Minnesota state economist Tom Stinson: The exit interview

  • Article by: LORI STURDEVANT , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 29, 2013 - 5:08 PM

Minnesota isn’t broken, says its state economist as he leaves the post after 26 years. Don’t try to fix it without knowing the source of its success.


Tom Stinson at a recent news conference. He’ll be succeeded by Laura Kalambokidis, a professor of applied economics at the University of Minnesota.

Photo: Glen Stubbe • Star Tribune,

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger

Minnesota is economically stronger than you might think.

Make that: Minnesota is economically stronger than Tom Stinson thought it was 26 years ago, when he moved into the humble office in the Centennial Building that says “state economist” on the door.

Stinson has started vacating that office. A farewell party Thursday afternoon applauded his service and poked fun at his deadpan wit. Sometime next month, he’ll quietly slip away to the similarly humble quarters at the University of Minnesota that, because the state economist job is part time, he never really left.

He retires from his state job wanting Minnesotans to know what he discovered to his surprise in 1987 and holds is still true: Despite perpetual frets about the business climate and fears about job flight, Minnesota is in good economic shape.

“Minnesota is not broken,” Stinson told me recently. “That doesn’t mean we can’t do better in the future. But we have the luxury of making careful, considered decisions.”

Threats to Minnesota’s prosperity lie ahead, he said. But if you think the big one is high taxes, he has a surprise for you. Here are excerpts of our conversation:

Q: What did Minnesota do to build an economy stronger than even an economist like you expected?

A: When I compared where we were in the 1960s to where we are now, one of the things that just jumped out at me is the improvement in the education of the workforce. It’s just amazing, when you go back and look at it. It wasn’t that we had bigger, faster machines or anything like that. It was the productivity of the worker. That’s been the Minnesota competitive advantage.

Q: So is the potential erosion of worker productivity the biggest threat to Minnesota’s success?

A: Yes, it is. We’re going to have to have more output going forward. There’s only two ways to have that — either more people making stuff, or the amount of stuff each person makes increases. You can push on the “more people” side by attracting and keeping workers in the state, but that only goes so far. More productivity is going to be needed, and productivity and education are closely tied.

Q: High taxes aren’t a big problem?

A: We have never been a low-tax state. That’s not our competitive advantage. Our advantage is the quality of our workforce. In order to keep that so, you have to have public-­sector resources to make human-­capital investments. I’ve seen that bright 20- and 30-year-olds don’t make location decisions based on tax rates. They think about the quality of life and the availability of amenities.

Q: The natural growth in the population won’t give Minnesota enough workers?

A: No. The numbers show that we’re not going to have much labor growth in the next couple of decades. We’re in a situation in which we need to make the best use of the workforce that we have.

With our aging population, we’re in a funny situation. We don’t have an extraordinarily high dependency ratio right now, that is, the ratio of people under 16 and over 65 to those in the workforce. But it’s going to go up, and it’s going to go up pretty substantially. The ratio was a lot higher in the 1950s and 1960s, because of the large number of children then. That was a problem that was going to solve itself. This problem isn’t. We’re not going to have 89-year-olds going back to work. But if we can make it easier for the mature worker to stay involved in the workforce longer, even if only by a little bit, that will do us good.

Q: I like that description, “the mature worker.” What’s needed to make that happen?

A: I’m not sure state government can do a lot about this. But if there’s a way we can encourage a better situation for the mature worker, that’s going to be important for us. I’d tell employers, to the extent you are able to do this, you’re likely to be more successful. Mature workers are often quite productive. They show up for work.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters




question of the day

Poll: Do you support or oppose the multi-national deal with Iran over nuclear weaponry?

Weekly Question