State By State Unemployment Numbers
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Economy, JobsIt makes sense that Michigan is getting hit the hardest, but check out which states are doing just fine…
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Louisiana are all under 6% and some of them are under 4%.
That doesn’t bode well for getting much support from Republicans or moderate Dems when very few folks in these states are feeling much pain. They think they’ve been responsible, when the reality is they just don’t have very big economies so they’re not tied into the global marketplace as tightly.
In any event, just wanted to lend some perspective as to possibly why some of the Blue Dogs aren’t necessarily getting on board. Because it could have much less to do with principle and more to do with not feeling any pain…yet.
(source: Calculated Risk)
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 12th, 2009 and is filed under Economy, Jobs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:17 am
…it could have much less to do with principle and more to do with not feeling any pain…
Alternatively, it could have something to do with principle.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Right, but that’s what they’re arguing right now so I thought that was pretty much covered. That’s why I presented the counter argument.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:30 am
That’s fairly inflammatory speculation, Justin. If you decide you want to be responsible, I think you ought to at least try to correlate each state’s unemployment rate to its redness or blueness. After all, I can look at the blow-up of this graph over at calculated risk and make an even longer list of red states and states with blue dogs that DO have unemployment over 6%.
In the meantime, you are just letting your own personal bias drive your speculation. I think you ought to be far more reticent to make sweeping negative generalizations based on noticing that unemployment has in general gone up by lesser percents in the less populous states of the union.
When it comes to places like let’s say the dakotas, one has to wonder what a relatively low unemployment rate even means. They have a low population and a small economy. How many people there aren’t even looking for work? How many left for greener pastures?
Now if it comes to the people of states like this (and their elected reps) bearing little sympathy towards the states with plummeting real estate markets and scores of empty mcmansions, can anyone really blame them? Fact is, comparatively speaking, their boats never rose anywhere near as much as boats rose in places like California, ground zero in the subprime lending fiasco.
If I was from Oklahoma or South Dakota or Idaho, I too would be reluctant to see my tax dollars go towards treating the painful afteraffects of California’s Affluenza.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Louisiana are all under 6% and some of them are under 4%.”
And all but one of them (Montana) are Right to Work states, where people are free to choose whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union. As opposed to “hardest hit” Michigan, where people can legally be discriminated against and fired for choosing not to.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:14 am
OK, so that’s 9 states. But there are [at a quick wiki map count] 22 RtW states.
That means that 13 RtW states DO NOT have unemployment under 6%. Sorta totally effs up your hypothesis, huh?
It’s foolish to suggest that labor policy is much of a driver in current unemployment rates, when instead it looks like (and I don’t hestitate to note that I am merely hypothesizing at a glance) )you can correlate UE fairly decently with electoral votes. Population density, in other words. A greater rate of job losses in thickly settled areas. That is how it usually goes.
Right to work states like Florida and Georgia and the Carolinas don’t see to be getting much protection from their magic right-to-work rules. What a shocker!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am
It’s just silly to assume there is a one-to-one relationship between statewide unemployment rates and the positions that pols from those states have taken or may take down the road.
First, unemployment rates — as I’ve seen argued here before — are but one indicator of recession — and there is more than one “unemployment rate.” Earnings from businesses and household incomes, real estate prices, asset values, etc. are all important data. The job stats by themselves don’t tell us how much “pain” people are feeling.
Second, if there were a relationship between the level of unemployment and elected officials’ stands, would we not expect states where the rate is still “only” about 6% — e.g., New Hampshire, Maryland, Hawaii — to be less concerned than Michigan, Indiana or California? If so, I doubt you’d see that reflected in the Congress.
Third, as others have pointed out, the political culture anywhere is not derivative only of economic factors. People don’t suddenly cease to be liberal or conservative because they are laid off.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
You can claim bias all you want, but I’m talking about Republicans and SOME moderate Dems. And of course people are going to be more likely to think spending is wasteful if they think their tax dollars are going to other states that they think are irresponsible. You think a guy like Charlie Crist would be championing the stimulus if Florida wasn’t getting hit hard? Come on guys…
Second, I’m not saying there’s a one to one ratio. I merely posited a possibility for motivation. You guys can extrapolate that out to the nth degree if you want, but my statement did not preclude any of what you’re saying. However, I’m not going to talk about EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO when I make an aside, especially when those are obviously assumed with the word “could.”
Third, yes, there are more factors than just unemployment, but jobs are THE key factor because they directly relate to the economic health of a state, revenues, housing prices, etc.
Last, of course people’s politics change when situations change. Where have you been living the past 30 years? That’s the constantly shifting nature of politics and the reason why swing voter decides the elections. And constituencies change within districts over periods of time, and they push their elected officials one way or the other.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Unemployment is a statistical trailing indicator – last to grow and last to shrink. It may matter but the combined populations of those states mentioned above represent less than 6% of the national population. Those states are also largely rural/agricultural and are all classed as “receiver” states (they get more from the federal government then they pay in taxes). So their relatively low percentage of unemployment basically doesn’t mean crap – because these states figure so low in national industrial output, tax receipts, and global competitiveness (although the oil business is really picking up). On the the other hand the states with unemployment above or reaching 10% currently MI, RI, CA, SC, OR, DC, NV, NC, GA, AL, FL represent roughly 32% of the total population, and fully half are “donor” states. Dem’s and states with large populations are clearly in control of Congress and will act accordingly – the Senate is Democratic controlled and those states listed listed in the heading have 10 Rep senators out of 18. Not alot of strength politically or economically – there’s just no there there.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I know what you’re talking about Justin. I simply think its irresponsible of you to just toss it out as a one-off when it’s a hypothesis that you could have tested with just a little bit more work.
You freely concede where your biases lie. You’ve been upfront that you lean democratic. Here’s the thing: if you want to be something of a centrist, then when you have hypothesis like this one, you TEST it. That you get get to see whether your “at a glance” brainstorm is real, or fed by your biases.
None of us can escape our biases and leanings. it if we’re trying to be balanced we try to be aware of them, and we try not to let them rule us.
Here’s the thing, please allow me to clobeer you with it just this one more thiome: You’ve gone ahead and suggested that the motives of republicans and conservative democrats in opposing stimulus etc is based on low employment in the home states of such folks. You apparently did this by doing little more that quickly glancing at a graph. With just a little bit more time, you could actually TEST this hypothesis after a fashion.
That’s the sort of thing that people do when the rare chance arises. It occasionally rescues one from being accused of pronouncing from their rectum.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It would be VERY easy to do. Not super quick, but easy. All you’d have to do is calculate the average home state unemployment rate of those who voted for the stimulus, and compare it to the average home state unemployment rate of the folks who voted against it.
If these two numbers were close, say less than a percent, then that would be objective data proving that you were full of crap. If it were say more than 1%, then I’d say you might have something.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
…you were full of crap.
That sounds just a tad acerbic, Krunchy Kitten.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Then kranky…run the numbers on your point of view. But that wasn’t my point, nor my perspective. I just looked at the states that were below that line. That’s IT.
Basically, don’t chide me for not thinking about how YOU would go about it.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Justin, I’m chiding you for engaging in inflammatory speculation based on no more than a cursory glance at a graph.
You seem pretty determined to insist there’s nothing at all wrong with that. And that reflects upon YOU, not me.
If you want to continue to base your ideas on, frankly, innumerate readings of graphs, that’s your problem. Why in the world would I waste an hour or two crunching the data? You’ve given me more than sufficient reason to expect that even if I did it, and got the results I expected, you would simply DENY that I’d demonstrated that real data showed your hypothesis was mistaken.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
That looks like a good book, KK. Thanks.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
If you think that reflects poorly on me, then fine. Nothing new there. I don’t see my statement as controversial or inflammatory given that I clearly stated in my previous comment that it didn’t preclude other reasoning. I didn’t say it was the ONLY reason, just that it could be a reason. If I had stated, “This is why they’re opposing it…” that would be a different story.
So my point still stands…if these states were hurting from massive unemployment as other red to moderate state were, there’s a chance they’d be more open to hearing options. Because their constituencies would be screaming “DO SOMETHING!” as they clearly have in Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, etc.
Last, I find it particularly ironic that you link to a book that talks about bad math education when we’re talking about opposition to spending bills that would help make sure schools are fully funded.