The U.S. economy has been on a growth trajectory for the past decade, since its recovery from the depths of the Great Recession. Since the last presidential election, U.S. annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has expanded from about $19 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2016 to $21.5 trillion in the third quarter of 2019.
Although economic growth has been strong and steady, the fruits of this growth have not been evenly distributed throughout the U.S. In this study, AdvisorSmith examined data from all 50 U.S. states, along with the District of Columbia, to determine the states where economic growth has been the strongest since the end of 2016, when the last presidential election was held. Factors our study considered include the growth rates of each state’s GDP per capita, median household income, unemployment rate, and labor force participation rates.
The top states in our study for economic growth were Louisiana, Washington, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and California. The worst performing states were South Dakota, Connecticut, Alaska, Delaware, and North Carolina.
Economic Growth by States Ranked
Our study ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia on economic growth since the last presidential election based on four major factors. We assigned scores to each state based on growth in GDP per capita, growth in median household income, reduction in unemployment, and increase in labor force participation. States were ranked based upon a weighted average of their scores, and the full ranking is available in the table below.
| Rank | State | GDP Score | Household Income Score | Unemployment Rate Score | Labor Force Participation Score | Total Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Louisiana | 100.0 | 92.6 | 25.0 | 51.9 | 84.7 |
| 2 | Washington | 89.3 | 76.6 | 37.5 | 72.2 | 77.3 |
| 3 | West Virginia | 80.3 | 78.6 | 28.1 | 100.0 | 76.4 |
| 4 | Massachusetts | 64.2 | 95.9 | 34.4 | 78.3 | 75.3 |
| 5 | California | 92.9 | 51.8 | 50.0 | 52.4 | 68.1 |
| 6 | Oregon | 64.1 | 88.0 | 21.9 | 35.7 | 66.6 |
| 7 | Oklahoma | 86.6 | 55.3 | 43.8 | 47.9 | 65.9 |
| 8 | Wyoming | 78.6 | 59.6 | 62.5 | 36.2 | 65.1 |
| 9 | Illinois | 56.4 | 79.4 | 59.4 | 47.8 | 65.0 |
| 10 | Alabama | 63.7 | 51.7 | 100.0 | 70.1 | 63.1 |
| 11 | New York | 71.5 | 64.0 | 28.1 | 58.5 | 62.8 |
| 12 | Texas | 91.2 | 41.9 | 43.8 | 50.0 | 62.6 |
| 13 | Utah | 56.0 | 79.2 | 43.8 | 33.0 | 61.8 |
| 14 | Nevada | 52.7 | 70.8 | 50.0 | 67.9 | 61.2 |
| 15 | Maryland | 38.0 | 87.8 | 34.4 | 74.0 | 61.1 |
| 16 | Maine | 52.4 | 82.9 | 37.5 | 29.0 | 60.7 |
| 17 | Virginia | 36.8 | 85.2 | 50.0 | 68.5 | 60.7 |
| 18 | Ohio | 48.4 | 79.1 | 40.6 | 49.9 | 60.0 |
| 19 | District of Columbia | 32.2 | 100.0 | 18.8 | 49.4 | 59.7 |
| 20 | Missouri | 47.4 | 72.8 | 50.0 | 61.8 | 59.2 |
| 21 | Arizona | 58.7 | 62.6 | 25.0 | 80.7 | 59.1 |
| 22 | Kentucky | 26.2 | 98.3 | 40.6 | 49.8 | 58.9 |
| 23 | Hawaii | 73.6 | 69.1 | 0.0 | 10.1 | 58.1 |
| 24 | North Dakota | 60.3 | 67.3 | 43.8 | 19.4 | 57.3 |
| 25 | Iowa | 19.2 | 85.8 | 50.0 | 90.6 | 56.1 |
| 26 | Tennessee | 40.4 | 63.0 | 43.8 | 75.6 | 53.3 |
| 27 | New Mexico | 73.7 | 31.1 | 56.3 | 55.6 | 53.1 |
| 28 | Vermont | 35.6 | 82.3 | 43.8 | 13.5 | 52.9 |
| 29 | Kansas | 37.1 | 73.9 | 31.3 | 52.9 | 52.8 |
| 30 | Colorado | 63.4 | 44.1 | 15.6 | 81.4 | 52.7 |
| 31 | South Carolina | 48.3 | 51.6 | 84.4 | 41.2 | 52.5 |
| 32 | Florida | 46.4 | 55.1 | 56.3 | 57.8 | 52.0 |
| 33 | New Hampshire | 56.5 | 54.7 | 15.6 | 54.2 | 51.5 |
| 34 | Pennsylvania | 55.2 | 51.9 | 21.9 | 64.8 | 51.5 |
| 35 | New Jersey | 44.6 | 60.2 | 37.5 | 56.8 | 51.4 |
| 36 | Idaho | 49.1 | 45.2 | 46.9 | 52.6 | 47.7 |
| 37 | Georgia | 43.5 | 46.8 | 71.9 | 34.3 | 46.7 |
| 38 | Arkansas | 35.7 | 60.5 | 18.8 | 55.5 | 45.9 |
| 39 | Mississippi | 51.4 | 46.1 | 12.5 | 38.6 | 44.1 |
| 40 | Indiana | 33.8 | 55.0 | 34.4 | 50.1 | 44.0 |
| 41 | Nebraska | 10.4 | 77.9 | 3.1 | 64.3 | 42.1 |
| 42 | Montana | 48.2 | 35.9 | 43.8 | 38.0 | 41.8 |
| 43 | Michigan | 29.3 | 52.1 | 40.6 | 49.1 | 41.5 |
| 44 | Wisconsin | 39.8 | 48.2 | 25.0 | 23.8 | 40.1 |
| 45 | Rhode Island | 38.2 | 36.4 | 50.0 | 45.0 | 39.3 |
| 46 | Minnesota | 32.1 | 40.0 | 53.1 | 47.8 | 38.9 |
| 47 | North Carolina | 34.1 | 29.8 | 43.8 | 59.5 | 35.9 |
| 48 | Delaware | 2.3 | 72.1 | 15.6 | 41.7 | 35.5 |
| 49 | Alaska | 66.6 | 0.0 | 53.1 | 0.0 | 32.0 |
| 50 | Connecticut | 32.0 | 18.1 | 31.3 | 61.8 | 29.4 |
| 51 | South Dakota | 0.0 | 44.2 | 21.9 | 51.1 | 25.0 |
Top States for Economic Growth
1. Louisiana
The southern state of Louisiana was ranked first in economic growth since the last election. GDP in Louisiana grew from $229.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016 to $263 billion in the second quarter of 2019, while median household income grew from $42,196 per household at the end of 2016 to $49,973 per household at the end of 2018. The unemployment rate in Louisiana fell by 0.6% during the study period, decreasing from 5.3% to 4.7%, while the labor force participation rate increased 0.7% from 58.1% to 58.8% over the study period.
The largest increases in GDP in Louisiana during the study period came from nondurable goods manufacturing (which includes fuel), with an increase of $14.3 billion, followed by mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, which increased by $3.2 billion, and real estate and rental and leasing, which increased by $2.5 billion.
2. Washington
The Pacific Northwest state of Washington came in second in our study. GDP in the state grew by $93.3 billion from $503.1 billion to $596.4 billion from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2019. Median household income in the state grew from $70,310 at the end of 2016 to $79,726 at the end of 2018. Unemployment in Washington state was reduced by 1%, from 5.1% in December 2016 to 4.1% in October 2019. Labor force participation increased 1.9% from 63.3% to 65.3% during the same period.
GDP growth in the state of Washington was led by real estate and rental and leasing, with an increase of $12.4 billion, reflecting the state’s strong real estate market, followed by retail trade at $8.7 billion and government and government enterprises at $8.4 billion. Professional, scientific, and technical services posted growth of $7.1 billion, reflecting the technology industry’s continued growth in the state.
3. West Virginia
West Virginia ranked third in our study of states with the best economic growth since the last election. West Virginia’s GDP grew from $70.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016 to $78.3 billion in the second quarter of 2019, which is growth of $7.8 billion. Median household income increased from $44,354 in 2016 to $50,573 in 2018, and unemployment decreased 0.7% from 5.2% to 4.5% during December 2016 through October 2019. Labor force participation increased the most out of all the states, with an increase of 3.6% from 52.4% up to 56%.
In West Virginia, the state’s GDP growth was led by the construction industry, with growth of $1.4 billion, followed by the the mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction industry, with growth of $995 million, and health care and social assistance, with growth of $958 million.
4. Massachusetts
The northeast state of Massachusetts ranked fourth in our study. GDP in the state grew from $525.9 billion to $592.6 billion over the period from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2019, a total growth of $66.7 billion. Median household income income went from $72,266 to $86,345, and the unemployment rate dropped by 0.9% from 3.4% to 2.5% from December 2016 through October 2019. Labor force participation increased by 2.3%, growing from 65.3% to 67.6% in the same period.
Economic growth in Massachusetts was led by the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, with growth of $12.7 billion, reflecting the state’s growing technology economy. Other top sectors included real estate and rental and leasing, with $9.2 billion of growth; finance and insurance, which had $6.6 billion of growth; and information, with $4.7 billion of growth.
5. California
California, the state with the largest economy in the United States, came in fifth in our study. The Golden State had GDP growth of $421 billion, from $2.7 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2016 to $3.1 trillion in the second quarter of 2019. California’s median household income rose from $66,637 to $70,489 from 2016-2018. The state’s unemployment rate fell by 1.4% from 5.1% to 3.7% from December 2016 to October 2019, while labor force participation grew by 0.7% from 61.8% to 62.6% over the same period.
California’s economic growth was led by its technology sector, with the information sector posting growth of $58 billion, and professional, scientific, and technical services growing by $51.7 billion over the study period. However, the highest contributor to GDP was the state’s real estate and rental and leasing sector, which added $70.8 billion to GDP over the study period.
Bottom States for Economic Growth
51. South Dakota
The Great Plains state of South Dakota had the worst economic growth in our study. GDP in South Dakota grew from $49.5 billion to $53 billion over the study period, a growth of $3.5 Billion. Median household income went from $57,450 to $59,463 from 2016 to 2018, which was 42nd in the country. The state’s unemployment rate fell 0.5% from 3.3% to 2.8% from December 2016 through October 2019, while the labor force participation rate increased 0.7% from 68.6% to 69.3% over the same period.
Industries that contracted in South Dakota over the study period included mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, which decreased by $28.1 million, and educational services, which decreased by $21.6 million.
50. Connecticut
Connecticut’s economy expanded GDP by $19.7 billion from $264.7 billion to $284.4 billion from the fourth quarter of 2016 through the second quarter of 2019. Median household income in the state decreased 2.1%, from $75,923 to $72,812, one of only four states with declining median household income during the study period. Unemployment was reduced by 0.8%, from 4.3% to 3.5%, while labor force participation increased 1.3% from 65.5% to 66.8% from December 2016 through October 2019.
In Connecticut, the industries that shrunk included the finance and insurance industry, which reduced GDP by $1 billion; the mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction industry, which contracted by $111.7 million; and management of companies and enterprises, which decreased by $72.2 million.
49. Alaska
Alaska, one of two non-contiguous U.S. states, was the third worst performer in our study. Alaska’s GDP grew by $5.4 billion over the study period, from $50.1 billion to $55.5 billion. Alaska’s median household income shrunk the most of any state, with the figure falling from $75,723 in 2016 to $68,734 in 2018. The unemployment rate in the state fell 1.5% from 7.1% to 5.6%, but the labor force participation rate also fell 2.4%, from 65.4% to 63%, so some of the reduction in the employment rate is attributable to workers dropping out of the labor force.
The weakest industries in Alaska during the study period included the information industry, which contracted by $49.3 million; the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry, which posted a reduction of $4.4 million; and the utilities industry, which shrunk by $5.1 million.
48. Delaware
The Mid-Atlantic state of Delaware was fourth among our worst performing states, with GDP growing $4.9 billion over the study period from $70.4 billion to $75.2 billion. Median household income in the state grew from $58,046 to $65,012 during the study period. Unemployment decreased 0.3% from 4.1% to 3.8%, while labor force participation was roughly flat, starting at 62.4% and ending at 62.4%.
Some of the industries that shrunk the most in Delaware included management of companies and enterprises, which posted a contraction of $190.4 million; wholesale trade, with a contraction of $187.6 million; and the information industry, which was down $47.8 million.
47. North Carolina
North Carolina’s GDP posted an increase of $57 billion, rising from $528 billion to $585 billion from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2019. Median household income in the state declined slightly, from $53,764 in 2016 to $53,369 in 2018, while unemployment was reduced by 1.2% from 4.8% to 3.6%. Labor force participation increased 1.2% from 61% to 62.2% from December 2016 through October 2019.
Industries in North Carolina that reduced GDP included nondurable goods manufacturing, which contracted $1.5 billion, and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, which shrunk by $268 million.
States Ranked by GDP Growth Per Capita
GDP is a measure of all the goods and services produced by a state economy. We adjust this metric for the number of people in each state to produce the GDP per capita metric, which provides insight into the output per person in each state economy. We list the states and D.C. based upon their GDP per capita rank below.
| Rank | State | Annualized Change in GDP Per Capita | 2016 Q4 GDP Per Capita | 2019 Q2 GDP Per Capita |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Louisiana | 5.8% | $49,081 | $56,508 |
| 2 | California | 5.5% | $68,928 | $78,811 |
| 3 | Texas | 5.4% | $57,087 | $65,162 |
| 4 | Washington | 5.4% | $68,969 | $78,577 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 5.2% | $45,961 | $52,230 |
| 6 | West Virginia | 5.0% | $38,491 | $43,472 |
| 7 | Wyoming | 4.9% | $61,239 | $69,045 |
| 8 | New Mexico | 4.7% | $44,140 | $49,529 |
| 9 | Hawaii | 4.7% | $60,830 | $68,250 |
| 10 | New York | 4.6% | $79,057 | $88,511 |
| 11 | Alaska | 4.4% | $67,621 | $75,347 |
| 12 | Massachusetts | 4.3% | $77,044 | $85,642 |
| 13 | Oregon | 4.3% | $53,472 | $59,433 |
| 14 | Alabama | 4.3% | $42,297 | $46,992 |
| 15 | Colorado | 4.3% | $61,074 | $67,835 |
| 16 | North Dakota | 4.2% | $67,645 | $74,906 |
| 17 | Arizona | 4.1% | $45,616 | $50,434 |
| 18 | New Hampshire | 4.0% | $58,765 | $64,831 |
| 19 | Illinois | 4.0% | $63,681 | $70,241 |
| 20 | Utah | 4.0% | $53,316 | $58,789 |
| 21 | Pennsylvania | 4.0% | $57,406 | $63,246 |
| 22 | Nevada | 3.8% | $52,585 | $57,792 |
| 23 | Maine | 3.8% | $45,603 | $50,103 |
| 24 | Mississippi | 3.8% | $36,082 | $39,604 |
| 25 | Idaho | 3.7% | $41,496 | $45,441 |
| 26 | Ohio | 3.7% | $54,357 | $59,486 |
| 27 | South Carolina | 3.7% | $43,809 | $47,937 |
| 28 | Montana | 3.7% | $44,478 | $48,664 |
| 29 | Missouri | 3.6% | $49,278 | $53,874 |
| 30 | Florida | 3.6% | $46,412 | $50,689 |
| 31 | New Jersey | 3.5% | $66,032 | $71,993 |
| 32 | Georgia | 3.5% | $53,275 | $58,015 |
| 33 | Tennessee | 3.3% | $51,255 | $55,644 |
| 34 | Wisconsin | 3.3% | $54,744 | $59,399 |
| 35 | Rhode Island | 3.3% | $55,210 | $59,810 |
| 36 | Maryland | 3.2% | $65,064 | $70,465 |
| 37 | Kansas | 3.2% | $54,709 | $59,198 |
| 38 | Virginia | 3.2% | $59,719 | $64,605 |
| 39 | Arkansas | 3.1% | $40,594 | $43,866 |
| 40 | Vermont | 3.1% | $51,097 | $55,211 |
| 41 | North Carolina | 3.1% | $51,968 | $56,066 |
| 42 | Indiana | 3.1% | $51,922 | $56,001 |
| 43 | District of Columbia | 3.0% | $191,348 | $206,042 |
| 44 | Minnesota | 3.0% | $62,574 | $67,374 |
| 45 | Connecticut | 3.0% | $73,955 | $79,623 |
| 46 | Michigan | 2.9% | $50,192 | $53,891 |
| 47 | Kentucky | 2.8% | $44,618 | $47,759 |
| 48 | Iowa | 2.5% | $57,744 | $61,372 |
| 49 | Nebraska | 2.1% | $61,979 | $65,298 |
| 50 | Delaware | 1.8% | $74,117 | $77,444 |
| 51 | South Dakota | 1.7% | $57,390 | $59,828 |
Median Household Income Growth by State
Although GDP is an important metric for measuring the total economic growth in a state, it doesn’t provide a full measure of how economic growth is felt by individuals and households, as economic gains are distributed unevenly between economic participants. Median household income provides a snapshot of the income received by the median household in a state, and it can provide a picture of how the economy “feels” to typical households. The 50 states and D.C. are ranked below based on their growth in this metric.
| Rank | State | Annualized Change in Median Household Income | 2016 Median Household Income | 2018 Median Household Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | District of Columbia | 9.9% | $70,982 | $85,750 |
| 2 | Kentucky | 9.7% | $45,369 | $54,555 |
| 3 | Massachusetts | 9.3% | $72,266 | $86,345 |
| 4 | Louisiana | 8.8% | $42,196 | $49,973 |
| 5 | Oregon | 8.1% | $59,135 | $69,165 |
| 6 | Maryland | 8.1% | $73,760 | $86,223 |
| 7 | Iowa | 7.8% | $59,094 | $68,718 |
| 8 | Virginia | 7.8% | $66,451 | $77,151 |
| 9 | Maine | 7.4% | $50,856 | $58,663 |
| 10 | Vermont | 7.3% | $60,837 | $70,066 |
| 11 | Illinois | 6.9% | $61,386 | $70,145 |
| 12 | Utah | 6.9% | $67,481 | $77,067 |
| 13 | Ohio | 6.8% | $53,985 | $61,633 |
| 14 | West Virginia | 6.8% | $44,354 | $50,573 |
| 15 | Nebraska | 6.7% | $59,374 | $67,575 |
| 16 | Washington | 6.5% | $70,310 | $79,726 |
| 17 | Kansas | 6.1% | $56,810 | $63,938 |
| 18 | Missouri | 5.9% | $55,016 | $61,726 |
| 19 | Delaware | 5.8% | $58,046 | $65,012 |
| 20 | Nevada | 5.6% | $55,431 | $61,864 |
| 21 | Hawaii | 5.4% | $72,133 | $80,108 |
| 22 | North Dakota | 5.1% | $60,184 | $66,505 |
| 23 | New York | 4.6% | $61,437 | $67,274 |
| 24 | Tennessee | 4.5% | $51,344 | $56,060 |
| 25 | Arizona | 4.4% | $57,100 | $62,283 |
| 26 | Arkansas | 4.1% | $45,907 | $49,781 |
| 27 | New Jersey | 4.1% | $68,468 | $74,176 |
| 28 | Wyoming | 4.0% | $57,829 | $62,539 |
| 29 | Oklahoma | 3.4% | $50,943 | $54,434 |
| 30 | Florida | 3.3% | $51,176 | $54,644 |
| 31 | Indiana | 3.3% | $56,094 | $59,892 |
| 32 | New Hampshire | 3.3% | $76,260 | $81,346 |
| 33 | Michigan | 2.9% | $57,091 | $60,449 |
| 34 | Pennsylvania | 2.9% | $60,979 | $64,524 |
| 35 | California | 2.8% | $66,637 | $70,489 |
| 36 | Alabama | 2.8% | $47,221 | $49,936 |
| 37 | South Carolina | 2.8% | $54,336 | $57,444 |
| 38 | Wisconsin | 2.3% | $59,817 | $62,629 |
| 39 | Georgia | 2.1% | $53,527 | $55,821 |
| 40 | Mississippi | 2.0% | $41,099 | $42,781 |
| 41 | Idaho | 1.9% | $56,564 | $58,728 |
| 42 | South Dakota | 1.7% | $57,450 | $59,463 |
| 43 | Colorado | 1.7% | $70,566 | $73,034 |
| 44 | Texas | 1.4% | $58,146 | $59,785 |
| 45 | Minnesota | 1.1% | $70,218 | $71,817 |
| 46 | Rhode Island | 0.6% | $61,528 | $62,266 |
| 47 | Montana | 0.5% | $57,075 | $57,679 |
| 48 | New Mexico | -0.2% | $48,451 | $48,283 |
| 49 | North Carolina | -0.4% | $53,764 | $53,369 |
| 50 | Connecticut | -2.1% | $75,923 | $72,812 |
| 51 | Alaska | -4.7% | $75,723 | $68,734 |
Greatest Decreases in Unemployment Rate by State
The unemployment rate measures the number of people who are actively looking for a job divided by the number of people currently in the labor force. The labor force includes both those who currently have a job and those who are actively looking for a job. Generally, the unemployment rate will fall as the economy improves and employers increase their hiring. The table below ranks states on the change in unemployment rate since the end of 2016.
| Rank | State | Change in Unemployment Rate | December 2016 Unemployment Rate | October 2019 Unemployment Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | -3.0% | 5.4% | 2.4% |
| 2 | South Carolina | -2.5% | 4.6% | 2.1% |
| 3 | Georgia | -2.1% | 5.1% | 3.0% |
| 4 | Wyoming | -1.8% | 5.1% | 3.3% |
| 5 | Illinois | -1.7% | 5.3% | 3.6% |
| 6 | Florida | -1.6% | 4.5% | 2.9% |
| 7 | New Mexico | -1.6% | 6.1% | 4.5% |
| 8 | Minnesota | -1.5% | 4.0% | 2.5% |
| 9 | Alaska | -1.5% | 7.1% | 5.6% |
| 10 | Virginia | -1.4% | 3.8% | 2.4% |
| 11 | Missouri | -1.4% | 3.9% | 2.5% |
| 12 | Iowa | -1.4% | 3.5% | 2.1% |
| 13 | Rhode Island | -1.4% | 4.3% | 2.9% |
| 14 | California | -1.4% | 5.1% | 3.7% |
| 15 | Nevada | -1.4% | 5.1% | 3.7% |
| 16 | Idaho | -1.3% | 3.6% | 2.3% |
| 17 | Oklahoma | -1.2% | 4.5% | 3.3% |
| 18 | Texas | -1.2% | 4.5% | 3.3% |
| 19 | Tennessee | -1.2% | 4.4% | 3.2% |
| 20 | Utah | -1.2% | 3.0% | 1.8% |
| 21 | North Dakota | -1.2% | 2.9% | 1.7% |
| 22 | Vermont | -1.2% | 2.8% | 1.6% |
| 23 | Montana | -1.2% | 4.3% | 3.1% |
| 24 | North Carolina | -1.2% | 4.8% | 3.6% |
| 25 | Ohio | -1.1% | 5.0% | 3.9% |
| 26 | Kentucky | -1.1% | 4.8% | 3.7% |
| 27 | Michigan | -1.1% | 4.6% | 3.5% |
| 28 | Washington | -1.0% | 5.1% | 4.1% |
| 29 | Maine | -1.0% | 3.4% | 2.4% |
| 30 | New Jersey | -1.0% | 4.3% | 3.3% |
| 31 | Massachusetts | -0.9% | 3.4% | 2.5% |
| 32 | Indiana | -0.9% | 3.9% | 3.0% |
| 33 | Maryland | -0.9% | 4.1% | 3.2% |
| 34 | Kansas | -0.8% | 3.6% | 2.8% |
| 35 | Connecticut | -0.8% | 4.3% | 3.5% |
| 36 | West Virginia | -0.7% | 5.2% | 4.5% |
| 37 | New York | -0.7% | 4.6% | 3.9% |
| 38 | Arizona | -0.6% | 4.9% | 4.3% |
| 39 | Wisconsin | -0.6% | 3.4% | 2.8% |
| 40 | Louisiana | -0.6% | 5.3% | 4.7% |
| 41 | Oregon | -0.5% | 4.0% | 3.5% |
| 42 | Pennsylvania | -0.5% | 4.8% | 4.3% |
| 43 | South Dakota | -0.5% | 3.3% | 2.8% |
| 44 | District of Columbia | -0.4% | 5.7% | 5.3% |
| 45 | Arkansas | -0.4% | 3.6% | 3.2% |
| 46 | Colorado | -0.3% | 2.7% | 2.4% |
| 47 | New Hampshire | -0.3% | 2.6% | 2.3% |
| 48 | Delaware | -0.3% | 4.1% | 3.8% |
| 49 | Mississippi | -0.2% | 5.4% | 5.2% |
| 50 | Nebraska | 0.1% | 2.9% | 3.0% |
| 51 | Hawaii | 0.2% | 2.4% | 2.6% |
State Increases in Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force participation is a measure of the labor force divided by the civilian, non-institutional population of a state. This metric generally rises as the economy improves because as jobs become more available or salaries rise, people who were not working or not looking for a job are induced by economic conditions to consider working. Below, we rank the states on their change in labor force participation rates since the last election.
| Rank | State | Change in Labor Force Participation Rate | December 2016 Labor Force Participation Rate | October 2019 Labor Force Participation Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | West Virginia | 3.6% | 52% | 56% |
| 2 | Iowa | 3.0% | 68% | 71% |
| 3 | Colorado | 2.5% | 67% | 69% |
| 4 | Arizona | 2.4% | 60% | 63% |
| 5 | Massachusetts | 2.3% | 65% | 68% |
| 6 | Tennessee | 2.1% | 60% | 62% |
| 7 | Maryland | 2.0% | 67% | 69% |
| 8 | Washington | 1.9% | 63% | 65% |
| 9 | Alabama | 1.8% | 57% | 59% |
| 10 | Virginia | 1.7% | 65% | 66% |
| 11 | Nevada | 1.7% | 62% | 64% |
| 12 | Pennsylvania | 1.5% | 62% | 64% |
| 13 | Nebraska | 1.5% | 69% | 70% |
| 14 | Connecticut | 1.3% | 66% | 67% |
| 15 | Missouri | 1.3% | 64% | 65% |
| 16 | North Carolina | 1.2% | 61% | 62% |
| 17 | New York | 1.1% | 60% | 61% |
| 18 | Florida | 1.1% | 59% | 60% |
| 19 | New Jersey | 1.0% | 63% | 64% |
| 20 | New Mexico | 0.9% | 58% | 59% |
| 21 | Arkansas | 0.9% | 57% | 58% |
| 22 | New Hampshire | 0.8% | 68% | 69% |
| 23 | Kansas | 0.8% | 67% | 67% |
| 24 | Idaho | 0.7% | 64% | 64% |
| 25 | California | 0.7% | 62% | 63% |
| 26 | Louisiana | 0.7% | 58% | 59% |
| 27 | South Dakota | 0.7% | 69% | 69% |
| 28 | Indiana | 0.6% | 64% | 64% |
| 29 | Texas | 0.6% | 64% | 64% |
| 30 | Ohio | 0.6% | 62% | 63% |
| 31 | Kentucky | 0.6% | 59% | 59% |
| 32 | District of Columbia | 0.6% | 70% | 70% |
| 33 | Michigan | 0.5% | 61% | 62% |
| 34 | Oklahoma | 0.5% | 61% | 61% |
| 35 | Illinois | 0.5% | 64% | 65% |
| 36 | Minnesota | 0.5% | 70% | 71% |
| 37 | Rhode Island | 0.3% | 64% | 65% |
| 38 | Delaware | 0.1% | 62% | 62% |
| 39 | South Carolina | 0.1% | 58% | 58% |
| 40 | Mississippi | -0.1% | 56% | 56% |
| 41 | Montana | -0.1% | 63% | 62% |
| 42 | Wyoming | -0.2% | 66% | 65% |
| 43 | Oregon | -0.3% | 62% | 62% |
| 44 | Georgia | -0.4% | 63% | 62% |
| 45 | Utah | -0.4% | 69% | 68% |
| 46 | Maine | -0.7% | 63% | 62% |
| 47 | Wisconsin | -1.0% | 68% | 67% |
| 48 | North Dakota | -1.3% | 70% | 69% |
| 49 | Vermont | -1.6% | 67% | 65% |
| 50 | Hawaii | -1.8% | 63% | 61% |
| 51 | Alaska | -2.4% | 65% | 63% |
Methodology
AdvisorSmith’s study considered the growth among the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia using four statistics: GDP per capita, median household income, unemployment rate, and labor force participation rate. For each of these metrics, we created a score ranging from 0-100 based upon the state’s growth (or in the case of unemployment rate, the reduction in unemployment rate). We then took a weighted average of the scores, with higher weightings for GDP per capita and median household income growth, to create a composite score for the 50 states and D.C., and we then ranked the states by this composite score.
To calculate GDP per capita, we examined data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product by State from the fourth quarter of 2016 and the second quarter of 2019, which was the most recent available quarter at the state level. We also took population estimates from the Census Bureau National and State Population Estimates. We used the National Population level data to adjust estimated state population levels to the second quarter of 2019. We then divided state GDP by the adjusted population and calculated the annualized growth rate in GDP per capita by state. Annualized GDP growth rates per capita ranged from 1.7% to 5.8% among the states.
The change in median household income was calculated using data from the Census Bureau Current Population Survey. We compared the change in median household income from the end of 2016 to the end of 2018, the most recent figures that were available at the state level. Changes in median household income ranged from as low as a decrease of 4.73% to an increase of 10% among the 50 states and D.C.
Our study also examined changes in the unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate from December 2016 through October 2019. For the unemployment rate, we used unemployment statistics by state from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we measured the absolute changes in the unemployment rate. States with larger reductions in the unemployment rate received higher scores in our study. The range of unemployment rate changes spanned from a reduction of 3% to an increase of 0.2%.
Labor force participation rates were calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which measures the number of people in the labor force (actively employed or actively looking for employment) as well as the civilian, non-institutional population in each state. We calculated the change in the labor force participation rate for each state and ranked the states with larger increases in the rate more highly.
Sources
[1] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product by State
[2] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics
[3] U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey
[4] U.S. Census Bureau National and State Population Estimates