Minnesota’s top demographer, Tom Gillaspy, and top economist, Tom Stinson, have provided some much-needed context on the long-term challenges facing this state.

The two well-respected experts detailed how Minnesota, while enjoying substantial economic success thanks to public policy decisions made 50 years ago, is rapidly approaching another critical juncture: If the state does not continue to invest in things such as public education, the past 40-plus years of good times most Minnesotans have enjoyed are almost certain to end.

Why? The primary reasons are a rapidly aging population and a shrinking work force. That translates to Minnesota needing to attract people from other places &045; countries, not just states &045; to come and work.

To do that requires a myriad of resources, the most important of which are training and education.

Fifty years ago, this state’s leaders pushed for similar efforts, and the results have been impressive and enduring. Among the facts Gillaspy and Stinson cited as evidence:

–

Minnesota ranked eighth in personal income per capita in 2004. That’s 9 percent higher than the U.S. average. In 1960, Minnesota ranked 25th.

–

Since 1960, per capita personal income has grown faster in Minnesota than in any state outside the Southeast.

–

Minnesota ranks high in many social and economic indicators, including having the highest percentage of women in the work force, having the second lowest poverty rate, ranking second in home ownership and ranking sixth for median family income.

And while the two experts project Minnesota will continue to be fertile economic ground for a few more years, major challenges are no more than a decade away.

Arguably the biggest one is attracting enough adequately trained workers. Without them, the state &045; and the economy &045; simply won’t grow. The most likely source of new workers will be residents from other states and countries. In fact, more than half of the state’s growth this decade is because of minorities.

But still Minnesota is one of the least diverse states, having only 13 percent minority residents compared with the U.S. average of 32 percent.

As the state sees more diversity, it will have to invest wisely to accommodate issues such as disparity in education or health care. Without that type of public investment, Minnesota runs the risk of not having enough residents to move forward.

Compounding the challenge is the state’s aging population.

It’s important to note that neither Gillaspy nor Stinson are advocating specific solutions, much less how much the state should be thinking of spending.

The question for state leaders is whether to adopt public policies that give future Minnesotans a good chance at continuing that status, or skip the public investments in the name of helping existing Minnesotans’ retirement portfolios.

&045; St. Cloud Times