This is a very interesting study and very helpful. The Hawaii economy is a bit more complex than it seems and the general tendency to draw conclusions by people who are not residents of Hawaii is traditionally problematic. That said I think the general analysis and broad conclusions drawn are accurate.
As was noted by Tim Knowles, population growth is not a goal. I think there is close to a consensus here that stability and sustainability are goals and that some reduction is a good thing. This is a very progressive state and we live with the effect of billionaires who, luckily, are rarely here. And I certainly agree that the allowing these people to buy up vast tracts of our islands is questionable and should be blocked. Unfortunately we are still part of the US, for the time being at least until it breaks up, so we are stuck with the gross distortions of a hyper capitalism.
This relates directly to some of the analytical difficulty as this is not an agricultural area although it is officially listed that way to describe the economic conditions from the national perspective. So unemployment is very low, as described, and does drive out ‘not enrolled’ young people particularly those who do not have family support, but the cultural traditions are much more Asian than western. The result is extended families and, I think, a greater tendency to family compounds with several generations living together or in close proximity due to multi home lots zoned for that. The result makes it a bit more difficult to identify socioeconomic status.
It is very interesting and new that Hawaii ties so closely to the national situation with the slow recovery of wages. That clearly shows the problems of being tied to a nation state in accelerating decline.