Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is approaching the end of eight years in office. It’s a good time to put away the campaign slogans and look at the scoreboard.
Has Michigan become a more dynamic place to live and work? A better place to start and grow a business? Did we finally “fix the damn roads”? The results are, at best, underwhelming.
Michigan added only 42,700 jobs between January 2019 and April 2026. Just 1% growth. That ranks Michigan ninth worst among the states. And most of the jobs “gained” (14,000+) over the past year are in the government sector, i.e., funded by the taxpayer.
Michigan’s unemployment rate in July was 4.9%, compared with 4.1% nationally. That is a terrible gap. Labor force participation rate decreased by .4% to 59.1, and employment-population ratio fell by .3% to 56.2.
Yes, Michigan has an aging population. Its economy also remains unusually dependent on the auto industry. Those challenges make it even more important for state policy to attract younger workers, small businesses, billionaire entrepreneurs, and new industries.
On those measures, Michigan has struggled to make the progress it needs. That is why the 2026 voters should consider the following useful ways to measure the state’s economic direction.
It’s been nearly 20 years since world-renowned economist Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, author of the famous “Laffer Curve” and a “Kennedy Democrat,” teamed up with Stephen Moore, co-founder of the Club for Growth, and Jonathan Williams, president and COO of ALEC, to produce Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.
Published annually, the report ranks all 50 states on both economic performance and future economic outlook. Its purpose is to examine how state fiscal and regulatory policies affect economic competitiveness. Comparing the earlier editions with the current one provides an interesting perspective on Michigan.
The first edition, published in April 2007, ranked Michigan 50th in economic performance and 16th in future economic outlook. By the 12th edition, published in April 2019, Michigan had improved to 42nd in economic performance and 12th in future economic outlook.
That progress occurred largely during the administration of Governor Rick Snyder. When he took office, Michigan was dead last in economic performance. Concerningly, the state also held a mediocre place (25th) in future economic outlook.
During Governor Snyder’s tenure, Michigan’s growth prospects rose by 7 places, a significant improvement. By contrast, during Gov. Whitmer’s years, the state’s ranking plunged by 14 places.
No single governor can be credited or blamed for every movement in a state economy. Global events, national economic conditions, interest rates, demographic changes, and industry cycles, all matter. But the deterioration in Michigan’s economic outlook deserves attention alongside the state’s development policies.
Lansing has increasingly relied on an economic-development strategy centered on subsidies and government incentives to attract favored corporations and projects. Michigan pledged $2.7 billion for various economic transformations, with companies promising 20,595 jobs.
How many jobs so far? 602 - about 3% of the original target.
Some of these projects remain under development, so the final results are not yet known. But the gap between promised and delivered jobs raises an important question: Is this the best way to use taxpayer dollars to promote broad-based economic growth?
Michigan’s incentive programs have produced results that should prompt greater scrutiny. Lawmakers became skeptical enough of the state’s corporate-subsidy strategy to defund new funding for its signature SOAR program.
The concern is not unique to Michigan. Corporate incentives can create a political cycle in which elected officials receive immediate credit for announcing a major investment, while taxpayers bear the costs and the promised benefits may take years to materialize - or may never reach the original projections.
Ford’s battery plant in Marshall is a prominent example. Michigan committed approximately $1 billion in incentives to the project, while Ford subsequently scaled back its projected workforce. The ultimate economic impact of the project remains to be seen. But the experience demonstrates the risk inherent in making large public commitments based on projections that can change as market conditions worsen.
Michigan has also reformed its labor policies. And not in a good way. Governor Whitmer signed legislation ending Michigan’s right-to-work protections. Supporters argued that the change strengthened organized labor and collective bargaining. Critics warned that it could make the state less competitive for starting new companies and for creating more and better jobs.
Reasonable people can disagree about the proper balance between unions and employers, but the economic realities are impossible to ignore. Michigan is competing with other states and the rest of the world for investments and workers. Thus, every policy affecting the cost and flexibility of doing business matters.
This is particularly important because Michigan is the home of the American automobile industry. The state was the center of our manufacturing war effort in World War II. Using our great transportation infrastructure and industrial capacity, we produced automobiles, pick-ups, and Class 8 trucks.
Michigan converted these plants to make jeeps, tanks, and planes such as the B-24 Liberator. Ford’s plants saved Europe from the Nazi invaders. Eighty years later, the free world still depends on America to manufacture what FDR called “the arsenal of democracy.”
Governor Whitmer’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is another part of the economic record that deserves examination. Michigan adopted some of the nation’s more extensive restrictions. Restaurants, theaters, gyms, schools, sporting activities, and many other businesses and institutions were subject to arbitrary restrictions and even closures for unjustifiably long periods.
The pandemic presented governments all over the world with many unknowns and difficult decisions. Some of the policies imposed extremely high costs on small businesses, workers, students, and families. Michigan’s Supreme Court ultimately curtailed the administration’s use of emergency powers, adding another important chapter to the debate over executive authority during a crisis.
And then there are “the damn roads” – arguably, the catchiest of Gretchen Whitmer’s campaign slogans. Eight years later, Michigan drivers still contend with deteriorating pavement, potholes, and an infrastructure system that has benefited too little despite repeated promises of reform and additional funding.
The state has made significant investments in roads during Whitmer’s tenure, and her administration points to thousands of miles of completed or planned repairs. But Michigan’s transportation problems are longstanding, and the continued need for massive spending underscores how difficult it has been to establish a sustainable system for maintaining the state’s infrastructure.
Taken together, these issues raise a broader question about Michigan’s economic direction. Michigan does not lack assets. It has world-class manufacturers, engineering talent, universities, natural resources, a central location, and a proud industrial heritage. What it needs is an economic environment that allows those assets to produce more growth.
Our future should not depend on politicians finding the next favored company or offering more subsidies. America became great when it relied on voluntary market mechanisms, not cronyism. Once again, Michigan should create conditions in which entrepreneurs can invest, hire, innovate, and expand without relying on political favors. That means competitive taxes, predictable rules, reliable infrastructure, a strong workforce, and policies that make it attractive for people to move to our state as well as stay here.
Michigan is more than one state’s economic story. As the home of the automobile industry and a bellwether of the industrial Midwest, its experience offers a lesson for the rest of America. Government has an important role to play in creating conditions for prosperity. But long-term economic growth ultimately comes from private initiative.
Michigan’s experience over the past eight years should lead policymakers in Lansing and across the country to take a hard look at whether their economic policies are encouraging that activity or trying to substitute government incentives for it. The 2026 election provides an opportunity for the voters to debate that question and decide what economic direction they want for the next four years and beyond.
