Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Making sense of each state's unemployment
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Economy and Business
Google
RedCedar
QUOTE
1 HAWAII 2.8
2 NORTH DAKOTA 3.4
3 VERMONT 3.5
3 VIRGINIA 3.5
5 ALABAMA 3.6
5 FLORIDA 3.6
7 IDAHO 3.7
8 NEW HAMPSHIRE 3.8
9 MINNESOTA 3.9
9 NEBRASKA 3.9
9 WYOMING 3.9
12 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.0
12 UTAH 4.0
14 NEVADA 4.1
14 OKLAHOMA 4.1
16 MARYLAND 4.2
17 MONTANA 4.3
18 DELAWARE 4.4
19 NEW JERSEY 4.6
20 WISCONSIN 4.7
21 ARIZONA 4.8
21 ARKANSAS 4.8
21 IOWA 4.8
24 MAINE 4.9
24 MASSACHUSETTS 4.9
24 WEST VIRGINIA 4.9
27 COLORADO 5.0
28 CONNECTICUT 5.1
28 NEW MEXICO 5.1
28 PENNSYLVANIA 5.1
31 CALIFORNIA 5.2
31 KANSAS 5.2
31 NORTH CAROLINA 5.2
31 RHODE ISLAND 5.2
35 ILLINOIS 5.3
35 INDIANA 5.3
35 TEXAS 5.3
38 GEORGIA 5.4
38 NEW YORK 5.4
40 MISSOURI 5.6
40 WASHINGTON 5.6
42 OHIO 5.7
43 OREGON 5.8
43 TENNESSEE 5.8
45 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 6.1
46 KENTUCKY 6.2
47 MICHIGAN 6.6
48 ALASKA 7.0
49 SOUTH CAROLINA 7.1
50 MISSISSIPPI 9.5
51 LOUISIANA 12.4



Some of these make sense. Like La and Ms being last because of Katrina. My home state Mi losing manufacturing jobs like a hole in the dike. Hawaii with tourism.


But here's my question.

What do you get from these numbers and what does it mean about our national unemployment numbers and unemployment in general?


If you look at the states that you would assume could create the best and most jobs, they are the states that actually are lower on the totem pole.

North Dakota? South Dakota? Nebraska? Idaho? Wyoming? Alabama?

What's it all mean?
Google
Bikerdad
QUOTE(RedCedar @ Jan 15 2006, 11:57 PM)
QUOTE
1 HAWAII 2.8
2 NORTH DAKOTA 3.4
3 VERMONT 3.5
3 VIRGINIA 3.5
5 ALABAMA 3.6
5 FLORIDA 3.6
7 IDAHO 3.7
8 NEW HAMPSHIRE 3.8
9 MINNESOTA 3.9
9 NEBRASKA 3.9
9 WYOMING 3.9
12 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.0
12 UTAH 4.0
14 NEVADA 4.1
14 OKLAHOMA 4.1
16 MARYLAND 4.2
17 MONTANA 4.3
18 DELAWARE 4.4
19 NEW JERSEY 4.6
20 WISCONSIN 4.7
21 ARIZONA 4.8
21 ARKANSAS 4.8
21 IOWA 4.8
24 MAINE 4.9
24 MASSACHUSETTS 4.9
24 WEST VIRGINIA 4.9
27 COLORADO 5.0
28 CONNECTICUT 5.1
28 NEW MEXICO 5.1
28 PENNSYLVANIA 5.1
31 CALIFORNIA 5.2
31 KANSAS 5.2
31 NORTH CAROLINA 5.2
31 RHODE ISLAND 5.2
35 ILLINOIS 5.3
35 INDIANA 5.3
35 TEXAS 5.3
38 GEORGIA 5.4
38 NEW YORK 5.4
40 MISSOURI 5.6
40 WASHINGTON 5.6
42 OHIO 5.7
43 OREGON 5.8
43 TENNESSEE 5.8
45 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 6.1
46 KENTUCKY 6.2
47 MICHIGAN 6.6
48 ALASKA 7.0
49 SOUTH CAROLINA 7.1
50 MISSISSIPPI 9.5
51 LOUISIANA 12.4



Some of these make sense. Like La and Ms being last because of Katrina. My home state Mi losing manufacturing jobs like a hole in the dike. Hawaii with tourism.


But here's my question.

What do you get from these numbers and what does it mean about our national unemployment numbers and unemployment in general?


If you look at the states that you would assume could create the best and most jobs, they are the states that actually are lower on the totem pole.

North Dakota? South Dakota? Nebraska? Idaho? Wyoming? Alabama?

What's it all mean?


The Dakotas have low unemployment because they have falling relative populations and relatively low wages. Likewise for Nebraska and Wyoming I would suspect. Idaho has low unemployment because of the economic expansion being driven by Left Coast refugees. Alabama, lower business costs and lower wages attract businesses, plus an increase in retirees.

What you should do is rate the states based on their "business friendliness." You'll find some definite correlations. Businesses only create jobs when they believe they can turn a profit doing it. Turning a profit is harder in an area of high wages, high taxes, high regulatory burdens, and high overhead, aka Michigan.
Jaime

Topic closed...


Reason: Question to debate too vague.

Recommended action:
If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.

Helpful links:
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory

Note: This is an automated response.

Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.