Microsoft's Economic Impact on Washington

The University of Washington did a study that found Microsoft makes up 13.6% of Washington's economy in 2008. Part of the impact Microsoft has in the state include $9.16 billion in employee contributions and local purchases and the direct and indirect hiring of 267,611 employees.

In 1979, when Microsoft moved to Washington, it was a 30-employee, $3 million-company. In 2008, Microsoft was a 91,000-employee, $60 billion-company still headquartered in Washington, but with offices in 108 countries. The company is currently the second-largest private employer in the state, behind Boeing.

Scott Selby, communications manager in Microsoft Corporate Affairs, further explained, “Microsoft makes money, and then spends some of it on goods and services (the company purchased $2.15 billion in goods and services from Washington producers alone in 2008). That creates additional jobs and growth. Plus, there is then the spending of Microsoft employees as consumers.

image courtesy of SeattlePi

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Palm goes up for sale

Next Story

Blockbuster tests Games By Mail service

15 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Unclean009 said,
One of the biggest software companies in the world has an impact on the state it's located in? I had no idea...

Oh, come on, there must of have been a little hint somewhere for you. . .

Pam14160 said,

Oh, come on, there must of have been a little hint somewhere for you. . .

See this is what happens when we don't pay for use of the sarc mark.

Unclean009 said,
One of the biggest software companies in the world has an impact on the state it's located in? I had no idea...

And I'm sure you had all the numbers down, too. But if you really had "no idea" then there'd be no reason for you to click on the article and read what you already know. Yet, here you are...

C_Guy said,

And I'm sure you had all the numbers down, too. But if you really had "no idea" then there'd be no reason for you to click on the article and read what you already know. Yet, here you are...

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the article, it just seems a bit irreverent to me.

Pam14160 said,

Oh, come on, there must of have been a little hint somewhere for you. . .

dotf said,

See this is what happens when we don't pay for use of the sarc mark.

LMAO!

Pheee said,
And yet this is the best graph they could do with Microsoft Excel?

I remember in '99 when my sister printed graphs like that using Office '97 on her 98SE Dell Inspiron P3 machine. Good memories.

You would think they would use a more coloured graph in this day and age.

Back on topic, that is something I never even knew until now.

Pheee said,
And yet this is the best graph they could do with Microsoft Excel?

I must assume since the UW did the graphs, and not Microsoft, along with the fact color printers are so expensive they had to use a cheap HP (very old) laserjet printer; we cannot blame Microsoft for the artwork.

Pheee said,
And yet this is the best graph they could do with Microsoft Excel?
I don't understand why someone has to make a 3D-shiny-colorful-semi-transparent chart for just showing figures.

Pheee said,
And yet this is the best graph they could do with Microsoft Excel?
Done with Excel? Let me check...

Thousands go 60, 70, 90, 90.

Is that a feature of 2007 or 2010?

Pam14160 said,

I must assume since the UW did the graphs, and not Microsoft, along with the fact color printers are so expensive they had to use a cheap HP (very old) laserjet printer; we cannot blame Microsoft for the artwork.

I believe this graph is either taken from, or intended for print media, aka newspaper. As such greyscale is perfectly acceptable.

thenonhacker said,

Ok, show us a better version of that graph.

Actually, a line graph would have been a better choice. Much less "busy" than all those narrow vertical bars.


But that's not the point at all. Pheee was just introducing a bit of levity. You needn't take the post so seriously (since it wasn't generated by Microsoft at all).