Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pay is not that great- I am from South Dakota, and pay there is actually quite low in most fields of work. Of course you make up for that with cheap cost of living, though.
One thing to keep in mind- just because the unemployment numbers are low, does not mean there are tons of jobs to be had. It just means not as many people have been laid off from their jobs. Even in good times there are not tons of good jobs in places like Sioux Falls, it's just a small labor market with a fairly limited number of jobs at any given time. Just something to keep in mind before anybody packs up the family and blindly moves to that area- study the situation closely for your field of work and jobs available, don't just look at the low unemployment numbers.
I think this is the reason. Not many people are losing their jobs, but not many new jobs are being gained. Combine that with for a long time a net outmigration of people and unemployment is low by default. And just because it is low doesn't mean there are large numbers of job oppurtunities. Combine this with sector specific factors and all jobs not created equal and you get a picture that might be complete. The small population and possibly the racially homogenous population makes for low unemployment. From what I can tell anyone who does lose their job likely just leaves.
And if a large number of people started moving in unemployment will skyrocket since it wouldn't take many people to have a large population impact.
Apparently the population grow is resuming in North Dakota (this state lost people during 2000-2008) because many people go there for a job, it's a good news for these competitive and beautiful states.
In South Dakota this population growth is accelerating, and apparently its biggest city, Sioux Falls has a boom, I can see a bright future for these 2 states.
I grew up in Nebraska and you might want to do more research on why people don't live there or in the Dakotas. Life's not all about reading statistics from the last 2-3 years. Those states have not "boomed" since the 1870s and 80s nor will they in the future, your stats and prognostications aside. The kids from these states leave to go to Mpls, Chicago or Kansas City...looking for JOBS.
I grew up in Nebraska and you might want to do more research on why people don't live there or in the Dakotas. Life's not all about reading statistics from the last 2-3 years. Those states have not "boomed" since the 1870s and 80s nor will they in the future, your stats and prognostications aside. The kids from these states leave to go to Mpls, Chicago or Kansas City...looking for JOBS.
They don't leave since 2007, and now South Dakota has jobs in finance and high-tech.
You have prejugees about these states I think, these state evolved very quickly, they're competitive now and apparently Sioux Falls is booming.
It's the beginning of a new era for these states, many will come from Illinois and Michigan in the future to have jobs or an affordable housing in the future.
These trends are like California-Nevada-Arizona...Before 1970 it was impossible to imagine californians leaving Cali to leave in Nevada / Arizona, small/lost states..But it's happened.
I worked with a disabled teenage boy last year in Florida. His Dad worked in contruction and when the housing boom went bust, he was out of work. The family lost their home and was living out of their van. His Dad got a job in North Dakota. He was hired on a Thursday and the family moved out of Florida on the following Tuesday.
I worked with a disabled teenage boy last year in Florida. His Dad worked in contruction and when the housing boom went bust, he was out of work. The family lost their home and was living out of their van. His Dad got a job in North Dakota. He was hired on a Thursday and the family moved out of Florida on the following Tuesday.
Yep, I seen a story on 60 minutes awhile back and they were saying that because word got around of ND having 97% of its workforce, working, there was a MASSIVE amount of people flooding to Fargo, which caused their apartment residences to fill up--and people were staying in the month of Dec living in their cars because of nowhere to live. They found a job instantly, but there were actual "waiting lists" of apartments to open up. Needless to say, they had the manpower, and the city of Fargo immediately starting building more apartment complexes so these people could find heat in one of the coldest cities in the nation.
The jobs are there--no doubt. Just be sure you reserve a place prior to taking work there.
I grew up in Nebraska and you might want to do more research on why people don't live there or in the Dakotas. Life's not all about reading statistics from the last 2-3 years. Those states have not "boomed" since the 1870s and 80s nor will they in the future, your stats and prognostications aside. The kids from these states leave to go to Mpls, Chicago or Kansas City...looking for JOBS.
I wouldn't be so sure. I have an older brother who lives in Vegas and even that far away, he said he's worked with 2 women just over the past year, that moved to Vegas to live in a "lively city" but ended up moving back to Nebraska--one to Omaha, the other to Grand Island, to get work that they couldn't find in over 4 months living in Vegas--and this was BEFORE Nevada attained it's status as the state with the highest unemployment rate.
The western states absolutely SUCK for looking for work--MUCH more so than any part of the country, in part because of NV and CA. WA state is getting better with finding work for most people, and Idaho is too, ( Oregon has had over a 9% unemployment figure for over 24 months straight! ) but other than that, you literally have to go to the midwest to find a state with lower than a 7 or 8% unemployment rate around here.
I think this is the reason. Not many people are losing their jobs, but not many new jobs are being gained. Combine that with for a long time a net outmigration of people and unemployment is low by default. And just because it is low doesn't mean there are large numbers of job oppurtunities. Combine this with sector specific factors and all jobs not created equal and you get a picture that might be complete. The small population and possibly the racially homogenous population makes for low unemployment. From what I can tell anyone who does lose their job likely just leaves.
And if a large number of people started moving in unemployment will skyrocket since it wouldn't take many people to have a large population impact.
Excellent point you made, very true. I went to college in eastern South Dakota back in the 90's, and unemployment was insanely low there at that time as well. However decent jobs were scarce, so I ended up moving to Lincoln, Nebraska after finding a job in my field. However even there, again a place that always has low unemployment, decent jobs all around are rather scarce. Sure you can easily find the $8 per hour low level jobs in retail and such, but for any kind of a decent job it's a bit of a challenge because there just simply are not many places for potential jobs in the first place. I lived there until this past November- I still had a job, but pay was being cut due to tough economic times, and there was really not much else in my field, so we used that as our opportunity to fullfil our dream of moving out here to Seattle. Even though unemployment is higher here in Seattle than it was in Lincoln, there were far more job opportunities for me here than there were back in Lincoln.
So it's very true what you said, that unemployment is low because people often leave if they do lose their jobs, and there is not much in-migration. If Lincoln or Sioux Falls happened to have a large influx of people from other areas unemployment would skyrocket because there is just not a big job market in either place.
I think in these states there are no large or even medium sized metros that people would go to. They would only arrive there with a job and leave when they don't have one. People don't go there without a job because the population is so small there will be a smaller number of openings in number.
I worked with a disabled teenage boy last year in Florida. His Dad worked in contruction and when the housing boom went bust, he was out of work. The family lost their home and was living out of their van. His Dad got a job in North Dakota. He was hired on a Thursday and the family moved out of Florida on the following Tuesday.
He's doing what he has to do , and I give him all the credit in the world, but I couldn't help but notice the temperature difference--they're going from one of the warmest areas to one of the coldest; Fargo is about as cold as it gets in the continental US...
I think in these states there are no large or even medium sized metros that people would go to. They would only arrive there with a job and leave when they don't have one. People don't go there without a job because the population is so small there will be a smaller number of openings in number.
Yep, but when people hear anything about ND or SD, they instantly think of a VERY cold place, flat or nothing to do, lots of farmland-preconceived or not, I think that those 3 things there alone keep a lot of folks from outside ND or SD from moving there. I think the same could be said for NE, most of WY and MT too--the weather is a big turn-off for most folks.
ND just gets a bad rap I think then it otherwise would based on those. Same here--people think of Oregon and "rain all the time" is what they perceive it to be. Not that they're far off from the truth LOL, but there is more here than just the rain.
Of course, some states like the midwest states in particular, are lower in unemployment than others, but truth betold, when the economy recovers, it will affect all 50 states and then it'll be like folks saying something like "well I'll move to Florida because their unemployment is lower than California"--even though it might only be by a percentage point, but one can also tell looking at economics of each state which ones usually fare well and ones usually fare bad during tough economic times.
For instance, when I moved here in 1994, Portland had the 2nd best economy in the nation ( only behind Seattle due to the dot.com boom ) and hi-tech places opened up all over the place, but then I learned shortly after moving here that has been the only time from about 1993-1997 when Oregon actually had a "good economy". Most times than not the last 25 yrs, it falters horribly with each bad economic time. Had I known that, of course I would have never moved here. I think folks moving into ND or SD should look at the states stats relative to that as well as I think sometimes that could be a tell-tale of what's to come.
ND ( particularly Fargo I heard ) is only doing well--or at least substantially better than any other state, because their banks didn't get caught up in the sub-prime mortgage con that occurred a few years back the banks started. They were much more particular with who they gave out loans too--and it's paid off for them in the long run.
Now, not every recession is related to mortgage meltdowns, so it'd be interesting to see how Fargo ( or the state in general-or any state with better than normal unemployment #'s fares ) during other reasons recessions occur.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
great plains boomtowns?
