The Maine Economy (Portland, Bangor, Waterville: hotels, buying, utilities)

[DavidoftheNorth]

August 6, 2007

[SIZE=3]Maine’s GDP growth among slowest[/SIZE]
Maine’s Gross Domestic Product increased only 1.9% from 2005 to 2006, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The inflation-adjusted rate is slower than all but nine states in the country, and lower than the national growth rate of 3.4% and the New England rate of 2.5%, according to the Portland Press Herald.
The Bureau found that Maine’s strongest industry segments -- agriculture, forestry and fishing -- grew 14.7% last year, reflecting what the paper calls an “old” economy dependent on natural resources rather than higher-wage technology and innovation sectors.
source: Mainebiz Daily=

I suspect some people would point out that trends like this are what keep Maine beautiful, etc. And they're probably right!

[Submariner]

... Maine’s Gross Domestic Product increased only 1.9% from 2005 to 2006, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.

So our economy is growing.

... The inflation-adjusted rate is slower than all but nine states in the country,

So this 'growth' is inflation-adjusted which kind of means that the growth is even more than they are saying.

And yet there are nine other states whose 'growth' is less than ours, or perhaps they did not grow [after you subtract inflation-adjustments]

... The Bureau found that Maine’s strongest industry segments -- agriculture, forestry and fishing -- grew 14.7% last year, reflecting what the paper calls an “old” economy dependent on natural resources rather than higher-wage technology and innovation sectors.

Perhaps I am looking at this wrong.

If a region has segments of it's economy that grew 14.7%, than those segments are the predominate growth industries.

Whether they are 'old' or 'new and sexy', if that is what grew, then why should we talk it down and try to hide it?

In my ignorance I would have assumed that the predominate 'growth industry' would have been tourism.

Whereas "agriculture, forestry and fishing" grew so much [14.7%];
and whereas the total growth was only 1.9%;
then I would imagine that all other industries must have shrunk [since they brought the total growth down so much];
and I would think that since we do have three industries that are experiencing such wonderful growth we should be capitalising on that growth and celebrating it!

... I suspect some people would point out that trends like this are what keep Maine beautiful, etc. And they're probably right!

I agree.

[DavidoftheNorth]

"Whereas "agriculture, forestry and fishing" grew so much [14.7%];"

It does make you wonder: was it potatoes, trees, or lobsters that performed so spectacularly? I'll watch for further details.

[Submariner]

I do understand that colleges and the media want to focus on more sexy and exciting careerfields [ high tech, computer based ].

The article you quoted is written from the viewpoint of how terrible it is be reliant on older industries.

And it even draws a contrast between natural resource industries and 'innovation'. Which is not fair either.

[Elcarim]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

I do understand that colleges and the media want to focus on more sexy and exciting careerfields [ high tech, computer based ].

The article you quoted is written from the viewpoint of how terrible it is be reliant on older industries.

And it even draws a contrast between natural resource industries and 'innovation'. Which is not fair either.

DH was in the computer field for 10 years. He was outsourced right out of there and had to make a complete career change at age 31. The time will come when technology will all but run itself completely. BUT - we will always have to eat and build houses, and I'm not quite sure if technology will ever completely take over farming, fishing and lumber works. I think the "older industries" are still existent for a reason. Modern technology is outdated within a matter of months. Just a thought.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Elcarim

DH was in the computer field for 10 years. He was outsourced right out of there and had to make a complete career change at age 31. The time will come when technology will all but run itself completely. BUT - we will always have to eat and build houses, and I'm not quite sure if technology will ever completely take over farming, fishing and lumber works. I think the "older industries" are still existent for a reason. Modern technology is outdated within a matter of months. Just a thought.

I do understand.

My training was primarily in main-frame computers used onboard submarines. Radar and inertial navigation systems.

My training was cutting edge high-tech at the time. However as the years went by, it became entirely obsolete. I am still offered employment in the Defense Contracting field, due to my experience, however it is working on systems considered dinosaurs.

Chasing the cutting edge of high-tech is a never ending race. And it is one that few walk away the winner. To die from stress is far more the norm in that industry.

Folks will always need food. Folks will always want to build stuff.

[warpedg]

Originally Posted by DavidoftheNorth

But while Portland was a particularly bright spot of Manpower's Maine survey, 69% of employers in the Augusta/Waterville market and 57% in Bangor expect to make no change in staffing levels this summer.

source: Mainebiz Daily

....And this is why I moved to southern Maine....LOVED living in Winterport but the job I held in Belfast was one in a million for that area....pay-wise that is...employer-wise is another story.

[DavidoftheNorth]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

I do understand that colleges and the media want to focus on more sexy and exciting careerfields [ high tech, computer based ].

The article you quoted is written from the viewpoint of how terrible it is be reliant on older industries.

And it even draws a contrast between natural resource industries and 'innovation'. Which is not fair either.

Good point, Forest. I too was a little surprised at the somewhat subjective comment in the report about the "old economy". I don't know if the science of economics has determined that a progression from "old" to "new" is the natural order of the universe, but the implication is there. Unfortunately we can't refute their insinuation by pointing to Maine's economy as "robust" or "vibrant", but maybe Maine should be satisfied with being a beautiful, unspoiled state with "enough economy to get us by".

[DavidoftheNorth]

Fri, 17 Aug 2007

[SIZE=2]Higher electricity costs last year made Maine jump 11 places in an annual cost-of-doing-business ranking released yesterday.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Maine leaped from the 28th most expensive in the U.S. to 17th, the biggest increase of any state, according to the MilkenInstitute.Org > Research > Indexes= from the Milken Institute in Los Angeles. Maine's electricity costs rose from six percent higher than the national average in 2006 to 43% above the national average, the study said.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The institute studied figures including wage costs, taxes and real estate prices to create the rankings. The least expensive place to do business was Arkansas, while the most expensive was Hawaii[/SIZE]

source: Mainebiz Daily=

[Let's tell the truth]

Originally Posted by DavidoftheNorth

Fri, 17 Aug 2007

[SIZE=2]Higher electricity costs last year made Maine jump 11 places in an annual cost-of-doing-business ranking released yesterday.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Maine leaped from the 28th most expensive in the U.S. to 17th, the biggest increase of any state, according to the MilkenInstitute.Org > Research > Indexes= from the Milken Institute in Los Angeles. Maine's electricity costs rose from six percent higher than the national average in 2006 to 43% above the national average, the study said.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The institute studied figures including wage costs, taxes and real estate prices to create the rankings. The least expensive place to do business was Arkansas, while the most expensive was Hawaii[/SIZE]

source: Mainebiz Daily=

From 6% to 43% !!!! Houston we have a problem!!!I remember about 5 year's ago we use to pay $120.00 a year for our city sewer bill. Then the water company decided to combine our water bill and sewer bill to both be changed to monthly billing combined on one bill. 5 year's ago my water bill was $30.00 every 3 month. So per year then I was paying app.$240.00 for total of both my sewer and water.My last water bill was just a little over $100.00 now I am paying $400.00 a year maybe small amount but what % is that!!! I've never been good with % SORRY