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