T he value of the Mississippi Leading Index (MLI) fell 1.0

percent in August as seen in Figure 1 below. The de-

crease was primarily due to declines in the value of with-

holdings and consumer expectations. The value of the MLI

was 2.5 percent higher in August compared to one year

ago, the smallest year-over-year increase since June 2014.

As Figure 2 below indicates, the value of the Mississippi

Coincident Index (MCI) rose 0.9 percent in August. Com-

pared to one year ago the value of the MCI was 3.8 per-

cent higher in August. The MCI has increased in value

each month in 2015 thus far.

According to the third estimate of the U.S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis (BEA) the change in real U.S. gross

domestic product (GDP) for the second quarter was 3.9

percent. The third estimate rose 0.2 percentage point

from the second estimate. The increase resulted from

higher assessments for personal consumption expendi-

tures and nonresidential fixed investment than originally

reported. Much like in 2014, the U.S. economy rebound-

ed relatively strongly in the second quarter from a weak

first quarter. However, real GDP growth for all of 2015 is

expected to about the same as or below the 2.4 percent

increase in 2014.

The outlook for Mississippi’s economy took a hit in Au-

gust as a decline in withholdings helped drive down the

value of the MLI. However, employment numbers, despite

a downward revision to the July data, remain improved

compared to the first eight months of 2014. Nevertheless,

if consumer expectations and the U.S. manufacturing in-

dustry continue to struggle, the state’s economy may ex-

perience little growth in the remainder of 2015.

Corey Miller, Economic Analyst • 3825 Ridgewood Road, Jackson, MS 39211 • cmiller@mississippi.edu • www.mississippi.edu/urc

Mississippi Leading Index, August 2015 2

Mississippi Coincident Index, August 2015 4

National Trends 5

Mississippi Employment Trends 8

Food Deserts and Food Insecurity in Mississippi 11

Inside this issue:

To download the current issue of Mississippi’s Business as

well as view an archive of past issues, visit:

www.mississippi.edu/urc/publications.asp

Sources: University Research Center and The Conference Board Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and The Conference Board

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Figure 1. Leading indices

U.S. Mississippi

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Figure 2. Coincident indices

U.S. Mississippi

ECONOMY AT A GLANCE

VOLUME 73, NUMBER 10

OCTOBER 2015

A Publ icat ion of the Univers i ty Research Center , Miss i ss ipp i Inst i tut ions of Higher Learn ing

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINESS

Notes: The Mississippi Coincident Index is constructed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and re-indexed to 2004. The Index is based on changes in nonfarm employment, the unemployment rate, average manufacturing workweek length, and wage and salary disbursements. The Mississippi Leading Index is constructed by the Mississippi University Research Center. The U.S. Indices are from The Conference Board. All series are indexed to a base year of 2004.

Monitoring the state’s economy

MISSI SS IPPI LEADING INDEX, AUGUST 2015

Page 2

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINE SS

T he Mississippi Leading Index of Eco-

nomic Indicators (MLI) lost 1.0 per-

cent of its value in August. The value of the

MLI was 2.5 percent higher for the month

compared to one year ago. Following the Au-

gust decline, the value of the MLI has in-

creased 2.0 percent over the last six months.

Four of the seven components of the MLI

contributed negatively in August. Discussion

of each component appears below in order of

smallest to largest contribution.

As seen in Figure 4, the value of Mississippi

income tax withholdings (three-month

moving average) fell 3.5 percent in August,

almost giving back all of the previous month’s

gain. However, compared to one year ago the

August value was 2.5 percent higher. Over the last six

months, the three-month moving average of withholdings

is down 0.4 percent compared to the previous six

months.

The value of the University of Michigan Index of

Consumer Expectations (three-month moving aver-

age) decreased for the third consecutive month in August.

As Figure 5 indicates, the Index fell 3.8 percent from its

July value. The Index declined to its lowest level since Oc-

tober 2014; however, the value remained 12.4 percent

higher in August compared to one year ago. The recent

declines in U.S. stock markets have perpetuated consum-

ers’ concerns about their financial futures. Inflation expec-

tations did not change in September, however, a reflec-

tion of the Federal Reserve’s inaction on interest rates.

As Figure 6 indicates, the value of the Institute for Sup-

ply Management Index of U.S. Manufacturing Ac-

tivity fell for the third consecutive month in September,

declining 1.8 percent. The value was 10.5 percent lower in

August compared to one year ago. The level of the Index

dropped to 50.2, barely remaining in expansion territory.

A lack of both foreign and domestic demand for manufac-

tured goods continues to weigh on the industry. A rela-

tively strong U.S. dollar and declines in commodity prices

are impairing a number of subsectors in U.S. manufactur-

ing.

The value of Mississippi residential building permits

(three-month moving average) changed little in August,

slipping 0.1 percent from the previous month as indicated

in Figure 7. Nevertheless, building permits in the state

continued its relatively strong performance in 2015 as the

August value was 15.9 percent higher compared to one

year ago. The seasonally-adjusted number of units for

which building permits were issued (three-month moving

average) in Mississippi increased 0.9 percent in August,

climbing higher for the third consecutive month. The

number of units was 7.4 percent higher in August com-

pared to one year ago. Nationally in August the number

of privately-owned housing units in the U.S. authorized by

building permits rose 3.5 percent over the revised July

value. Compared to one year ago the number was 12.5

percent higher in August.

Figure 8 indicates the value of U.S. retail sales increased

0.2 percent in August. In addition, the July value was re-

vised slightly higher to an increase of 0.7 percent. Com-

pared to one year ago the value of retail sales was 2.2

percent higher in August. The value of sales excluding gas-

oline rose 0.4 percent, reflecting the impact of lower gas-

oline prices for the month. Excluding automobiles and

gasoline, the value of sales rose 0.3 percent in August.

Other components that increased included electronics

and appliances, food and beverages, and food services;

however, much of these gains were offset by declines in

building materials, furniture, and nonstore retailers.

For the second consecutive month, the value of seasonally

-adjusted initial unemployment claims in Mississippi

fell in August as seen in Figure 9. For the month, the value

declined 4.4 percent but was only 0.4 percent lower com-

pared to one year ago. The latter slight change reflects

the relative stability of the value over the past year. In

contrast, the number of seasonally-adjusted continued

(Continued on page 4)

Source: University Research Center

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

103.0

104.0

105.0

106.0

107.0

108.0

109.0

110.0

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: p

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar

Gra

ph

: In

dex;

2004 =

100

Figure 3. Mississippi Leading Index

COMPONENTS OF MISSI S S IPPI LEADING INDEX, IN FIGURES

Page 3

OCTOBER 2015

Source: U.S. Department of Labor; seasonally adjusted

Source: Institute for Supply Management

Source: URC using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers

Source: Bureau of the Census

Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue; seasonally adjusted

The value of the Mississippi

Leading Index (MLI) lost 1.0%

for the month in August. Four

components of the MLI declined.

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

75.0

76.0

77.0

78.0

79.0

80.0

81.0

82.0

83.0

84.0

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

ercen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Bar g

rap

h: I

nd

ex; 2004 =

100

Figure 10. Mississippi Manufacturing Employment Intensity Index

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

$420

$425

$430

$435

$440

$445

$450

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar g

rap

h: B

illi

on

s o

f cu

rren

t d

oll

ars

Figure 8. U.S. retail sales

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar

gra

ph

: In

dex (

perc

en

t)

(Do

tte

d li

ne

in

dic

ate

s e

xp

an

sio

n t

hre

sho

ld)

Figure 6. ISM Index of U.S. Manufacturing Activity

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar g

rap

h: N

um

ber o

f cla

ims

Figure 9. Mississippi initial unemployment claims

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

$102

$104

$106

$108

$110

$112

$114

$116

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar g

rap

h: M

illi

on

s o

f 2004 d

oll

ars

Figure 4. Mississippi income tax withholdings(Three-month moving average)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: In

dex;

1966Q

1 =

100

Figure 5. University of Michigan Index of Consumer Expectations (Three-month moving average)

Source: Bureau of the Census; seasonally adjusted

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

$35

$40

$45

$50

$55

$60

$65

$70

$75

$80

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: M

illi

on

s o

f 2004 d

oll

ars

Figure 7. Value of Mississippi residential building permits(Three-month moving average)

T he value of the Mississippi Coinci-

dent Index of Economic Indica-

tors (MCI) climbed 0.9 percent in August

according to the Federal Reserve Bank of

Philadelphia. As Figure 11 indicates, the

value of the MCI was 3.8 percent higher in

August compared to one year ago.

For the fifth consecutive month, the values

of the coincident indices for all states in the

Southeast region were above 100 percent

of their pre-recession peaks in August. As

Figure 12 indicates, once again the coinci-

dent index for Florida held the lowest value

at 101.8 percent of its pre-recession peak

followed by the coincident index for Ala-

bama at 102.0 percent. The value of the

coincident index for Mississippi was only

slightly higher at 102.2 percent, the third-

lowest value in the region. While its margin

has shrunk compared to previous months,

the value of the coincident index for Texas

remained the highest among the states in

the Southeast.

As Figure 13 on page 5 indicates, com-

pared to three months prior the value of

the coincident indices in forty-five states

increased in August. Mississippi was one of

thirty-three states with a coincident index

that rose more than 0.5 percent in value

relative to May. The coincident indices for

Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and North

Dakota experienced declines in value of

less than 1.0 percent while the value of the

coincident index for West Virginia fell al-

most 2.0 percent.

unemployment claims in Mississippi climbed 6.7 percent

in August. As Figure 14 on page 6 indicates, the value

rose to its highest level since November 2014, but re-

mained 20.4 percent below the value of one year ago.

Nevertheless, the value of continued claims in the state

has been relatively stable in 2015. The seasonally-adjusted

unemployment rate in Mississippi for August dropped 0.2

percentage point to 6.3 percent, a rate that last occurred

in March 2008.

The value of the Mississippi Manufacturing Employ-

ment Intensity Index rose 0.6 percent in August as

seen in Figure 10. The Index returned to its May level and

remains 1.6 percent higher compared to one year ago.

While the average weekly hours of production employ-

ees in Mississippi increased slightly in August, employ-

ment in manufacturing fell 0.2 percent. The Index and

employment in manufacturing in the state continue to

hold their own despite the downturn in the U.S. manufac-

turing sector.

MISSI SS IPPI LEADING INDEX, AUGUST 2015 (CONTINUED)

Page 4

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINE SS

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

MISSI SS IPPI COINCIDENT INDEX, AUGUST 2015

102.0%

107.2%

101.8%

108.2%105.8%

107.8%

102.2%

110.5%108.5%

110.4%112.2%

121.5%

113.7%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX US

Figure 12. Coincident index: March 2015 percentage of pre-recession peak

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

104.0

105.0

106.0

107.0

108.0

109.0

110.0

111.0

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e G

rap

h:

Pe

rce

nt

ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar

Gra

ph

: In

dex;

2004 =

100

Figure 11. Mississippi Coincident Index

A s Figure 1 on page 1 indicates, the value of the U.S.

Leading Economic Index (LEI) edged higher by 0.1

percent in August according to The Conference Board.

Moreover, the July value was revised higher, indicating no

change from the previous month rather than a decline as

originally reported. Compared to one year ago the value

of the LEI was 4.1 percent higher in August. Five of the

ten components of the LEI increased in value for the

month, as the interest rate spread made the largest con-

tribution. The value of the LEI rose 2.3 percent over the

last six months, slightly more than the 2.0 percent in-

crease for the previous six months.

The value of the U.S. Coincident Economic Index (CEI)

also increased 0.1 percent in August according to The

Conference Board as Figure 2 on page 1 indicates. The

value of the CEI in August was 2.3 percent higher com-

pared to one year ago. Three of the four components of

the CEI increased in August and employees on nonagricul-

tural payrolls made the largest contribution.

For the second consecutive month, the National Federa-

tion of Independent Businesses (NFIB) Small Business Op-

timism Index increased in August. Figure 20 on page 6

indicates the value moved higher by 0.5 percent. Despite

the gain, compared to one year ago the value for August

remained 0.2 percent lower. The share of respondents

reporting current job openings rose to 29 percent from

25 percent in July, the highest level since May. The share

with plans to increase employment also edged up to its

highest level since January. However, the share that ex-

pects the economy to improve declined. Similarly, the

share that expects credit conditions to improve fell for

the second consecutive month. Overall the index remains

below its levels of earlier in the year.

In what became a close call, the Federal Reserve declined

to increase interest rates at its meeting in September.

Members of the Federal Open Market Committee

(FOMC) decided recent upheaval in the global economy

as well as a U.S. inflation rate that remains well below its

target of 2.0 percent were enough to postpone an in-

crease in rates yet again. Following a lackluster September

jobs report as well as downward revisions to previous

months, a rate hike may be off the table for 2015.

NATIONAL TRENDS

Page 5

OCTOBER 2015

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

MISCELLANEOUS ECONOM IC INDICATORS , IN FIGURES

Page 6

Source: U.S. Department of Labor; seasonally adjusted Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; seasonally adjusted

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; non-seasonally adjusted Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue; seasonally adjusted

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: Institute for Supply Management

Source: National Federation of Independent Businesses Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis; seasonally adjusted at annual rates

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINE SS

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

ove

r ye

ar

ag

o

Bar

gra

ph

: T

ho

usa

nd

s o

f cla

ims

Figure 14. Mississippi continued unemployment claims

-18%

-16%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

5.6%

5.8%

6.0%

6.2%

6.4%

6.6%

6.8%

7.0%

7.2%

7.4%

7.6%

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: S

easo

nall

y-a

dju

sted

rate

Figure 15. Mississippi unemployment rate

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

$640

$660

$680

$700

$720

$740

$760

$780

$800

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: Mil

lio

ns

of

2004 d

oll

ars

Figure 16. Real average manufacturing weekly earnings in Mississippi

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

ang

e o

ver

year

ag

o

Bar

gra

ph

: M

illi

on

s o

f 2004 d

oll

ars

Figure 17. Mississippi gaming revenue

Coastal River Total Annual Growth of Total

1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

1.3%

0.8%

-0.1%0.0% -0.1%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Figure 18. U.S. inflation: price growth over prior year (CPI)

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: In

dex (

perc

en

t)

(Do

tte

d lin

e in

dic

ate

s e

xp

an

sio

n t

hre

sho

ld)

Figure 19. ISM Index of U.S. Non-Manufacturing Activity

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

90.0

91.0

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

101.0

8/14 9/14 10/1411/1412/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: In

dex;

1986 =

100

Figure 20. NFIB Small Business Optimism Index

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

18.5

9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15

Lin

e g

rap

h: P

erc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Bar

gra

ph

: M

illi

on

s o

f u

nit

s, a

nn

uali

zed

Figure 21. U.S. total light vehicle sales

TABLE 1. SELECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Page 7

Indicator August

2015

July

2015

August

2014

Percent change from

July 2015 August 2014

U.S. Leading Economic Index 123.7 123.6 118.5 0.1% 4.4%

2004 = 100. Source: The Conference Board

U.S. Coincident Economic Index 112.6 112.5 110.1 0.1% 2.3% 2004 = 100. Source: The Conference Board

Mississippi Leading Index 108.5 109.6 105.9 1.0% 2.5% 2004 = 100. Source: University Research Center

Mississippi Coincident Index 110.6 109.9 106.6 0.6% 3.8% 2004 =100. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Mississippi initial unemployment claims 8,234 8,616 8,269 4.4% 0.4%

Seasonally adjusted. Source: U.S. Department of Labor

Value of Mississippi residential building permits 72.9 72.9 62.9 0.1% 15.9% Three-month moving average; seasonally adjusted; millions of 2004 dollars.

Source: Bureau of the Census

Mississippi income tax withholdings 109.6 113.6 106.9 3.5% 2.5% Three-month moving average; seasonally adjusted; millions of 2004 dollars.

Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue

Mississippi Manufacturing Employment Intensity Index 82.1 81.7 80.8 0.6% 1.6% 2004 =100. Source: URC using data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

University of Michigan Index of Consumer Expectations 81.9 85.1 72.8 3.8% 12.4% Three-month moving average; index 1966Q1 = 100.

Source: Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers

ISM Index of U.S. Manufacturing Activity 50.2 51.1 56.1 1.8% 10.5% Advanced one month. Source: Institute for Supply Management

U.S. retail sales 447.7 446.9 438.2 0.2% 2.2% Current dollars, in billions. Source: Bureau of the Census

U.S. Consumer Price Index 126.2 126.3 125.9 0.1% 0.2%

2004 = 100. Source: URC using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics

Mississippi unemployment rate 6.3% 6.5% 7.4% 3.1% 14.9% Seasonally-adjusted. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Mississippi continued unemployment claims 66,994 62,763 84,121 6.7% 20.4% Seasonally adjusted. Source: U.S. Department of Labor

ISM Index of U.S. Non-Manufacturing Activity 56.9 59.0 58.1 3.6% 2.1% Advanced one month. Source: Institute for Supply Management

U.S. mortgage rates 3.84% 3.93% 4.04% 2.3% 4.9% Seasonally adjusted; 30-year conventional. Source: U.S. Federal Reserve

Mississippi average hourly wage for manufacturing 17.89 18.39 17.84 2.7% 0.3% Seasonally adjusted; 2004 dollars. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Mississippi average weekly earnings for manufacturing 764.77 773.53 754.03 1.1% 1.4% Seasonally adjusted; 2004 dollars. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

NFIB Small Business Optimism Index 95.9 95.4 96.1 0.5% 0.2% 1986 = 100. Source: National Federation of Independent Businesses

U.S. total light vehicle sales 18.07 17.73 16.42 1.9% 10.0% Millions of units seasonally adjusted at annual rates. Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Gaming revenue 137.4 141.3 139.9 2.7% 1.7%

Coastal counties 76.0 76.7 73.9 0.9% 2.8%

River counties 61.4 64.6 66.0 4.8% 6.9% Seasonally adjusted; millions of 2004 dollars. Source: Mississippi Department of Revenue

OCTOBER 2015

Eco

no

mic

In

dic

es

Co

mp

on

en

ts o

f th

e M

issi

ssip

pi L

ead

ing I

nd

ex

Mis

cellan

eo

us

Ind

icato

rs

T otal nonfarm employment in Mississippi slipped 0.1

percent in August according to the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS). As seen in Table 2 below, Mississip-

pi’s economy lost 800 jobs in August. More significantly,

total nonfarm employment for July was revised down by

3,800 jobs or 0.3 percent. Total employment in Mississippi

was 1.0 percent higher for the month compared to one

year ago. Despite the downward revision for July, for four

consecutive months the year-over-year gain in employ-

ment in the state reached 1.0 percent or more. In the first

eight months of 2015, the state’s economy has added

6,700 jobs.

According to BEA, total nonfarm employment increased in

thirty-two states in August. The largest month-over-

month increases in employment in August occurred in the

states of California, Florida, and Ohio. The largest per-

centage increase in August occurred in Hawaii. The states

of New York, Texas, and New Hampshire experienced

the largest decreases in employment in August. The larg-

est percentage decrease occurred in South Dakota. Em-

ployment was lower in three states compared to one year

ago: West Virginia, North Dakota, and Alaska.

Among all industries in Mississippi, the largest absolute

increase in employment in August occurred in Trade,

Transportation, and Utilities, which added 1,200 jobs for

the month. The Health Care and Social Assistance sector

experienced the largest absolute decrease in employment

in August, losing 3,300 jobs for the month, a decline of

2.6%.

The Arts and Entertainment sector experienced the larg-

est percentage increase in employment in Mississippi in

August, rising 0.9 percent, a gain of 100 jobs. Accommoda-

tion and Food Services followed closely with an increase

of 0.8 percent or 900 jobs.

The largest percentage decrease in employment in the

state in August occurred in the Construction sector,

which fell 4.3 percent, a loss of 2,000 jobs. In addition,

employment in Educational Services and Other Services

fell 3.2 percent and 3.1 percent for the month, respective-

ly.

Other Services also joined Mining and Logging and Con-

struction as the industries in the state that employed few-

er people in August compared to one year ago.

MISSI SS IPPI EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

Page 8

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINE SS

Table 2. Change in Mississippi employment by industry, August 2015

Relative

share of

totalª

August

2015

July

2015

August

2014

Change from

July 2015

Change from

August 2014

Level Percent Level Percent

Total Nonfarm 100.0% 1,131,200 1,132,000 1,119,500 800 0.1% 11,700 1.0%

Mining and Logging 0.8% 8,500 8,500 9,200 — 0.0% 700 7.6%

Construction 4.1% 44,800 46,800 48,400 2,000 4.3% 3,600 7.4%

Manufacturing 12.5% 141,700 142,000 139,200 300 0.2% 2,500 1.8%

Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 19.7% 222,600 221,400 220,300 1,200 0.5% 2,300 1.0%

Retail Trade 12.1% 136,600 135,900 135,700 700 0.5% 900 0.7%

Information 1.2% 13,500 13,400 13,200 100 0.7% 300 2.3%

Financial Activities 3.9% 44,400 44,300 43,300 100 0.2% 1,100 2.5%

Services 35.9% 407,000 410,500 400,600 3,500 0.9% 6,400 1.6%

Professional & Business Services 9.0% 102,400 102,000 101,600 400 0.4% 800 0.8%

Educational Services 1.1% 12,000 12,400 11,600 400 3.2% 400 3.4%

Health Care & Social Assistance 11.1% 125,600 128,900 123,900 3,300 2.6% 1,700 1.4%

Arts & Entertainment 1.0% 11,100 11,000 10,900 100 0.9% 200 1.8%

Accommodation and Food Services 10.3% 118,800 117,900 113,700 900 0.8% 5,100 4.5%

Other Services 3.4% 37,100 38,300 38,900 1,200 3.1% 1,800 4.6%

Government 21.9% 248,700 248,300 245,300 400 0.2% 3,400 1.4%

ªRelative shares are for the most recent twelve-month average. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

MISSI SS IPPI EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR, IN FIGURES

Page 9

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (all figures); seasonally adjusted

OCTOBER 2015

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1,095

1,100

1,105

1,110

1,115

1,120

1,125

1,130

1,135

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22a. Nonfarm employment

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22b. Mining and Logging

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

40.0

42.0

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22c. Construction

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22d. Manufacturing

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22e. Trade, transportation, and utilities

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

12.4

12.6

12.8

13.0

13.2

13.4

13.6

13.8

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22f. Information

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

42.5

43.0

43.5

44.0

44.5

45.0

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22g. Financial activities

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22h. Professional and business services

MISSI SS IPPI EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR, IN FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Page 10

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (all figures); seasonally adjusted

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINE SS

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

10.4

10.6

10.8

11.0

11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22k. Arts and entertainment

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

35.5

36.0

36.5

37.0

37.5

38.0

38.5

39.0

39.5

40.0

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/

13

11/

13

12/

13

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/

14

11/

14

12/

14

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Perc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Th

ou

san

ds

of em

plo

yees

Figure 22m. Other services

-3.0%

-2.5%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

24.9

25.0

25.1

25.2

25.3

25.4

25.5

25.6

25.7

25.8

25.9

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/

13

11/

13

12/

13

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/

14

11/

14

12/

14

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Perc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Th

ou

san

ds

of em

plo

yees

Figure 22n. Federal government

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

11.0

11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12.0

12.2

12.4

12.6

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22i. Educational services

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22j. Health care and social assistance

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22l. Accommodation and food services

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

59.5

60.0

60.5

61.0

61.5

62.0

62.5

63.0

63.5

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/

13

11/

13

12/

13

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/

14

11/

14

12/

14

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Perc

en

t ch

an

ge o

ver

year

ago

Th

ou

san

ds

of em

plo

yees

Figure 22o. State government

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

8/1

3

9/1

3

10/1

3

11/1

3

12/1

3

1/1

4

2/1

4

3/1

4

4/1

4

5/1

4

6/1

4

7/1

4

8/1

4

9/1

4

10/1

4

11/1

4

12/1

4

1/1

5

2/1

5

3/1

5

4/1

5

5/1

5

6/1

5

7/1

5

8/1

5

Percen

t ch

an

ge o

ver y

ear a

go

Th

ou

san

ds o

f em

plo

yees

Figure 22p. Local government

FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD INSECURITY IN MISS ISS IPPI

Page 11

A topic that has garnered much attention from researchers in the economics of food and nutrition in recent years

is known as food deserts. The concept is a way of defining and describing areas where food insecurity may pose

significant problems. Definitions can vary considerably, however, depending on the treatment of variables such as in-

come, access, and types of food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture broadly describes food deserts as “urban neigh-

borhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food.” Figure 23 depicts food desert

locations in Mississippi and is based on USDA’s mapping tool that plots food deserts by census tract. The map uses the

measure for food deserts originally found in the 2008 farm bill, where for a significant number of residents in low-

income census tracts the nearest supermarket is at least one mile away in urban areas and at least ten miles away in

rural areas. To further delineate this measure, “low income” refers to census tracts where the poverty rate is 20 per-

cent or higher or median family income is less than 80 percent of median family income for the state or metro area. A

“significant” number of residents with low access means at least 500 people or 33 percent of a tract’s population live

beyond the maximum distances from a supermarket.

Based on an analysis of the data according to these criteria, 50.4 percent of Mississippi’s population lived in a food de-

sert in 2010. Unlike in other states, in Mississippi the population residing in food deserts is almost exclusively rural.

Only 0.03 percent of residents living in food deserts in

the state in 2010 were classified as urban. As a point of

comparison, only 6.6 percent of the rural population of

the U.S. as a whole lived more than ten miles from a

supermarket in 2010. Interestingly, in Mississippi many

counties where food deserts are otherwise absent con-

tain cities or similar metro areas that meet the food

desert criteria. Conversely, some counties that other-

wise would be 100 percent food deserts contain a city

or metro area that does not meet the criteria.

The most pertinent question to this area of research is,

“What are the implications for residents of food desert

areas?” The most obvious impact of a lack of access to

affordable healthy food is it can lead to a generally

poor diet, causing individuals to miss meals or eat

meals that lack essential nutrients. The relationship

between food access and obesity is particularly relevant

to Mississippi, which has maintained the highest or one

of the highest rates of obesity among all states for a

number of years. Yet research is mixed with regard to

this link. One study found that the presence of a super-

market in a census tract area is associated with a lower

incidence of obesity and overweight. Another analysis

determined that the absence of a supermarket coupled

with the presence of at least one grocery or conven-

ience store led to a higher potential for obesity. How-

ever, a recent study on childhood obesity in Arkansas

(which includes a delta region similar to Mississippi)

found no significant relationship between food deserts

and rates of childhood obesity. Another recent study

determined the distribution of supermarkets in urban

areas did not significantly affect residents’ purchases of

fruits and vegetables.

OCTOBER 2015

Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The preceding exposition leads into the more general discourse on food security. According to USDA, a household

lacks food security when at least once during a year it cannot provide adequate food for one or more of its members

because of the absence of resources to acquire food. Figure 24 below maps the rates of household-level food insecuri-

ty by state using the most recent three-year moving average. Mississippi is included among the states with the highest

rates of food insecurity; in fact, Mississippi owns the highest rate among all states at 22 percent. As Figure 24 indi-

cates, almost all of the most food-insecure states are found in the South. For the majority of U.S. states, the rate of

food insecurity falls between 10 and 16 percent. Only three states were determined to have rates of food insecurity

of 10 percent or less: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North Dakota.

Combining the information from Figures 23 and 24 leads to some general conclusions, as emphasized in recent litera-

ture. First, many of the effects of food insecurity and food deserts stem from a lack of income. That Mississippi has the

highest rate of food insecurity among all states as well as one of the highest rates of poverty are very likely related.

However, income alone is unlikely to completely account for the existence of food deserts and food insecurity in the

U.S. Access to supermarkets and other establishments that sell healthy food represents another part of the food secu-

rity equation in many areas. Thus, as recent studies note, policy mechanisms to combat food insecurity effectively and

specifically the problem of food deserts must address the lack of income as well as access to food—the critical issues

of affordability and availability. Other studies recommend interventions that address the economic context of the en-

vironment where food is purchased. Because most of the state’s population lives in rural areas and many residents

own automobiles, the issue of access may not be as challenging in Mississippi as in other states. Nevertheless, the del-

eterious effects of food insecurity likely represent another result of the systemic problems that have plagued the state

for decades.

FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD INSECURITY IN MISSISS IPPI , CONTINUED

Page 12

MISSISSIPPI ’S BUSINE SS

Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.