should be concerned that the smallest o Illinois establishments are nding it necessary toleave the state or greener pastures. Leaving with these small establishments are the associated entrepreneurs whoeither created the establishments or worked or them. As such, this creates a net drain on Illinois entrepreneurialpool.


14/37

13

The expansion and contraction of existing business establishments

Te third basic component o private sector job creation is the expansion and contraction o existing businessestablishments. While this category provided reliable job growth between 1995 and 2009, the ollowing sectionwill show that it did not drive job creation or the state.

A. Job creation resulting rom business expansions and contractions

Between 1995 and 2009, Illinois establishments created an average o 253,798 jobs annually. During this sameperiod, an average o 188,197 jobs were destroyed annually, resulting in an average annual job gain o 65,601. 4

During the entire 14-year period examined in this study, establishment expansions/contractions created a net918,412 jobs.8

Graphic 10 and Appendix 14show that net job creation rom expansions and contractions inuenced year-to-yeaructuations in total employment. While the two are 58 percent positively correlated, which means they generallymove together in the same direction, net jobs growth rom expansions and contractions tended to reinorce thetotal jobs trend rather than dene it. For instance, net job creation rom expansions and contractions was onlynegative on two occasions in 2002 and 2004, while total job creation was negative six times (in 2002, 2003, 20042007, 2008 and 2009).

Graphic 10. Establishment expansions and contractions reinforce job trend rather than dene it

Annual change in total jobs vs. jobs created by expansions and contractions


More specically, Graphic 11 and Appendix 14shed light on which o the two, expansions or contractions, drovejob creation within the expansion/contraction category. Job gains rom expansions generally are stable rom year-to-year with a deviation o 98,159 jobs rom the average. On the other hand, job losses rom contractions are morevolatile, with a year-to-year deviation o 130,943 jobs rom the average.

Tis especially is true in 2002 and 2004 when the acceleration in contractions led to negative job growth or thecategory. As such, the rate o job destruction rom establishment contractions is the driving actor in how manynet new jobs are created in this category in any given year.


15/37

14

Graphic 11. Expansions and contractions yield reliable job growth, but dont dene trendIllinois jobs due to establishment expansions and contractions


Overall, this analysis shows that expansions and contractions o existing establishments has yielded reliable jobgrowth, but it doesnt ully explain the year-to-year job uctuations especially when the net change in total jobcreation is negative, i.e., in a recession.

B. Te number o expanding and contracting establishments

Between 1995 and 2009, an average o 24,350 establishments expanded each year. During that same period,

an average o 19,580 establishments contracted each year, resulting in an average o 4,770 more establishmentsexpanding than contracting each year.4

During the entire 14-year time-period examined in this study, the number o establishments that expanded out-numbered those that contracted by 66,775.

Additionally, Graphic 12 and Appendix 15 shed light on whether there were more expanding or contractingestablishments over time. For almost the entire 14-year time-period, not only was the number o expandingestablishments greater than the number o contracting establishments, but the diference between the two wasrelatively stable rom year to year until 2008. Te glaring exception to that stability was in 2002, when a largeincrease in the number o contracting establishments led to the only year in which there were more contractingestablishments than expanding establishments.


16/37

15

Graphic 12. Expansions outpacing contractionsIllinois establishment expansions and contractions


Appendix 16 shows the average number o jobs created per establishment and the average number o jobsdestroyed per establishment. Overall, expanding establishments created an average o 10.7 jobs, while contractingestablishments destroyed an average o 9.6 jobs. As such, there is only a 1.2 job diference in the average numbero jobs created/destroyed per business.

C. Illinois national jobs rankings due to business expansions and contractions

Between 1995 and 2009, Illinois gained a net 918,412 jobs created because o establishment expansions/contrac-tions. Tis number represents a gain o 13.4 percent o the total number o jobs the state had in 1995.

o put this job gain into context, Appendix 17 ranks this percentage against the rest o the nation. In those rank-ings, Illinois perormance is in the bottom hal o the country at 29 th. In contrast, the state with the largest jobgrowth because o establishment expansion was Arizona (25.8 percent), which experienced almost twice the rateo jobs growth as Illinois.

Te neighboring states ranked as ollows: Wisconsin (15.8 percent, rank 23rd), Missouri (15.7 percent, rank 24th)Indiana (13.3 percent, rank 30th), Iowa (12.5 percent, rank 35th) and Kentucky (11.2 percent, rank 42nd).

Additionally, Appendices 18 and 19 show the change in jobs created individually by expansions and contractionsbetween 1995 and 2009 as a percent o employment relative to the other 49 states. Tese tables help show theoverall job churn in gross expansions and contractions. Illinois ranks a poor 42nd in gross jobs created romexpansions (Appendix 17), and 8th in gross jobs lost to contractions (Appendix 18).

While the net job creation rom expansions and contractions have been a reliable and substantial source o newjobs or Illinois, it does not ully explain the year-to-year uctuations in total jobs. Additionally, when comparingIllinois nationally and regionally, total job creation in this category is slightly below average; there is plenty o roomto rev up the job creation engine rom expansions and contractions.


17/37

16

Notes and sources

[1] Te rm Walls & Associates perorms the conversion o the Dun & Bradstreet marketing inormation le intoa time-series database that is useul or economic research purposes. Te le is proprietary to Walls & Associateswhich licenses the database to researchers across the country, including the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau o

Economic Analysis.

[2] Te NES database is based on establishments, which means that one organization can have numerousestablishments in various locations, i.e., Starbucks. Additionally, diferent establishments can occupy the samelocation. For example, an organization at a single location could represent two diferent activities such as a singleorganization with both a distribution and retail establishment under the same roo. Tis structure provides anunprecedented level o geographic and industry classication.

[3] Although this study uses the term Illinois jobs, it does not mean that those employed are all Illinois residentsSince jobs are reported on a per establishment basis, there is no inormation on the residency o the workorce.

Tereore, someone living in Indiana but working or an Illinois establishment would be included in the Illinoisemployment number.

[4] Tis study draws on data or national comparisons rom www.YourEconomy.org (YE), which is based on thenational NES database. YE is a project o the Edward Lowe Foundation. For technical reasons, the YE websiteuses the NES database or the years 1995 to 2009.

[5] More broadly, births are a useul benchmark in measuring the overall level o entrepreneurial activity. Yet,solely measuring births understates entrepreneurship since the NES database reclassies the organization as anexisting organization in the years aer the birth year. Ideally, a more comprehensive metric o entrepreneurshipwould track these organizations throughout the organizations lie spans to better understand other important

issues such as the survivor rate.

[6] Closures are dened in the NES database as the elimination o DUNS numbers. However, a DUNS numbermay also be eliminated by one organization absorbing another organization. As a result, some jobs due to closureswill reappear in the database as expansions o existing organizations. Tis may lead to some overestimation o jobslost to births and deaths.

[7] Establishment out-migration may be understated because some closures actually are a orm o out-migrationFor example, a company may decide to consolidate several ar-ung establishments under one roo. I the newconsolidated establishment is not located in Illinois, then there is no way to determine that an establishment clo-sure was really a orm o out-migration.

[8] Some establishment contractions may, in act, be a orm o out-migration o jobs rom one region or state toanother. For example, a company may decide to consolidate several ar-ung establishments under one roo. I thenew consolidated establishment is not located in Illinois, then there is no way to determine that an establishmentcontraction was really a orm o disguised out-migration.
http://www.youreconomy.org/http://www.youreconomy.org/


18/37

17

Percent change in jobs by state. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

State Percent of 1995 job base RankUnited States 11.6% --

Alabama 9.8% 29

Alaska 26.1% 9

Arizona 36.6% 2

Arkansas 11.1% 27

California 11.3% 26

Colorado 23.1% 10

Connecticut -2.3% 49

Delaware 1.6% 41

Florida 45.7% 1

Georgia 29.3% 6

Hawaii 6.8% 36

Idaho 30.2% 5

Illinois -2.7% 50

Indiana 5.2% 39

Iowa 10.3% 28

Kansas 9.0% 33

Kentucky 11.7% 24

Louisiana 15.2% 20

Maine 9.0% 32

Maryland 9.2% 31

Massachusetts -1.2% 46

Michigan 1.0% 42

Minnesota 13.2% 23

Mississippi 16.8% 19

Missouri 5.9% 38

Montana 22.8% 11

Nebraska 6.5% 37

Nevada 36.3% 3

New Hampshire 20.4% 14

New Jersey 0.2% 43

New Mexico 7.0% 35

New York -2.2% 47

North Carolina 17.7% 16

North Dakota 26.6% 8

Appendix 1

Appendices 1-19

continued on page 18


19/37

18

State Percent of 1995 job base Rank

Ohio -0.1% 45

Oklahoma 9.6% 30

Oregon 21.3% 13

Pennsylvania 2.5% 40

Rhode Island -2.3% 48

South Carolina 11.4% 25

South Dakota 17.2% 18

Tennessee 14.8% 21

Texas 19.5% 15

Utah 30.4% 4

Vermont 17.5% 17

Virginia 21.9% 12

Washington 14.5% 22

West Virginia 0.1% 44Wisconsin 7.5% 34

Wyoming 27.3% 7


Appendix 2Change in Illinois jobs due to establishment births and deaths. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Calendaryear Total jobs

Change intotal jobs

Jobs created by

establishmentbirths

Jobs lost due toestablishment deaths

Net jobs created(births minus deaths)

1995 6,854,859 -- -- -- --

1996 6,939,269 84,410 401,535 408,910 (7,375)

1997 7,053,936 114,667 296,830 278,092 18,738

1998 7,079,553 25,617 284,404 405,798 (121,394)

1999 7,218,203 138,650 328,040 285,631 42,409

2000 7,509,249 291,046 421,937 315,337 106,600

2001 7,601,642 92,393 473,409 428,115 45,294

2002 7,416,549 (185,093) 262,311 419,211 (156,900)

2003 7,203,300 (213,249) 198,038 450,210 (252,172)2004 7,064,023 (139,277) 243,177 368,399 (125,222)

2005 7,147,523 83,500 283,832 276,223 7,609

2006 7,168,104 20,581 191,713 203,003 (11,290)

2007 7,091,366 (76,738) 232,674 324,028 (91,354)

2008 7,082,765 (8,601) 211,145 286,334 (75,189)

2009 6,673,081 (409,684) 246,924 725,798 (478,874)

Total -- (181,778) 4,075,969 5,175,089 (1,099,120)


continued from page 17


20/37

19

Appendix 3Change in Illinois establishments due to establishment births and deaths. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Calendar yearTotal

establishmentsChange in totalestablishments

Establishmentbirths

Establishmentdeaths

Net birth (positive) or

death (negative) ofestablishments

1995 527,683 -- -- -- --

1996 551,352 23,669 65,831 41,992 23,839

1997 558,168 6,816 42,947 36,036 6,911

1998 554,701 (3,467) 41,991 45,353 (3,362)

1999 547,808 (6,893) 35,707 42,501 (6,794)

2000 562,313 14,505 50,259 35,613 14,646

2001 597,628 35,315 74,658 39,105 35,553

2002 617,913 20,285 58,295 37,680 20,615

2003 624,177 6,264 44,623 38,028 6,595

2004 648,819 24,642 64,456 39,355 25,101

2005 701,530 52,711 93,036 40,059 52,977

2006 733,122 31,592 63,624 31,868 31,756

2007 787,634 54,512 82,272 27,653 54,619

2008 845,180 57,546 86,410 28,559 57,851

2009 748,210 (96,970) 71,428 168,342 (96,914)

Total -- 220,527 875,537 652,144 223,393


Appendix 4Illinois jobs per establishment. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Calendar year Establishment births Establishment deaths Difference1995 -- -- --

1996 6.1 9.7 (3.6)

1997 6.9 7.7 (0.8)

1998 6.8 8.9 (2.2)

1999 9.2 6.7 2.5

2000 8.4 8.9 (0.5)

2001 6.3 10.9 (4.6)

2002 4.5 11.1 (6.6)

2003 4.4 11.8 (7.4)

2004 3.8 9.4 (5.6)2005 3.1 6.9 (3.8)

2006 3.0 6.4 (3.4)

2007 2.8 11.7 (8.9)

2008 2.4 10.0 (7.6)

2009 3.5 4.3 (0.9)

Total 4.7 7.9 (3.3)



21/37

20

Appendix 5Percent change in jobs due to establishment births and deaths by state. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


United States -4.4% --

Alabama -1.4% 21

Alaska 6.7% 9

Arizona 8.7% 5

Arkansas -1.4% 22

California -6.4% 34

Colorado 0.0% 16

Connecticut -14.5% 48

Delaware -8.6% 40

Florida 19.6% 1

Georgia 8.3% 6

Hawaii -2.7% 26

Idaho 7.0% 8

Illinois -16.0% 50

Indiana -8.5% 39

Iowa -2.4% 25

Kansas -4.7% 31

Kentucky 0.4% 14

Louisiana -0.2% 17

Maine -3.7% 29

Maryland -2.8% 27


Michigan -11.2% 44

Minnesota -7.8% 35

Mississippi 6.2% 10

Missouri -9.5% 41

Montana 4.6% 11

Nebraska -5.5% 32

Nevada 10.2% 3

New Hampshire -2.1% 24

New Jersey -13.5% 47

New Mexico -5.6% 33

New York -13.0% 46


North Dakota 7.9% 7

Ohio -9.9% 42

Oklahoma -8.5% 38

Oregon -0.7% 18

Pennsylvania -10.6% 43

Rhode Island -11.8% 45

continued on page 2


22/37

21


South Carolina -1.9% 23


Tennessee -0.7% 19

Texas -1.3% 20Utah 11.1% 2

Vermont -3.8% 30

Virginia 2.9% 13

Washington -3.3% 28

West Virginia -8.0% 36

Wisconsin -8.3% 37

Wyoming 9.5% 4

Appendix 6Gross change in jobs due to establishment births. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.State Percent of 1995 job base Rank

Alabama 74.4% 24

Alaska 83.3% 12

Arizona 100.5% 5

Arkansas 74.5% 23

California 82.0% 17

Colorado 97.6% 6

Connecticut 59.7% 47

Delaware 72.5% 27

Florida 122.1% 1

Georgia 106.8% 4

Hawaii 65.3% 35

Idaho 96.7% 7

Illinois 59.5% 48

Indiana 63.8% 40

Iowa 63.4% 42

Kansas 70.8% 30

Kentucky 72.7% 26

Louisiana 82.4% 15

Maine 63.5% 41

Maryland 82.5% 13

Massachusetts 60.8% 44

Michigan 64.9% 36

Minnesota 72.5% 28


Missouri 69.2% 32




23/37

22


Montana 76.6% 22

Nebraska 60.2% 45

Nevada 111.5% 3


New Jersey 65.4% 34New Mexico 73.3% 25

New York 63.2% 43



Ohio 60.0% 46

Oklahoma 69.7% 31

Oregon 84.2% 11


Rhode Island 54.6% 50



Tennessee 80.6% 19

Texas 94.0% 8

Utah 115.9% 2

Vermont 68.9% 33

Virginia 87.1% 9

Washington 79.4% 20

West Virginia 64.2% 38

Wisconsin 57.8% 49

Wyoming 82.2% 16


Alabama 75.8% 21

Alaska 76.6% 25

Arizona 91.8% 44

Arkansas 75.9% 22

California 88.4% 42

Colorado 97.6% 46


Delaware 81.1% 33

Florida 102.5% 49

Georgia 98.5% 47

Hawaii 68.0% 8

Appendix 7Gross change in jobs due to establishment deaths. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.




24/37

23


Idaho 89.7% 43

Illinois 75.5% 19

Indiana 72.3% 12

Iowa 65.9% 4

Kansas 75.4% 18Kentucky 72.3% 13

Louisiana 82.6% 36

Maine 67.2% 7

Maryland 85.3% 41


Michigan 76.1% 23

Minnesota 80.2% 30


Missouri 78.7% 27

Montana 71.9% 10

Nebraska 65.7% 3

Nevada 101.3% 48


New Jersey 78.9% 28

New Mexico 78.9% 29

New York 76.2% 24



Ohio 69.9% 9

Oklahoma 78.2% 26

Oregon 84.9% 40





Tennessee 81.3% 34

Texas 95.3% 45

Utah 104.9% 50

Vermont 72.7% 15

Virginia 84.2% 39

Washington 82.7% 37


Wisconsin 66.1% 5

Wyoming 72.7% 14



25/37

24

Calendar year Total jobs

Change in

total jobs

Jobs created byestablishment

In-migration

Jobs lost due toestablishment

out-migration

Net jobscreated

(In minus out)

1995 6,854,859 -- -- -- --

1996 6,939,269 84,410 13,570 12,193 1,377

1997 7,053,936 114,667 8,708 12,873 (4,165)

1998 7,079,553 25,617 14,697 9,094 5,603

1999 7,218,203 138,650 7,774 9,387 (1,613)

2000 7,509,249 291,046 11,378 10,402 976

2001 7,601,642 92,393 12,964 12,671 293

2002 7,416,549 (185,093) 6,986 17,698 (10,712)

2003 7,203,300 (213,249) 9,395 10,896 (1,501)

2004 7,064,023 (139,277) 12,152 12,511 (359)

2005 7,147,523 83,500 11,764 7,642 4,122

2006 7,168,104 20,581 11,569 6,755 4,814

2007 7,091,366 (76,738) 11,916 10,350 1,566

2008 7,082,765 (8,601) 23,655 14,744 8,911

2009 6,673,081 (409,684) 15,301 25,683 (10,382)

Total -- (181,778) 171,829 172,899 (1,070)

Appendix 8Change in Illinois jobs due to in- and out-migration. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


Calendar yearTotal

establishmentsChange in totalestablishments

Establishmentin-migration

Establishmentout-migration

Net In-migrant

(positive) orout-migrant

establishments

1995 527,683 -- -- -- --

1996 551,352 23,669 259 429 (170)

1997 558,168 6,816 257 352 (95)

1998 554,701 (3,467) 284 389 (105)

1999 547,808 (6,893) 298 397 (99)

2000 562,313 14,505 462 603 (141)

2001 597,628 35,315 638 876 (238)

2002 617,913 20,285 586 916 (330)

2003 624,177 6,264 783 1,114 (331)

2004 648,819 24,642 851 1,310 (459)

2005 701,530 52,711 653 919 (266)

2006 733,122 31,592 632 796 (164)

2007 787,634 54,512 651 758 (107)

2008 845,180 57,546 986 1,291 (305)

2009 748,210 (96,970) 1,199 1,255 (56)

Total -- 220,527 8,539 11,405 (2,866)

Appendix 9Change in Illinois establishments due to in- and out-migration. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.



26/37

25

Calendar yearEstablishment

in-migrationEstablishmentout-migration Difference

1995 -- -- --

1996 52.4 28.4 24.0

1997 33.9 36.6 (2.7)

1998 51.8 23.4 28.4

1999 26.1 23.6 2.4

2000 24.6 17.3 7.4

2001 20.3 14.5 5.9

2002 11.9 19.3 (7.4)

2003 12.0 9.8 2.2

2004 14.3 9.6 4.7

2005 18.0 8.3 9.7

2006 18.3 8.5 9.8

2007 18.3 13.7 4.6

2008 24.0 11.4 12.6

2009 12.8 20.5 (7.7)

Total 20.1 15.2 5.0


Appendix 10Illinois jobs per migrating establishment. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Appendix 11Percent change in jobs due to establishment in- and out-migration by state. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


Alabama 0.0% 33Alaska 0.2% 20

Arizona 2.2% 3

Arkansas 0.3% 19

California -0.8% 46

Colorado 0.4% 18

Connecticut 1.1% 10

Delaware 2.3% 2

Florida 0.5% 13

Georgia 1.1% 9

Hawaii -0.2% 35Idaho -0.3% 39

Illinois 0.0% 29

Indiana 0.4% 17

Iowa 0.2% 22

Kansas 1.7% 5

Kentucky 0.1% 23

Louisiana -0.7% 44

continued on page 2


27/37

26


Maine -1.5% 50

Maryland 0.4% 16


Michigan -0.3% 37

Minnesota 0.1% 27Mississippi 0.1% 24

Missouri -0.3% 38

Montana 0.2% 21

Nebraska -0.5% 40

Nevada 2.4% 1


New Jersey 0.1% 25

New Mexico -0.6% 42

New York -0.8% 47



Ohio 0.1% 26

Oklahoma -0.2% 36

Oregon 0.1% 28





Tennessee 0.9% 11

Texas 1.1% 7

Utah -0.1% 34

Vermont -0.7% 45

Virginia 1.5% 6

Washington -0.9% 48

West Virginia -1.4% 49

Wisconsin 0.0% 30

Wyoming -0.6% 43




28/37

27

Appendix 12Gross change in jobs due to the in-migration of establishments. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


Alabama 2.1% 33

Alaska 1.6% 45

Arizona 4.3% 10

Arkansas 1.9% 37California 1.5% 47

Colorado 3.6% 12

Connecticut 4.4% 8

Delaware 7.7% 1

Florida 2.8% 20

Georgia 4.2% 11

Hawaii 1.1% 50

Idaho 3.0% 17

Illinois 2.5% 22

Indiana 2.2% 32Iowa 2.2% 31

Kansas 4.9% 4

Kentucky 3.1% 16

Louisiana 1.4% 49

Maine 1.6% 44

Maryland 4.4% 9


Michigan 1.6% 46

Minnesota 2.0% 34

Mississippi 1.9% 36Missouri 2.7% 21

Montana 1.8% 42

Nebraska 2.2% 30

Nevada 5.2% 3


New Jersey 4.9% 5

New Mexico 1.8% 41

New York 2.4% 27



Ohio 2.2% 29

Oklahoma 1.9% 35

Oregon 2.5% 26




South Dakota 4.6% 7



29/37

28


Tennessee 3.5% 13

Texas 2.9% 19

Utah 2.5% 23

Vermont 1.8% 39

Virginia 4.7% 6

Washington 2.3% 28


Wisconsin 1.8% 40

Wyoming 1.9% 38


Appendix 13Gross change in jobs due to the out-migration of establishments. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


Alabama 2.1% 17

Alaska 1.3% 2

Arizona 2.1% 15

Arkansas 1.6% 5

California 2.2% 19

Colorado 3.3% 43Connecticut 3.4% 45

Delaware 5.4% 50

Florida 2.3% 20

Georgia 3.1% 39

Hawaii 1.3% 1

Idaho 3.3% 44

Illinois 2.5% 23

Indiana 1.8% 9

Iowa 2.1% 13

Kansas 3.2% 40

Kentucky 3.0% 34

Louisiana 2.0% 12

Maine 3.1% 37

Maryland 4.0% 46


Michigan 1.8% 8




30/37

29


Minnesota 1.9% 11

Mississippi 1.8% 7

Missouri 2.9% 33

Montana 1.5% 4

Nebraska 2.7% 31

Nevada 2.8% 32


New Jersey 4.7% 49

New Mexico 2.4% 21

New York 3.2% 41


North Dakota 1.4% 3

Ohio 2.1% 16

Oklahoma 2.1% 18Oregon 2.4% 22





Tennessee 2.5% 26

Texas 1.8% 6

Utah 2.6% 29

Vermont 2.6% 28

Virginia 3.2% 42Washington 3.1% 38


Wisconsin 1.9% 10

Wyoming 2.5% 25




31/37

30

Appendix 14Change in Illinois jobs due to expansions and contractions. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Calendar Year Total jobsChange intotal jobs

Jobs created byestablishment

expansions

Jobs lost due toestablishment

contractions

Net jobs created(expansions minus

contractions)

1995 6,854,859 -- -- -- --

1996 6,939,269 84,410 266,616 176,208 90,408

1997 7,053,936 114,667 303,804 203,710 100,0941998 7,079,553 25,617 341,736 200,328 141,408

1999 7,218,203 138,650 311,551 213,697 97,854

2000 7,509,249 291,046 337,471 154,001 183,470

2001 7,601,642 92,393 318,406 271,600 46,806

2002 7,416,549 (185,093) 310,252 327,733 (17,481)

2003 7,203,300 (213,249) 238,533 198,109 40,424

2004 7,064,023 (139,277) 261,710 275,406 (13,696)

2005 7,147,523 83,500 232,221 160,452 71,769

2006 7,168,104 20,581 181,128 154,071 27,057

2007 7,091,366 (76,738) 157,833 144,783 13,050

2008 7,082,765 (8,601) 146,488 88,811 57,677

2009 6,673,081 (409,684) 145,419 65,847 79,572

Total -- (181,778) 3,553,168 2,634,756 918,412


Appendix 15Change in Illinois establishments due to expansions and contractions. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Calendar Year

Total

establishments

Change in total

establishments

Establishments

that expanded

Establishments

that contracted

Net expanding

(positive) or contract-ing (negative)

establishments

1995 527,683 -- -- -- --

1996 551,352 23,669 24,486 22,851 1,635

1997 558,168 6,816 25,545 22,117 3,428

1998 554,701 (3,467) 28,472 21,055 7,417

1999 547,808 (6,893) 28,233 20,250 7,983

2000 562,313 14,505 20,267 13,291 6,976

2001 597,628 35,315 26,115 19,941 6,174

2002 617,913 20,285 21,818 50,896 (29,078)2003 624,177 6,264 22,059 18,921 3,138

2004 648,819 24,642 23,740 23,649 91

2005 701,530 52,711 22,536 18,156 4,380

2006 733,122 31,592 20,345 13,486 6,859

2007 787,634 54,512 20,007 16,343 3,664

2008 845,180 57,546 27,982 6,352 21,630

2009 748,210 (96,970) 29,294 6,816 22,478

Total -- 220,527 340,899 274,124 66,775



32/37

31

Appendix 16Illinois jobs per establishment. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.

Calendar YearEstablishments

that expandedEstablishmentsthat contracted Difference

1995 -- -- --

1996 10.9 7.7 3.2

1997 11.9 9.2 2.7

1998 12.0 9.5 2.5

1999 11.0 10.6 0.5

2000 16.7 11.6 5.1

2001 12.2 13.6 (1.4)

2002 14.2 6.4 7.8

2003 10.8 10.5 0.3

2004 11.0 11.6 (0.6)

2005 10.3 8.8 1.5

2006 8.9 11.4 (2.5)

2007 7.9 8.9 (1.0)

2008 5.2 14.0 (8.7)

2009 5.0 9.7 (4.7)

Total 10.4 9.6 0.8


Appendix 17Percent change in jobs due to establishment expansions and contractions by state. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


United States 16.0% --

Alabama 11.2% 43

Alaska 19.2% 13

Arizona 25.8% 1

Arkansas 12.1% 38

California 18.5% 16

Colorado 22.7% 5


Delaware 8.0% 50

Florida 25.6% 2

Georgia 19.9% 10

Hawaii 9.7% 47

Idaho 23.5% 4

Illinois 13.4% 29

Indiana 13.3% 30

Iowa 12.5% 35


33/37

32


Kansas 11.9% 39

Kentucky 11.2% 42

Louisiana 16.1% 22

Maine 14.2% 26

Maryland 11.6% 40


Michigan 12.5% 36

Minnesota 20.8% 8


Missouri 15.7% 24

Montana 17.9% 19

Nebraska 12.6% 34

Nevada 23.6% 3


New Jersey 13.6% 28

New Mexico 13.3% 31

New York 11.6% 41



Ohio 9.7% 46

Oklahoma 18.3% 18

Oregon 21.9% 7


Rhode Island 9.1% 49South Carolina 12.7% 33


Tennessee 14.5% 25

Texas 19.7% 11

Utah 19.5% 12

Vermont 22.0% 6

Virginia 17.5% 20

Washington 18.6% 15


Wisconsin 15.8% 23Wyoming 18.4% 17



34/37

33

Appendix 18Gross change in jobs due to the expansions of establishments. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


Alabama 49.2% 48

Alaska 63.5% 11

Arizona 69.5% 3

Arkansas 53.4% 34California 56.3% 24

Colorado 67.7% 5


Delaware 49.8% 47

Florida 67.9% 4

Georgia 67.6% 6

Hawaii 52.3% 41

Idaho 64.2% 9

Illinois 51.8% 42

Indiana 53.7% 33Iowa 60.4% 15

Kansas 55.9% 28

Kentucky 53.4% 35

Louisiana 55.9% 29

Maine 53.0% 38

Maryland 55.1% 30


Michigan 54.0% 32

Minnesota 63.9% 10

Mississippi 50.7% 44Missouri 59.4% 18

Montana 57.0% 23

Nebraska 59.5% 17

Nevada 75.4% 1


New Jersey 52.8% 39

New Mexico 53.1% 37

New York 46.7% 49



Ohio 50.7% 45

Oklahoma 59.7% 16

Oregon 62.8% 12







35/37

34


Tennessee 58.3% 21

Texas 65.7% 7

Utah 72.4% 2

Vermont 58.0% 22

Virginia 64.9% 8

Washington 60.4% 14


Wisconsin 56.1% 25

Wyoming 56.0% 26


Appendix 19Gross change in jobs due to the contraction of establishments. Calendar years 1995 to 2009.


Alabama 38.0% 7

Alaska 44.3% 42

Arizona 43.8% 40

Arkansas 41.2% 24

California 37.9% 6

Colorado 45.0% 43


Delaware 41.8% 28

Florida 42.4% 31

Georgia 47.7% 47

Hawaii 42.5% 32

Idaho 40.6% 20

Illinois 38.4% 8

Indiana 40.4% 18Iowa 47.8% 48

Kansas 44.0% 41

Kentucky 42.1% 30

Louisiana 39.8% 14

Maine 38.8% 10

Maryland 43.4% 37





36/37

35


Michigan 41.5% 26

Minnesota 43.1% 35


Missouri 43.7% 38

Montana 39.1% 12

Nebraska 46.9% 45

Nevada 51.8% 49


New Jersey 39.2% 13

New Mexico 39.8% 15

New York 35.1% 1



Ohio 41.0% 21

Oklahoma 41.4% 25

Oregon 41.0% 22





Tennessee 43.7% 39

Texas 46.0% 44

Utah 53.0% 50

Vermont 36.0% 3Virginia 47.4% 46

Washington 41.8% 27


Wisconsin 40.3% 16

Wyoming 37.7% 4




37/37

Guarantee of quality scholarship

Te Illinois Policy Institute is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research on matters opublic policy.

Te Institute guarantees that all original actual data (including studies, viewpoints, reports, brochures and videos)are true and correct and that inormation attributed to other sources is accurately represented.

Te Institute encourages rigorous critique o its research. I the accuracy o any material act or reerence to anindependent source is questioned and brought to the Institutes attention in writing with supporting evidence, theInstitute will respond. I an error exists, it will be corrected in subsequent distributions. Tis constitutes the com-plete and nal remedy under this guarantee.

Championing the start-ups

Documents

Transcript of Championing the start-ups