[magellan]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I thought RI had the highest, surpassing MI a month or so back... is this new data? Sorry to jump into this forum, but I usually post in Maine and MA and saw this on the main page.

Rhode Island is a dark horse in the running at 9.3%. Don't count them out quite yet.

upandrunning, first you use Michigan's rate, and then you compare it to rates for individual cities (Little Rock and Wichita, neither of which could you physically pay me and move me to). I'm assuming you know that state and city rates are apples and oranges?

Here are some other state rates as of late:

Arizona: 6.1%
Georgia: 7.0
Florida: 7.0
Illinois: 7.3
Missouri: 6.5
Nevada: 7.6
North Carolina: 7.0
Pennsylvania: 5.8
Texas: 5.6

Actually, considering how many hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have left Michigan (either for good or to other countries), 9.6% is not that bad.

[wanderer74]

Originally Posted by malamute

You have to look at this way -- many people in Michigan are not unemployed, if 10% are, that means 90% are doing just fine.

I wouldn't exactly say that. I'm in the 90% that's employed, but it took me nearly a year to find a job and I only work 18 hours a week. I do freelance work on the side to supplement the part-time hours but I would much rather be working full-time at just one job.

I can come up with at least 10 people I personally know, just off the top of my head, who only work part-time and want to be full-time. Most of these people are, like me, in their 30s, with college education and families to support. Just because we're in the 90% that's employed, that does NOT equal "just fine".

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by malamute

You have to look at this way -- many people in Michigan are not unemployed, if 10% are, that means 90% are doing just fine.

One of the issues is what exactly that 10% number refers to. Does it include people who have "stopped looking for work" since it became a futile experience? Does it include involuntary-early-retirees who would like to work? Does it include involuntary-stay-at-home parents who would like to work but can't find anything worthwhile? It also doesn't account for low wage jobs and part time employment--underemployment.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of working-aged adults earn lower middle class and above incomes. You might take the percentage who don't and call it the "more realistic unemployment" number.

[Cliffie]

It's just about 9 a.m. and "W" is supposed to be making some kind of announcement right now about what gives with the bailout.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

One of the issues is what exactly that 10% number refers to. Does it include people who have "stopped looking for work" since it became a futile experience? Does it include involuntary-early-retirees who would like to work? Does it include involuntary-stay-at-home parents who would like to work but can't find anything worthwhile? It also doesn't account for low wage jobs and part time employment--underemployment.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of working-aged adults earn lower middle class and above incomes. You might take the percentage who don't and call it the "more realistic unemployment" number.

So when you come up with that equation of the "hidden unemployed", you'll tack that number on to the unemployment rates of every state, right?

[MittenDweller82]

Regardless, 10% is well, 10%..no one wants to see that many people unemployed. 70 years ago, there weren't 10,000,000 people living in Michigan, by simple calculations that gives us roughly 960,000 peeps unemployed (more who don't claim benefits). We all know that change is needed, but continually touting the dark cloud isn't helping anybody (neither is the uaw) oops, what thread is this again?

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Sociologist

Regardless, 10% is well, 10%..no one wants to see that many people unemployed. 70 years ago, there weren't 10,000,000 people living in Michigan, by simple calculations that gives us roughly 960,000 peeps unemployed (more who don't claim benefits). We all know that change is needed, but continually touting the dark cloud isn't helping anybody (neither is the uaw) oops, what thread is this again?

Actually, the number of "unemployed" (using the BLS's definition) peeps in Michigan right now is about 470,000. You're right, all those people have names, faces and probably families that are worried this Christmas.

[walls]

Michigan is in dire straits.......it is precisely because of our uncompetitive labor rates,and over bearing regulations,also being a non right to work state where people and business are leaving in droves. We have an anti business climate here(a piggish greed entitelment mentality) is a better word. The high wages for teachers and state employees and all the other union jobs depends on the private sector to PRODUCE the wealth that these same said people suck up thru forced coersion of taxes or lose your home. When that wealth producing segment packs up and leaves, which it has and is doing....they take their wealth with them. Then the gluttony of the state and the unions comes crashing down. As they say...it ain't rocket science. As we have seen displayed nightly in the news, the unions do not care,they will take us to the brink.

[upandrunning]

Originally Posted by magellan

Rhode Island is a dark horse in the running at 9.3%. Don't count them out quite yet.

upandrunning, first you use Michigan's rate, and then you compare it to rates for individual cities (Little Rock and Wichita, neither of which could you physically pay me and move me to). I'm assuming you know that state and city rates are apples and oranges?

Here are some other state rates as of late:

Arizona: 6.1%
Georgia: 7.0
Florida: 7.0
Illinois: 7.3
Missouri: 6.5
Nevada: 7.6
North Carolina: 7.0
Pennsylvania: 5.8
Texas: 5.6

Actually, considering how many hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have left Michigan (either for good or to other countries), 9.6% is not that bad.

I do not know if you are the official apologist for the state of Michigan, but if not you sure are giving the guy who is a run for his money. First off you have obviously never been to little Rock or you would not have opened your mouth in such and inserted foot so fast. Any one who has been there will tell you it is as nice a city as any around and is considered a hidden gem. Wichita is a place that although much nicer than Detroit will ever be, is a manufacturing center. It has high taxes on property, [about what Michigan’s taxes are] but the unemployment is low, and jobs are still doing well. The housing market in both cities did not shoot up like many other places in the last four years, so they are not dumping in value like Michigan and other places. No one offered you a dime to move from what ever hovel you live in. So why did you feel the need to insert yourself as if you were so important that any one cared where you lived? I for one do not. If this thread does not interest you, why did you feel the need to put your slanted two cents in? Michigan will most likely lead the unemployment race in the next few years at least. And all your rhetorical devices will do nothing to stop or even slow this down. Are they still buying ice cream on 8 mile? By your posts, Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

[Cliffie]

It's not just Michigan anymore, remember. Let me just make it rain on everyone's alligator-infested quicksand by pointing out that we're about to hit an historical high-water mark in food-stamp benefits. This month we're expected to have 30 million people on food stamps -- that's right, one out of every ten American citizens. Which I think underlines the fact that there are many, many people who are working AND far from being "just fine." You're not 'unemployed' if you're getting in ten hours a weeks running the cash register at the Smoker's Depot, but is that gonna cover the house payment?