It has some of the most breathtaking coastline in the United States- with miles of virtually untapped beaches- and access to the world’s largest supply of fresh water. It has ports that allow ships to enter from everywhere in the world and a world class international airport where you can fly to Paris, Rome or London. It has one of the most prestigious research universities in the world.

Yet Michigan is in the throes of what can only be described as a severe recession.

Have you seen the ads by actor Jeff Daniel on the cable channels encouraging you to invest in Michigan? (He lives there full-time, in the same small town he and his wife grew up in not far from Ann Arbor. He has restored a local theater there.)

It seems too little too late.

Detroit, in a downward slide for seemingly the last two decades, is in what can only really be described as a Depression. Detroit has lost half of its population since the auto’s heyday but thousands more continue to flee. From the Grand Haven Tribune:

Wayne County ranks fifth on the list of U.S. counties that lost the most people from 2005 to 2006 €” but the top four were hit by Hurricane Katrina.

The latest Census Bureau estimates, released today, found that the county, which includes Detroit, lost more than 19,000 people. The overall area, which has been hit hard by automotive industry layoffs, lost about 11,000 people.

Everything in Michigan is blamed on the auto industry- with good reason. It was (is?) the largest employer in the state (outside of government.) But other employers are also trimming their payrolls:

Still, the estimates don’t reflect the latest casualties of the region’s economic struggles. The Census estimates are for July 1, 2006, before the latest announcements of auto-related buyouts and layoffs. Drug maker Pfizer Inc. also announced in January that it planned to shut down facilities in Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo and suburban Detroit as part of a restructuring plan, affecting about 2,410 Michigan jobs by the end of 2008.

“I keep thinking, ‘What are the 2007 estimates going to be?”‘ Kurt Metzger, research director for the United Way for Southeastern Michigan, told The Detroit News. “They’re going to be much worse.”

How much worse can it really get? Foreclosures are a dime a dozen in Detroit and even the affluent suburbs. Last week, this shocking article appeared on Yahoo.com:

With bidding stalled on some of the least desirable residences in Detroit’s collapsing housing market, even the fast-talking auctioneer was feeling the stress.

“Folks, the ground underneath the house goes with it. You do know that, right?” he offered.

After selling house after house in the Motor City for less than the $29,000 it costs to buy the average new car, the auctioneer tried a new line: “The lumber in the house is worth more than that!”

As Detroit reels from job losses in the U.S. auto industry, the depressed city has emerged as a boomtown in one area: foreclosed property.

Houses selling for as little as $1300. Some for $7000. Even the rich are not spared the pain. From Yahoo:

Realtor Ron Walraven had a three-bedroom house in the suburb of Bloomfield Hills that had listed for $525,000 sell for just $130,000 at the auction.

Bloomfield Hills is one of Detroit’s more exclusive suburbs.

Overall, the economy is dismal in Michigan. I was just in the western part of the state and a local who has lived there for 30 years told me, “why would our graduates stay here? There are no jobs.” From Yahoo:

Detroit, where unemployment runs near 14 percent and a third of the population lives in poverty, leads the nation in new foreclosure filings, according to tracking service RealtyTrac.

With large swaths of the city now abandoned, banks are reclaiming and reselling Detroit homes from buyers who can no longer afford payments at seven times the national rate.

Michigan was the only state to see home prices fall in 2006. The national average price rose almost 6 percent but prices slipped 0.4 percent here, according to a federal study.

The state’s jobless rate of 7.1 percent in January was also the second highest in the nation, behind only Mississippi.

When I was there, I saw large amounts of for sale signs. I noticed a foreclosure sign on at least one house, which now stood empty. And this was in the Holland/Kalamazoo corridor (not even the Detroit area.) There was a noticeable pall of stress in the air (and gas prices that were well above the prices in Chicago- by at least 15 cents a gallon.)

Maybe it was the late winter weather I was feeling in the air. But one thing is certain- Michigan is in real trouble. From the Saginaw News:

The experts also say the state is expected to lose more clout in Congress. Michigan now has 15 seats in Congress and is expected to lose one seat in the 435-seat House of Representatives after the 2010 census. The state has lost at least one representative after each of the last four censuses. In 2000, the seat held by Bay City Democrat Jim Barcia was essentially folded into two other congressional districts.

Can Michigan be “saved”? Should it be? Or should it be left to the natural course of things- that its day in the sun is over (as head of the American auto industry and, somewhat, of industrialization) and that it is destined to lose population to nearby more competitive states and lose its best students/entrepreneurs to California, New York, and Illinois.

Or will a new wave of immigrants come in and scoop up the $1300 houses and start new businesses?

For now, the future of many parts of Michigan is not a good one. I believe we will see the more talented younger generation fleeing in larger numbers for the next several years.

Imagine a place where the number of rich women outnumber men. It exists. In Hong Kong.

Ten years after China took over rule of the former British colony, according to a recent survey by Citibank, the number of Hong Kong women who are millionaires rose to 51% of all millionaires. From Monsters and Critics news section:

The annual Citibank survey found that for the first time, women were a majority of those residents with liquid assets of at least 1 million Hong Kong dollars (128,000 US dollars).

An estimated 276,000 people in the former British colony, population 6.8 million, are now Hong-Kong-dollar millionaires, 51 per cent of them women.

The study also found that Hong Kong’s millionaires are 40 per cent richer than a year ago, with average total assets including property and other holdings, of 12.8 million US dollars.

Explaining the trend toward women millionaires, Citibank executive Weber Lo told the South China Morning Post, which carried the survey, that it reflected Hong Kong’s egalitarian society.

‘Many women work in senior positions and are independent, with high earning power,’ he told the newspaper. ‘It is inevitable that the financial return of women from their jobs is higher than before.’

Does that mean women don’t work as hard in America or Britain? In the United States, women make 77 cents compared to every dollar a man makes. Makes it harder to become a millionaire.

Maybe more Hong Kong women are single and therefore their income isn’t interrupted by childbearing? The survey didn’t seem to indicate that was the case:

The survey found that 88 per cent of millionaires are married, 82 per cent invest in stocks, 75 per cent own property and 64 per cent read a newspaper business section of a newspaper every day.

Clearly, Hong Kong knows something that other cities does not: How to get women to perform at their peak performance.

It is a lesson that many other countries, especially in the Middle East where women are shunted into the back room, would be wise to heed. But will they? It’s hard to compete is half of your talent isn’t even in the game.

Most Americans, it seems, are stretched financially right now. It doesn’t help that housing has exploded in price to such a degree, that many Americans are now spending over half of their income simply to have a roof over their heads. It is not surprising, then, that more and more people believe they need to live paycheck to paycheck.

Careerbuilder.com just did a survey to find out how common the practice really is. It turns out, nearly half of Americans are living for the next deposit.

Four out of 10 U.S. workers often or always live from paycheck to paycheck, according to a survey released Monday.

Women are more likely to live paycheck to paycheck, at 47 percent, than men, at 36 percent, according to the survey conducted for CareerBuilder.com, an online job site based in Chicago.

Overall, 41 percent of workers say they often or always live paycheck to paycheck, it said.

Think it’s just the middle class? Think again. Those SUVs and evenings eating out are expensive. Even the upper middle class (anyone earning over $100,000 a year) are living for the next paycheck.

The new survey said 19 percent of workers who earn $100,000 or more annually often or always live paycheck to paycheck.

It found 58 percent of respondents report they set a budget each month. But one in five say they typically spend more than their budget, most often blowing it by eating out.

The survey also said one in five do not set aside any money for savings each month. Of those who do, 14 percent save $500 or more a month, 28 percent save $100 or less and 16 percent save less than $50.

How about those who never save a dime? Common.

It said 26 percent of women do not set aside any savings, compared with 17 percent of men.

I saw a stat recently that said that 40% of Americans do not even have $500 in savings.

Yes, we’re stretched very, very thin. Saving for a rainy day? Again, not many can with housing, gasoline, health care and college costs all rising at far faster rates of inflation.

Question is, when will it simply become too much for the average Amerian? I have a feeling we’ll find some of the answer in housing prices (as they come down) and in health care (as more states at least offer it for their poorest citizens.)

It’s hard out there right now (and extremely tight.) If you are saving anything, you are ahead of the game.

Five years ago a CNNMoney writer named Chris Isidore was writing about a link between companies who put their names on sports stadiums and those companies’ financial well-being. What is the curse? From CNNMoney:

The curse is a simple one: If you have the hubris to put your name on a major North American sports venue, you and your stockholders will pay.

In 2001 and 2002, the Stadium Curse was alive and well (especially as the stock market was tanking). 63 stadiums had corporate sponsorship. According to CNNMoney:

When financial services firm Conseco Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002, it joined WorldCom, United Airlines (UAL: Research, Estimates), Adelphia Communications and US Airways as the victims of the curse last year alone.

After the collapse of Enron, PSINet, Trans World Airlines and National Car Rental parent ANC in 2001, that meant that nine of 63 stadium sponsors, or 14 percent . . . filed for bankruptcy in a 19 month [period].

There have been college finance professors who have studied the curse (which I suppose makes it somewhat more legitimate).

And now it’s back. From Reuters:

The Rangers baseball team on Monday announced the ballpark, known since 2004 as Ameriquest Field, will be renamed Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

Ameriquest had in May 2004 signed a 30-year naming rights agreement worth a reported $75 million, but the Rangers said they asked Ameriquest last year to end that agreement. The new name is similar to the field’s original name, The Ballpark in Arlington.

Ameriquest is involved in the subprime mess.

Last week, Ameriquest’s parent, ACC Capital Holdings Corp., said it closed four centers, eliminating an unspecified number of jobs, in what it called a “very challenging” market for making home loans to higher-risk borrowers.

The cuts followed the elimination of some 3,800 employees last May by Orange, California-based ACC. The company said it still employed about 6,000 people prior to last week’s cuts.

Can Ameriquest survive? They were once the largest subprime lender in the country but sales volume has plunged. From Bloomberg:

Last month, ACC Capital received a cash infusion from Citigroup Inc., which agreed to become the company’s primary “warehouse,” or short-term lender.

New loan volume at ACC Capital’s lending units, the top provider of subprime loans during 2005, plunged 61 percent last year to $29 billion, dropping it into seventh place among such lenders, according to newsletter Inside B&C Lending.

If the “curse” continues, the outlook is not a positive one for Ameriquest. Also on the Stadium Curse Stock Index list: Ford and GM (the Lions and Vancouver Canucks, respectively.)

Be warned.