• $1.5 Billion and Growing: Economic Contribution of Older Alaskans

      Goldsmith, Scott; Angvik, Jane (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2006)
      Nearly $1.5 billion a year flows into Alaska from a source that doesn’t depend on oil or fish or gold, isn’t influenced by world markets, and isn’t seasonal. That cash flow roughly equals what fishermen were paid in 2005 for their Alaska seafood harvests, or the value of zinc, gold, and other metals mined in Alaska in 2004. It’s close to what tourists spend here every summer. What’s the source? Retired Alaskans. The 52,000 retirees age 60 or older brought an estimated $1.46 billion into the state in 2004. About 75% is from Social Security and pensions. Most of the rest is spending by governments and private insurers for health-care costs of retired Alaskans. ISER estimates that spending by retirees supports about 11,700 jobs—or nearly 4% of Alaska’s wage and salary jobs. This summary reports ISER’s findings about the economic contributions of older Alaskans, describes who they are, and estimates how their numbers are likely to grow.
    • The 10 Most Important Things to Understand About Alaska's Economy

      Knapp, Gunnar (Alaska Business Publishing Company, 2002)
      Alaska's economy is changing with the times. What changes are occurring? And what are the most important things Alaskans should understand about our economy? This article appeared in the March 2002 edition of the Alaska Business Monthly magazine.
    • 2004 Alaska Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2004)
      We estimate total construction spending in Alaska in 2004 will be $5.315 billion, about the same as last year. Private spending will be $3.250 billion, or 61 percent of the total. Public spending will contribute $2.065 billion, or 39 percent.
    • 2005 Alaska Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott; Killorin, Mary (Associated General Contractors of Alaska: Construction Industry Progress Fund, 2005)
      Construction spending is one of the important contributors to overall economic activity in Alaska. It supports firms not only in the construction industry itself, but also construction activity “hidden” in other sectors of the economy such as oil and gas and mining. This is the second year we have prepared a forecast of construction spending, and our categories of spending are not exactly comparable to those last year. Consequently it is not possible to directly compare the forecasts by category between 2004 and 2005. Although we have not conducted a formal year-end review of construction spending in 2004, in the process of collecting information for 2005 we have determined that our projection for 2004 was robust.
    • 2006 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott; Killorin, Mary (2005)
      Total construction spending in Alaska in 2006 will be $6.525 billion, an increase of 13% from a revised figure of $5.755 billion in 2005. This is the amount of money that will “hit the street” for construction during the year. Because of increases in the cost of materials during 2005, industry employment and other measures of activity will not expand as much as spending, but 2006 will be another very strong year for the construction industry with some sectors, most notably education, up sharply from 2005. Uncertainty in the forecast for 2006 comes from the likelihood that material prices will continue to be volatile due to strong demand. This may negatively impact some major projects, as was the case in 2005. For example the Alyeska pipeline reconfiguration project was originally scheduled for completion last year, but cost overruns (and possibly other factors) caused total spending to increase substantially and the estimated time for completion to be moved into 2006."
    • 2007 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Killorin, Mary; Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2007)
      Uncertainty in the forecast for 2007 comes from several sources. The decline in the crude oil price in recent months may cause some firms working in the oil patch to re-evaluate their capital budget decisions and slow their rate of investment in exploration and development. All sectors of the industry are continuing to experience rapid increases in construction material costs that will undoubtedly cause some projects to be canceled or postponed, as has been the case in the last several years.
    • 2008 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Killorin, Mary; Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2008)
      Total construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2008 will be $7.01 billion, down 2% from last year. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 41% of the total—construction spending will be down for the second year in a row, falling 6% to $4.12 billion. Last year it declined 3%. Lower construction spending, combined with higher material and labor costs, will result in a modest reduction in the level of construction employment in 2008. Although this will be the second year of decline in construction employment, it remains well above the long-term trend. Construction costs continue to rise faster than the general rate of inflation—and that trend is expected to continue, further reducing the purchasing power of each construction dollar. Private-sector construction spending is projected to be $4.64 billion in 2008, an increase of 2% over 2007. Strong growth is expected in oil and gas, mining, utilities, and the other basic sectors.
    • 2009 Alaska Health Workforce Vacancy Study

      Landon, Beth; Doucette, Sanna; Frazier, Rosyland; Wilson, Meghan; Silver, Darla; Hill, Alexandra; Sanders, Kate; Sharp, Suzanne; Johnson, Kristin; DeRoche, Patricia; et al. (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2009-12)
      Alaska continues to experience health professional shortages. The state has long had a deficient “supply side” characterized by insufficient numbers of key health workers whose recruitment, retention, and training have been impeded by Alaska’s remoteness, harsh climate, rural isolation, low population density, and scarce training resources. Alaska is the only state without a pharmacy school and lacks its own dental and physical therapy schools as well. Health professional shortages can be decreased through the start of new training programs, the expansion of existing programs, and the improvement of the effectiveness of recruitment and retention efforts. However, strategic planning and the execution of such programs require valid and accurate data. To this end, stakeholders such as the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) and Alaskan's For Access to Health Care (ACCESS), along with schools and departments within the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), funded the Alaska Center for Rural Health-Alaska’s AHEC (ACRH) and the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) to conduct a comprehensive health workforce study during winter and spring of 2009. This report highlights employers’ needs for employees to fill budgeted positions. This is different from a needs assessment that would take into account population demographics and disease incidence and prevalence. This health workforce study is an assessment of health manpower shortage based on budgeted staff positions and their vacancies in organizations throughout the state. Respondents included part-time positions, which resulted in our counting full-time equivalent (FTE) rather than individuals (“bodies”). In situations where a position was divided among more than one occupation (e.g., Dental Assistant and Billing Clerk), we asked the respondent to count the position under which they considered the position’s “primary occupation.” This was a point-in-time cross-sectional study. Recently filled vacancies or imminent vacancies were not counted. Positions filled by relief/temporary/locum/contract health workers were counted as vacancies only if these workers were temporarily filling a currently vacant, budgeted position. Due to budget and time constraints, we were not able to conduct a trend analysis that is a comparison of this study’s findings and the prior 2007 study. The key questions this study sought to answer were (1) How many budgeted positions, either full- or part-time, existed in organizations providing health services in Alaska? (2) How many of these budgeted positions were currently vacant? (3) What was the vacancy rate? (4) How many of the organizations that employ these occupations hired new graduates of training programs? (5) How many of the currently vacant budgeted positions (#2) could be filled by new graduates of training programs? (6) What were the mean and maximum length of time, expressed in months, that the vacancies have existed? (7) What were the principal, underlying causes of vacancies? The study was designed in consultation with an advisory group that included AMHTA, ACCESS, and UAA. The study targeted 93 health occupations. The unit of analysis was the employment site by organization type, which allowed for the allocation of positions and vacancies by geographic region. For each employer, we identified the staff person most knowledgeable about hiring and vacancies. In large organizations this meant that one employer might provide information about multiple sites and organization types; smaller employers were responsible for only a single site.
    • 2009 Alaska Health Workforce Vacancy Study - Report and Appendices

      Alaska Center for Rural Health; ISER, 2009
      Health professional shortages can be decreased through the start of new training programs, the expansion of existing programs, and the improvement of the effectiveness of recruitment and retention efforts. However, strategic planning and the execution of such programs require valid and accurate data. To this end, stakeholders such as the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) and Alaskan's For Access to Health Care (ACCESS), along with schools and departments within the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), funded the Alaska Center for Rural Health-Alaska’s AHEC (ACRH) and the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) to conduct a comprehensive health workforce study during winter and spring of 2009. This report highlights employers’ needs for employees to fill budgeted positions. This is different from a needs assessment that would take into account population demographics and disease incidence and prevalence. This health workforce study is an assessment of health manpower shortage based on budgeted staff positions and their vacancies in organizations throughout the state. Respondents included part-time positions, which resulted in our counting full-time equivalent (FTE) rather than individuals (“bodies”). In situations where a position was divided among more than one occupation (e.g., Dental Assistant and Billing Clerk), we asked the respondent to count the position under which they considered the position’s “primary occupation.” The study was designed in consultation with an advisory group that included AMHTA, ACCESS, and UAA. The study targeted 93 health occupations. The unit of analysis was the employment site by organization type, which allowed for the allocation of positions and vacancies by geographic region. APPENDICES: Appendix A. List of Health Occupations, Appendix B. Health Workforce Surveys, Appendix C. Cover Letter Accompanying Survey Forms, Appendix D. Confidence Intervals for Positions, Vacancies, Number of Vacancies Filled with New Graduates, and Length of Longest Vacancy in Months, Appendix E. Tables of Samples and Estimates of Positions, Vacancies, Vacancy Rates, Number of Vacancies Filled with New Graduates, Mean and Maximum Length of Longest Vacancy in Months, Appendix F. Tables of Occupations Sorted By Estimates of Positions, Vacancies, Vacancy Rates, Number of Vacancies Filled with New Graduates, Mean and Maximum Length of Longest Vacancy in Months
    • 2009 Alaska’s Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2009-01)
      Construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2009 will be $7.1 billion, down 3% from 2008.1,2,3 Lower construction spending, combined with higher material and labor costs, will result in a modest reduction in the level of construction employment in 2009. Although this will be the fourth year of decline, the level remains considerably above the long-term average. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 43% of the total—construction spending will be $4.1 billion—down 1% from 2008. Private-sector construction spending will follow the slowdown in the Alaska economy. Excluding oil and gas, we expect private spending to be $1.3 billion in 2009, a decline of 24% from 2008. But strength in the oil and gas sector will keep the overall private sector decline to only 12%. Mining, utilities, and commercial spending will be down, mostly because a number of large projects have been completed. However, commercial —as well as residential— spending will be weaker, in response to the slowdown in the U.S. economy. Public construction spending will be up 16%, to $2.7 billion, offsetting much of the decline in private spending. That growth will mainly be due to the large FY 2009 state capital budget. But strong federal spending— both military and civilian— and the federal stimulus package will also contribute to the increase. Uncertainty in this year’s forecast comes from several sources. Volatility in commodity prices has affected construction spending in two important ways. The lower petroleum and metals prices in early 2009 have made investment in some prospects less attractive. Also, companies that finance construction activities out of their current cash flow are dealing with shrinking capital budgets. The national economy continues to deteriorate as we enter 2009.
    • 2010 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2010-01)
      The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2010 will be $7.0 billion, down 3% from 2009.1,2,3 Wage and salary employment in the construction industry will continue the slow decline which began in 2006, but the level remains above the long-term average for the industry. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 43% of the total—construction spending will be $4.0 billion— down 4% from 2009. Private-sector construction spending will be down only 1% from 2009, to $4.4 billion, in spite of the slowdown in the Alaska economy. Oil and gas sector spending will be flat. Spending will increase in the utilities and hospitals4 categories but will decline in mining, residential, other commercial, and the other rural basic sector categories. Public construction spending will be down 5%, to $2.6 billion, in spite of the infusion of cash from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Although some categories of federal spending will be higher, many will be lower and state spending will also be lower because of the lean FY 2010 capital budget. Uncertainty in this year’s forecast comes from several sources. As we start 2010 there is no clear indication if the national economy is starting to recover from the recession, and if it does, how strong that recovery will be. Although Alaska has been insulated from the worst effects of the recession—the crash in the housing market, high unemployment, and lack of credit—concerns about the national recovery will continue to influence investment decisions in the state, particularly in the commercial and residential markets. Local government capital spending is also vulnerable to reductions in tax revenues from activities, like tourism, driven by the national economy. The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in early 2009 has provided an important boost to construction spending this year. A second stimulus may be undertaken later this year, but it is too soon to speculate on how that might impact construction spending, so we assume no further federal action. The Alaska economy contracted in 2009 for the first time in 22 years—but the reduction in employment was only about 1%. Forecasts for Alaska’s economy in 2010 vary from further moderate declines in employment to a resumption of growth. This difference of opinion underscores the sense of caution in the business community about the near-term prospects for the economy. As the year begins, petroleum and precious metal (gold and silver) prices are strong and rising, and base metal prices (zinc) have rebounded from the lows of last year. Petroleum and mining capital budgets are particularly sensitive to these prices, which are likely to continue to fluctuate throughout the year. We assume these prices remain strong throughout the year.
    • 2011 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2011-02)
      The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2011 will be $7.1 billion, up 4% from 2010.1,2,3 Wage and salary employment in the construction industry will continue the slow decline that began in 2006, but the level remains above the long-term average for the industry. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 41% of the total—construction spending will be $4.2 billion—up 5% from 2010. Private-sector construction spending will be up 6% from 2010, to $4.5 billion, in spite of the expected slow growth in the overall Alaska economy. Oil and gas sector spending will be about $2.9 billion, up 3%. Spending will increase in the utility and hospitals4 categories, but will decline in residential and other commercial categories. Public construction spending will be up 1%, to $2.7 billion, due to the large FY 2011 state capital budget. The main infusion of cash from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has worked its way through the system, and federal spending overall has declined. Uncertainty is particularly significant in the forecast this year, especially in the oil and gas sector—in spite of high oil prices. In January 2011, uncertainty surrounds most of the large-scale petroleum projects on the North Slope and in Cook Inlet. Environmental reviews are slowing development drilling at Point Thomson east of Prudhoe Bay and Alpine West in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. Exploration drilling offshore in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas continues to face legal challenges. The offshore Liberty project is under internal environmental review. In Cook Inlet, a major offshore exploration effort awaits the uncertain arrival of a jack-up rig. In this forecast we assume most of these projects will move forward this year, but their pace is hard to predict. If several are delayed in 2011, oil and gas spending will be significantly lower.
    • 2011 Denali National Park and Preserve Visit Characteristics

      Fix, Peter; Ackerman, Andrew; Fay, Ginny (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1/1/13)
    • 2012 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012-02)
      The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2012 will be $7.7 billion, up 3% from 2011.1,2,3 Wage and salary employment in the construction industry will be stable at the same level as last year— 15,800. This is down from a peak of 18,300 in 2005. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 41% of the total—construction spending will be $4.6 billion, up 4% from 2011 and about the same rate of increase as last year. Oil and gas spending will be $3.2 billion, 1% higher than in 2011. Private spending for construction will be up in 2012. Public spending for traditional government purposes will be down somewhat, but public funds also help finance some projects in the utility and health sectors, which are primarily private. So overall, an increase in state spending for construction will offset a decline in federal spending.
    • 2013 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2013-02)
      The Construction Industry Progress Fund (CIPF) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska are pleased to have produced another edition of “Alaska’s Construction Spending Forecast.” Compiled and written by Scott Goldsmith and Mouhcine Guettabi of the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), the “Forecast” reviews construction activity, projects and spending by both the private and public sectors for the year ahead. The construction trade is Alaska’s third largest industry, paying the second highest wages, employing nearly 16,000 workers with a payroll over $1 billion. It accounts for 20 percent of Alaska’s total economy and currently contributes approximately $8 billion to the state’s economy. The construction industry reflects the pulse of the economy. When it is vigorous, so is the state’s economy. Both CIPF and AGC are proud to make this publication available annually and hope it provides useful information for you. AGC is a non-profit, full service construction association for commercial and industrial contractors, subcontractors and associates. CIPF is organized to advance the interests of the construction industry throughout the state of Alaska through a management and labor partnership.
    • 2014 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Killorin, Mary; Leask, Linda (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2014-02)
      The Construction Industry Progress Fund (CIPF) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska are pleased to have produced another edition of “Alaska’s Construction Spending Forecast.” Underwritten by Northrim Bank, compiled and written by Scott Goldsmith, Mary Killorin and Linda Leask of the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), the “Forecast” reviews construction activity, projects and spending by both the private and public sectors for the year ahead. The construction trade is Alaska’s third largest industry, paying the second highest wages, employing nearly 16,000 workers with a payroll over $1 billion. It accounts for 20 percent of Alaska’s total economy and currently contributes approximately $9 billion to the state’s economy. The construction industry reflects the pulse of the economy. When it is vigorous, so is the state’s economy. Both CIPF and AGC are proud to make this publication available annually and hope it provides useful information for you. AGC is a non-profit, full service construction association for commercial and industrial contractors, subcontractors and associates. CIPF is organized to advance the interests of the construction industry throughout the state of Alaska through a management and labor partnership
    • 2015 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Cravez, Pamela (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-01-01)
      OVERVIEW The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2015 will be $8.5 billion, down 3% from 2014.1,2,3 Wage and salary employment in the construction industry, which increased an estimated 6 percent last year, to about 17,600, will decline slightly in 2015.4 Oil and gas sector spending will fall 2% to $3.8 billion from its record level of $3.9 billion last year. Other spending will be $4.7 billion, a decline from $4.9 billion last year. Private spending, excluding oil and gas, will be about $1.7 billion, down from $2.0 billion last year—while public spending will increase from $2.9 to $3.0 billion. Construction spending in Alaska in 2015 is expected to be strong in spite of the drop in the price of oil from more than $100 per barrel in the summer of 2014 to between $45 and $50 today. However, the longer the price stays low, the greater the risk that some projects will be cancelled or postponed. It is impossible to predict what will happen to the oil price, because world supply has outstripped demand. The price will stabilize, and perhaps begin to increase, only when the low price stimulates more demand and eliminates high cost production, a process that could take more than a year. A further complication is the unpredictability of the role of OPEC in determining oil supply. In particular Saudi Arabia, the largest producer, could decide to restrict supply for political or strategic reasons. Because of the drop in the price of oil, the state is facing a general fund budget deficit of about $3 billion for the current fiscal year (FY2015) and is projected to have a similar deficit in FY2016 (which begins July 1 of this year). However, this will not have a large negative impact on state government construction spending this year for several reasons.
    • 2016 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Cravez, Pamela (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-01-01)
      The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2016 will be $7.3 billion, down 18% from 2015.1,2,3 Oil and gas sector spending will fall 25% to $3.1 billion from its record level of $4.2 billion last year. All other construction spending will be $4.2 billion, a decline of 11% from $4.7 billion last year. Private spending, excluding oil and gas, will be about $1.4 billion, down 24% from $1.8 billion last year—while public spending will decline 6% to $2.8 billion from $2.9 billion. Wage and salary employment in the construction industry, which increased an estimated 6 percent last year to almost 18,000, will decline slightly in 2016.4 The decline in construction spending in Alaska in 2016 can be traced directly to the precipitous drop in the price of oil over the last 18 months, after the previous period of unprecedented high prices a few years earlier. In mid- 2014 the price was above $110 per barrel, but as this report is being written the price has fallen below $30 for the first time in 12 years. Furthermore, the short-term outlook is for the price to remain low, or even decline further, because supply continues to outstrip demand and inventories continue to accumulate. The longer term outlook for price also continues to fall, because of the resilience of production in the face of the falling price. The high price stimulated increases in construction spending across all sectors of the Alaska economy, particularly among oil and gas companies and the state government. The low price is now beginning to reduce construction spending within the economy, except for federal spending and spending by basic industries that benefit from lower oil prices. So far the price drop has been felt most directly in the oil and gas sector. Although many companies announced optimistic investment programs for 2016, most, if not all, have recently announced cutbacks or postponements. The longer the price remains low, the greater the likelihood of further cutbacks in the oil patch. Because of the oil price drop, a deficit of $2 billion opened in the state general fund in FY2014, and it has increased to $3.5 billion for each of the last two years. Although the state has been fortunate to have sufficient cash reserves to offset this revenue shortfall in the short term, it has meant a dramatic decline in new state funding for capital projects. Whereas the general fund capital appropriation in FY2013 was more than $2 billion, in this past year it was only enough to cover the required match on federal transportation grants. And looking ahead, there is very little prospect for a significant increase in the capital budget in the coming years. But the sharp decline in the state capital budget over the last three years has so far had limited effects on construction spending. This is because it takes considerable time for appropriated funds to become “cash on the street.” Several billion dollars of capital appropriations remain “in the pipeline,” which will keep state spending from falling dramatically this year. However, the amount of construction spending will be winding down in many communities like Juneau, Kodiak, and Fairbanks (excluding Eielson Air Force Base) because of declining state spending. Because of the size of the state budget deficit, it is possible that some projects in the pipeline that have not yet been approved could be cancelled. However, this will be moderated by concern over the negative impacts on the economy from such cancellations. Spending for national defense will be higher this year. And fortunately, federal spending not related to defense—mostly consisting of grants, both to the state for transportation (roads, harbors, railroad and ferry system) and sanitation projects and to non-profits for health facilities and housing—is not sensitive to the price of oil. Since 2013 the Alaska economy has underperformed compared with the national average in spite of the stimulus of high oil prices that led to record high levels of employment in the oil and gas and construction sectors. Job growth has been less than 1% annually and is forecast to be negative in 2016. State population has not increased in the last two years. This slowdown, combined with the heightened uncertainty about the future direction of the economy, brought on by the sudden fall in the oil price, will slow new private investment—particularly in the commercial and residential construction sectors as investors adopt a “wait and see” attitude, in regard to both the private economy and the ability of the state government to deal with the deficit. The decline in private construction spending this year is also partially due to the completion of a number of large utility and hospital projects. As in past years, some firms are reluctant to reveal their investment plans, because they don’t want to alert competitors; also, some have not completed their 2016 planning. Large projects often span two or more years, so estimating “cash on the street” in any year is always difficult because the construction “pipeline” never flows in a completely predictable fashion. Tracing the path of federal spending coming into Alaska without double counting is also a challenge, and because of the complexity of the state capital budget, it is always difficult to follow all the flows of state money into the economy. We are confident in the overall pattern of the forecast. However, as always, we can expect some surprises as the year progresses.
    • 2017 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott; Cravez, Pamela (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-01-01)
      The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2017 will be $6.5 billion, down 10% from 2016.1, 2,3 Oil and gas sector spending will fall 15% to $2.4 billion, from $2.9 billion last year. All other construction spending will be $4.0 billion, a decline of 7% from $4.3 billion last year. Private spending, excluding oil and gas, will be about $1.6 billion, up 2% from last year—while public spending will decline 12% to $2.5 billion. Wage and salary employment in the construction industry, which dropped by 8.5% in 2016 to 16.2 thousand, will drop another 7.4% in 2017 to 15 thousand, the lowest level in more than a decade.n 2016 the Alaska economy slipped into a recession that is expected to continue at least through 2017. Total wage and salary employment fell in 2016 by 6.8 thousand, about 2%. This year it is anticipated the decline will be 7.5 thousand, or 2.3%, which will return the economy to the 2010 level.5. Weakness in the economy is also reflected in a net outmigration of population over the last four years.
    • 2018 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Leask, Linda; Goldsmith, Oliver Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2018-01-01)
      The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2018 will be $6.6 billion, up 4% from 2017.1, 2,3 The increase is due to a recovery in Petroleum sector spending which will grow 15% to $2.6 billion from its low of $2.2 billion last year. All other construction spending will be $4.0 billion, a decline of 2% from $4.1 billion last year. Private spending, excluding petroleum, will be about $1.5 billion, down 5% from $1.6 billion last year—while public spending will decline 1% to $2.5 billion. Wage and salary employment in construction will decline 3% to 14.5 thousand.4 After falling by half in the last two years, spending by the petroleum industry will start to recover because of the rise in the price of oil, and more support for the industry from the federal and state governments.