Trendlines Sd Workers By Industry
-
Upload
nirmala-last -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
494 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Trendlines Sd Workers By Industry
Midwestern Higher Education CompactMidwestern Legislative Conference
Midwestern Governors Association
South Dakota Board of RegentsSouth Dakota Governor’s Office
South Dakota Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Tourism and State Development
Sponsored by--
Midwestern Education to Workforce Policy Initiative:
Midwestern Higher Education CompactMidwestern Legislative ConferenceMidwestern Governors Association
Policy Summit – October 2005
State Roundtables – 2006
Policy Report Series – 2007
Funded by: MHEC, CSG & Lumina Foundation for Education
Michigan, May 25, 2006
= Later this year or next year
Education to Workforce Conferences
= Already completed
Illinois, June 14, 2006Missouri April 25, 2006
Nebraska, May 23, 2006
South Dakota, June 27, 2006
Minnesota, October 23, 2006
Interstate Compacts
WICHE1953
SREB1948
NEBHE1955
MHEC1991
The Commission
Governs the Compact Acts as an instrumentality of state
government in each of the eleven member states
Serves all sectors of public and private higher education and
state government
Midwestern Higher Education CompactAdvancing Education Through Cooperation
Three Core Functions
Cost Savings
Student Access
Policy Research
Today’s Purposes and Outcomes
Share information and ideas with you.
Encourage you to think about the future of SouthDakota and how you can help create it.
Receive from you your ideas on what needs to bedone in business, education and government to create more excellent jobs and an excellent
workforce that will create a brighter future for South Dakota.
Encourage all of you to communicate more on these issues beyond this conference.
Identify specific action items and plan to sustain this effort.
Highlights
Demographics in the Future
Responding to the Age Wave
SD Advantages
Workforce Challenges
Your Needs, Ideas and Advice
SD Population Projections 2005 - 2025
Source: State Data Center, Vermillion
AGE
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
2005
50,663
50,438
54,170
59,412
59,305
46,251
44,244
45,905
56,562
58,773
53,883
43,711
33,425
28,384
26,471
25,139
21,133
18,195
776,064
2010
51,210
50,158
50,162
54,438
57,324
51,741
45,366
44,209
45,983
56,645
58,873
53,778
43,492
33,008
27,740
25,606
23,614
22,657
796,004
2015
52,152
50,692
49,907
50,808
52,945
49,659
50,623
45,328
44,291
46,150
56,812
58,701
53,530
42,935
32,259
26,844
24,062
25,779
813,477
2020
51,905
52,043
50,949
51,996
50,462
46,054
48,981
50,830
45,795
44,723
46,582
56,676
58,495
52,881
42,094
31,564
25,855
26,615
834,500
2025
49,838
51,874
52,330
53,394
51,685
43,775
45,498
49,188
51,284
46,266
45,150
46,481
56,449
57,820
51,866
41,204
30,380
28,318
852,800
0-19 Most in School
20-64 Primarily income earners
and taxpayers
65+ Most are
Retired
SD Projections Combined into 3 Groups
Source: State Data Center, Vermillion
AGE
0-19
20-64
65+
2005
214,683
442,059
119,322
776,064
2010
205,968
457,411
132,625
796,004
2015
203,559
458,039
151,879
813,477
2020
206,893
448,598
179,009
834,500
2025
207,436
435,776
209,588
852,800
How will these trends affect all of us? Our futures? Will we accept these trends?
AGE
0-19
20-64
65+
2005
28%
57%
15%
100%
2010
26%
57%
17%
100%
2015
25%
56%
19%
100%
2020
25%
54%
21%
100%
2025
24%
51%
25%
100%
- 4%
- 6%
+ 10%
Think of the Age Wave Consequences…
AGE
0-19
20-64
65+
2005
214,683
442,059
119,322
776,064
2010
205,968
457,411
132,625
796,004
2015
203,559
458,039
151,879
813,477
2020
206,893
448,598
179,009
834,500
2025
207,436
435,776
209,588
852,800
Difference
- 7,247
- 6,283
+ 90,266
AGE
0-19
20-64
65+
2005
----
----
----
2010
- 8,715
+ 15,352
+ 13,303
2015
- 2,409
+ 628
+ 19,254
2020
+ 3,334
- 9,441
+ 27,130
2025
+ 543
- 12,822
+30,579
- 7,247
- 6,283
+ 90,266
More jobs will be needed in the 20-64 group to provide services for those over 65.
Responding to the Age Wage: Options
Less government services to those over 65.
More tax revenue from a lower number of taxpayers inthe 20-65 group to pay for elderly services.
More jobs and therefore more people in the 20-65 group to grow the economy and state revenues.
Less services to all South Dakotans.
Using 65+ group as a resource.
More jobs and therefore, more people in the 20-65group so tax rates can remain stable.
What’s Already Happening: Trendlines in SD Occupations for the Next 6 years
Source: Occupational Outlook, Dept. of Labor
Fastest Growing Occupations:
Social/Human Services AssistantsMedical AssistantsNetwork / Data AnalystsSelf-Enrichment TeachersMedical Records TechniciansMassage TherapistsSocial WorkersPhysician AssistantsResidential AdvisorsHome Health AidesRespiratory TherapistsDental AssistantsPhysical Therapist Assistants
Fastest Declining Occupations:Computer OperatorsMeter ReadersTypistsEligibility InterviewersAnnouncersTravel AgentsPrepress TechniciansElectric/Electronic AssemblersLoan Interviewers and ClerksLocomotive EngineersData Entry WorkersOrder ClerksMixing Machine OperatorsBrokerage Clerks
Trendlines-- SD Workers by Industry
Source: Occupational Outlook, Dept. of Labor
Fastest Growing by Industry:Social AssistanceAmbulatory HealthcareWaste ManagementAmusement / Gambling / RecMuseums / Historical SitesSport / Hobby / Book StoresHospitalsInternet Service / Web ProvidersRepair and MaintenanceWarehousingNursing / Residential CareChemical ManufacturingAccommodations / Lodging
Fastest Declining by Industry:Apparel ManufacturingTextile MillsComputer ManufacturingMetal Manufacturing
Self-Employed Hunting, Fishing & Agriculture-related
Beverage ManufacturingUtilitiesFederal GovernmentBroadcastingPlastics ManufacturingWholesalersClothing & AccessoriesMiningSelf-employed Farm Workers
In Addition to Predicted Job Growth… What Else?
Already Targeted Industry Clusters:
Manufacturing, Food Processing, Firearms and Financial Services.
Long Term Targets for High-Paying Job Growth:
Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, Research to Commercialization and spin-offs.
Recent History: More Energy and Agriculture
Big Stone II Power Plant, Morrell Expansion, 3M, Dakota Turkey Growers, Qwest, SD Certified Beef, TransCanada Pipeline, more manufacturing, more Ethanol, etc
For even more jobs, we want your advice and ideas during the breakout sessions for now, short-term and long-term.
Taxes - Advantage in Creating New Jobs?
$1,910 (35th)
$3,418
(3rd) $1,939 (33rd)$2,158
(24th)
$1,430 (50th)
$3,094 (6th)
$2,203 (21st)
South Dakota state tax per person is
LESS THAN ONE-HALF of Minnesota’s or Wyoming’s state tax per person. Source: http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html
Is Per Capita Income an Advantage?
Per Capita Income Rank
Per Capita Income Adjusted for Taxes and Costs of
Living Rank
1999 36th 25th
2005 31th 11th
Your incomes have increased faster than the rest of the nation and you have held down your
taxes and cost of living.Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce;Taubman Center, Harvard University;
and Dr. Ralph Brown, USD Business Research Bureau.
However, the United States and South Dakota Both Need Better
Workforces To Compete for Future Jobs
However, the United States and South Dakota Both Need Better
Workforces To Compete for Future Jobs
An Educated and Trained Workforce is the Key in Order
to Compete
An Educated and Trained Workforce is the Key in Order
to Compete
Kiplinger Letter, September 23, 2005
Skilled workers will be harder to find
Some college or training needed for 85% of new jobs
Needed
Health care workersEngineersScientists
Contributing issues to worker shortages
Baby boom retirements
Fewer foreign workers
South Dakota Educational Attainment and Rank Among States
01020304050
Age 25-64 withGraduate/Prof. Degree
Age 25-64 with Bachelor'sor Higher
Age 25-64 with AssociateDegree
Age 25-64 with HS Diploma
Age 18-24 with HS Diploma
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census
78.2%
6.5%
90.1%
8.6%
24.5%
South Dakota Can Do Better in the Future
19th
10th
12th
31st31st31st31st
46th46th
Earnings by Job Type in SD
$32,
705
$29,
256
$25,
238
$22,
677
$20,
457
$15,
735
$33,
382
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
Health Care Technology Office Factory Education &Public Services
Natural Resources Low-Skill Services
Source: Tony Carnevale and Donna Desrochers, ETS (PUMS 2000 5% Sample, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org, 1998-2000
% of Population 25-64 with Associate Degree or Higher
Source: U.S. Census 2000
Massachusetts
ColoradoConnecticutNew Ham
pshireVerm
ontM
arylandM
innesotaNew JerseyW
ashingtonNew YorkHawaiiVirginiaRhode IslandNorth DakotaUtahIllinoisNebraskaCaliforniaKansasO
regonDelawareW
isconsinUnited StatesM
ontanaM
aineIowaSouth DakotaAlaskaPennsylvaniaW
yoming
FloridaArizonaM
ichiganNorth CarolinaG
eorgiaIdahoNew M
exicoTexasO
hioM
issouriSouth CarolinaO
klahoma
IndianaAlabam
aTennesseeNevadaM
ississippiKentuckyLouisianaArkansasW
est Virginia
0
10
20
30
40
50 45.3
33.8
33.1
21.7
SD 33.1% Nation 33.8%
% of Adults Age 25-64 with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
Massachusetts
ColoradoConnecticutM
arylandNew JerseyVirginiaVerm
ontNew Ham
pshireM
innesotaNew YorkW
ashingtonIllinoisRhode IslandHawaiiKansasCaliforniaUtahNebraskaO
regonDelawareM
ontanaUnited StatesG
eorgiaNorth DakotaAlaskaPennsylvaniaW
isconsinM
aineArizonaTexasNew M
exicoSouth DakotaM
issouriNorth CarolinaIowaFloridaM
ichiganW
yoming
IdahoO
hioO
klahoma
South CarolinaIndianaTennesseeAlabam
aLouisianaNevadaKentuckyArkansasM
ississippiW
est Virginia
0
10
20
30
40 37.1
16.5
24.5
26.5
SD 24.5% Nation 26.5%
15.1 14.414.3
12.7
12.4 12.011.7
11.6
10.8 10.4
10.410.2 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.4
9.49.4 9.1 9.08.9 8.8 8.7
8.6 8.5 8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.7
7.77.6 7.5
7.5 7.4
7.3 7.2
7.2 7.1
7.1
7.1 6.8 6.56.5 6.2 6.1
6.1
6.0
0
4
8
12
16
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Maryland
New
York
Virginia
New
JerseyV
ermont
Colorado
Rhode Island
IllinoisN
ew H
ampshire
New
Mexico
Delaw
areC
aliforniaW
ashingtonK
ansasP
ennsylvaniaN
ationO
regonM
innesotaH
awaii
Georgia
Alaska
Michigan
Arizona
Utah
Florida
Maine
Missouri
Nebraska
Ohio
Texas
IndianaW
isconsinM
ontanaK
entuckyN
orth Carolina
Alabam
aW
yoming
South C
arolinaT
ennesseeIdahoIow
aO
klahoma
LouisianaS
outh Dakota
West V
irginiaN
evadaM
ississippiN
orth Dakota
Arkansas
% of Adults 25 to 64 With Graduate or Professional Degree
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census
SD 6.5% Nation 9.4%
Number of Doctorates per 1,000 Workers in Science and Engineering in SD
Source: Development Report Card for the States, Corporation for Enterprise Development
0
3
6
9
New
Mexico
Massachusetts
North DakotaDelawareM
arylandConnecticutNew JerseyVerm
ontColoradoW
ashingtonRhode IslandNew YorkVirginiaC
aliforniaHawaiiPennsylvaniaUtahNorth CarolinaM
innesotaO
regonAlaskaNew Ham
pshireO
hioIllinoisM
ichiganIdahoTennesseeM
ontanaW
yoming
TexasM
issouriIndianaM
aineW
isconsinKansasG
eorgiaArizonaIowaSouth CarolinaO
klahoma
LouisianaAlabam
aSouth D
akotaM
ississippiKentuckyW
est VirginiaArkansasFloridaNevadaNebraska
9.0
1.1
2.4 As Deep Underground Science and Engineering Lab develops, more Doctorates will be needed like other lab states.
We will also need more technicians to help them.
South Dakota’s Research Industry
Per Capita R&D Expenditures at Doctoral Granting Institutions, 2002
Source: Development Report Card for the States, Corporation for Enterprise Development
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Maryland
Massachusetts
AlaskaNew Ham
pshireIowaNew M
exicoUtahConnecticutNebraskaNorth CarolinaPennsylvaniaRhode IslandW
isconsinNorth DakotaHawaiiColoradoNew YorkCaliforniaVerm
ontM
issouriW
ashingtonG
eorgiaM
ontanaM
ichiganO
regonTexasIllinoisKansasDelawareAlabam
aLouisianaArizonaM
innesotaIndianaO
hioSouth CarolinaW
yoming
VirginiaM
ississippiTennesseeO
klahoma
New JerseyKentuckyIdahoFloridaNevadaM
aineArkansasW
est VirginiaSouth Dakota
304.3
42.4
Total R&D Expenditures Per Capita, 2003
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$75
$150
$225
$300
$375
36
8.4
65
.4
13
7.8
57
.4
Maryland
Massachusetts
AlaskaNorth DakotaNew Ham
pshireRhode IslandNebraskaVerm
ontConnecticutIowaNorth CarolinaNew M
exicoPennsylvaniaUtahW
isconsinNew YorkM
ontanaColoradoCaliforniaHawaiiW
ashingtonM
issouriM
ichiganUnited StatesG
eorgiaDelawareIllinoisTexasAlabam
aO
regonW
yoming
IndianaLouisianaKansasM
ississippiO
hioArizonaVirginiaSouth CarolinaTennesseeM
innesotaKentuckyNew JerseyO
klahoma
IdahoFloridaNevadaArkansasW
est VirginiaSouth DakotaM
aine
Federal R&D Expenditures Per Capita, 2003
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$75
$150
$225
36
.9
85
.0
23
.9
272.8
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode IslandConnecticutHawaiiAlaskaColoradoPennsylvaniaVerm
ontUtahNew M
exicoNew YorkNorth DakotaW
ashingtonNorth CarolinaIowaM
ontanaW
isconsinAlabam
aM
issouriCaliforniaDelawareO
regonUnited StatesM
ichiganIllinoisG
eorgiaM
ississippiTexasTennesseeVirginiaO
hioArizonaNebraskaM
innesotaKansasSouth CarolinaIndianaLouisianaNevadaW
yoming
KentuckyNew JerseyIdahoW
est VirginiaFloridaSouth DakotaO
klahoma
ArkansasM
aine
Federal Medical Science R&D Per Capita, 2002
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$25
$50
$75
Maryland
Massachusetts
ConnecticutNew Ham
pshirePennsylvaniaNorth CarolinaVerm
ontW
ashingtonIowaAlabam
aNew YorkCaliforniaM
innesotaM
issouriColoradoW
isconsinRhode IslandUnited StatesUtahO
hioIllinoisO
regonM
ichiganTexasTennesseeG
eorgiaHawaiiVirginiaKentuckySouth CarolinaArizonaIndianaNew M
exicoNorth DakotaFloridaNebraskaKansasLouisianaW
est VirginiaM
ississippiArkansasNew JerseySouth DakotaM
ontanaO
klahoma
IdahoNevadaW
yoming
Maine
AlaskaDelaware
70
.1
5.5
25
.1
0.0
Federal Life Science R&D Per Capita, 2002
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
$110
Maryland
Massachusetts
ConnecticutVerm
ontPennsylvaniaM
issouriNorth CarolinaNew YorkIowaW
ashingtonAlabam
aNew Ham
pshireO
regonUtahColoradoW
isconsinUnited StatesCaliforniaRhode IslandM
innesotaTexasM
ontanaIllinoisM
ichiganTennesseeO
hioG
eorgiaNew M
exicoHawaiiNebraskaKansasVirginiaLouisianaSouth CarolinaNorth DakotaArizonaKentuckyIndianaAlaskaM
ississippiW
yoming
New JerseyIdahoArkansasFloridaO
klahoma
West Virginia
South DakotaDelawareNevadaM
aine
10
4.9
14
.3
44
.6
5.2
Federal Computer Science R&D Per Capita, 2002
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$3
$6
$9
Maryland
HawaiiPennsylvaniaUtahM
assachusettsIllinoisCaliforniaRhode IslandNew Ham
pshireUnited StatesM
ississippiG
eorgiaNew YorkNew M
exicoTexasNebraskaNorth CarolinaW
isconsinArizonaM
innesotaVirginiaO
regonNorth DakotaColoradoConnecticutAlabam
aDelawareIndianaW
ashingtonTennesseeM
issouriNew JerseyIdahoNevadaFloridaKansasM
ichiganKentuckyW
yoming
IowaM
aineM
ontanaO
klahoma
Ohio
South DakotaLouisianaArkansasSouth CarolinaAlaskaW
est VirginiaVerm
ont
2.7
0.4 0
.0
17.0
Federal Physical Science R&D Per Capita, 2002
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Maryland
Massachusetts
ColoradoHawaiiM
ontanaDelawareCaliforniaNew M
exicoArizonaM
ississippiUtahPennsylvaniaNew YorkIndianaNorth DakotaUnited StatesIllinoisIowaConnecticutW
isconsinM
ichiganVirginiaKansasRhode IslandNew JerseyAlabam
aTexasNorth CarolinaNebraskaW
yoming
LouisianaW
ashingtonNew Ham
pshireM
innesotaO
hioO
klahoma
South CarolinaTennesseeFloridaO
regonG
eorgiaArkansasNevadaM
issouriVerm
ontM
aineKentuckyW
est VirginiaSouth DakotaIdahoAlaska
32
.7
7.4
2.0 0.9
Federal Engineering R&D Per Capita, 2002
Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
Maryland
New Mexico
UtahM
assachusettsDelawareNorth DakotaPennsylvaniaNew Ham
pshireM
ississippiG
eorgiaColoradoM
ichiganW
est VirginiaRhode IslandAlabam
aW
isconsinUnited StatesCaliforniaVirginiaO
hioIowaSouth CarolinaNew YorkArizonaW
ashingtonIllinoisTexasSouth DakotaNew JerseyM
ontanaKansasIdahoAlaskaIndianaTennesseeM
innesotaNorth CarolinaLouisianaNevadaO
klahoma
KentuckyFloridaM
issouriConnecticutW
yoming
Oregon
NebraskaHawaiiM
aineArkansasVerm
ont
11
.2
7.7
1.7
72.4
2010 Initiative GOAL THREE: Become a Recognized Leader in
Research and Technology Development by 2010
3A. Secure Homestake Mine for use as an underground science laboratory
3B. Improve ranking to at least 30th nationally for NSF funding
3C. Develop research and technology infrastructure at our universities and with the private sector
(Emphasis on research that can be commercialized and will benefit South Dakota)
South Dakota's Research Investment
Building and Infrastructure for a Research IndustryFY05-07 New Investments
2010 Research Centers $ 8,600,000
EPSCoR Match $ 1,200,000
New Doctoral Programs $ 583,540Faculty Research Seed Grants
$ 894,293
DUSEL (Deep Underground Science
and Engineering Lab)
$ 35,000,00
0$ 46,277,833
Source: Forbes magazine, May, 2006
Forbes Magazine Top 10 Best Small Metropolitan Cities to Start a Business
1. Sioux Falls, SD 2. Las Cruces, NM
3. Fargo, ND
4. Bismarck, ND
5. Morgantown, WV
6. Rapid City, SD 7. Rochester, MN
8. St. George, UT
9. Johnson City, TN
10. Logan, UT
Based on:
Cost of Living
Crime Rate
Culture / Leisure
Education
Income Growth
Net Migration
Source: 7,700 Employee survey responses in WorkForce Crisis and Businessweek, April 24, 2006
For Recruitment, Retention and Productivity-- Adapt the Workplace to Meet the Needs of All Three Age Groups of Workers
YOUNG (under 34)They are the least satisfied and least engaged in their jobs and they
want respect, independence, self-defined work schedules, challenging duties with sufficient pay or time-off when desired.
To keep them happy, create an engaging, friendly and high performance environment. Allow them to try different challenges and opportunities. If they leave, make it easy for them to return.
MIDDLE (35-54) They may have frustration if careers are stalled or if they are torn
between work and family obligations. Others in this group may be reentering the workforce. Therefore, many are hungry for change.
They value flexibility and aid in meeting their obligations. They like fresh assignments and more leadership assignments.
OLDER (55+) They may welcome relocation or travel that they would have rejected
when younger due to family obligations. They may welcome opportunities to mentor younger colleagues or work part-time or by assignment or project to blend retirement with work.
When they “retire,” some may want to launch new, more flexible careers.
See the Retiring 65+ Group as an Opportunity, Not a Problem
Source: Businessweek, April 24, 2006
Many Older Workers Can Have Higher Levels of—
Job satisfaction, Productivity, Loyalty/ enthusiasm, and Want to stay longer or work part-time
Many Older Workers Are Less Likely to --
Job hop, Battle with colleagues, or Suffer from burnout
Older Workers Want—
Recognition of experience, Meaningful work, and Time flexibility.
So what are some issues/ideas?
1. Educate populace.
2. Set high standards for high school graduation.
3. Create public awareness of importance of education.
4. Involve private sector in determining actions.
5. Are colleges meeting education needs plus workforce training needs?
6. Fix leaks in the education pipeline?
7. Are you doing everything possible to improve college access and completion?
Preparation Financial Aid Incentives
8. Is there a “working” workforce training system?
9. Is there access to community college type programs?
So what are some issues/ideas?10. Is being the “lowest” on some measures an advantage for
future success?
11. Are you marketing South Dakota advantages strategically?
12. Are you thinking regionally or globally?
13. Involve private sector in determining actions.
14. Do your state “plans” link South Dakota’s postsecondary
resources to South Dakota’s future economic success?
Is this part of South Dakota’s higher education mission?
15. Public/Private Partnerships: Centers of Excellence
Education/training for specific industries or fields of study Allied health Math & science teachers Technology workers Engineers Other?
Ideas from the Great Lakes Regional Economic Initiative
Create the new – learning, research, innovations
Invite in – opening doors to ideas, people and trade
Build out – connect to the world Link up – with others for synergy & strength Build skills Open immigration policy Wired Midwest Fix infrastructure Open market abroad
We want your advice and ideas during the breakout sessions
Your reactions to the information presented.
Your ideas for what other sectors should be targeted for creating and attracting jobs.
Your recommendations for how business, education and government can help each other create a better workforce in SD.
To help prime the pump for breakout discussions, we will also have some people give us some short reactions
before lunch.
SD needs more people
with more skills and education
so it can attract more jobs
and earn more money to
boost even more its healthy economy
for more South Dakotans.
How can you work together to make this happen over the next 20 years?
Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that provides health insurance for his or her family? Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it
possible to provide a good home for your grandchildren? Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it
possible to provide your grandchildren with extras such as family vacations, music lessons, summer camp, and recreational opportunities? Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it
possible to provide your grandchildren with a good quality of life AND be able to invest for their college education?
Do you want your son or daughter to have a career that will make it possible to do all these while also investing for their own
retirement? Is South Dakota a “quality of place” that will make this happen plus
attract others?
Some Questions…
“If you don’t change your direction, you may wind up where you are headed.”
-- Old Chinese Proverb