[green_mariner]

Unemployment Rates for the 50 Largest Cities

The lowest unemployment rate for a large city is Austin,Texas. A very liberal city. Of the top 10 cities with the lowest unemployment rates, only three are run by Republicans.

1 Austin city, TX 3.0
2 Omaha city, NE 3.1
3 Minneapolis city, MN 3.3
4 Honolulu County/city, HI 3.4
5 Oklahoma City city, OK 3.5
6 San Francisco County/city, CA 3.6
7 Denver County/city, CO 3.7
7 San Antonio city, TX 3.7
9 Tulsa city, OK 3.9
10 Columbus city, OH 4.1

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

I disagree. How do you explain Minneapolis, Austin, San Francisco? Democratic cities with low unemployment rates.

Not to mention he's wrong about Omaha. Four of the seven Council members are Democrats and the Mayor is just riding the coattails of economic policy from her Democrat predecessor.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by McBain II

Not to mention he's wrong about Omaha. Four of the seven Council members are Democrats and the Mayor is just riding the coattails of economic policy from her Democrat predecessor.

Well, if that is the case, and Omaha has a low unemployment rate, then that proves even more, political affiliation has little to do with anything. Anyway, Omaha's mayor is a Republican.

[jmgg]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Unemployment Rates for the 50 Largest Cities

The lowest unemployment rate for a large city is Austin,Texas. A very liberal city. Of the top 10 cities with the lowest unemployment rates, only three are run by Republicans.

1 Austin city, TX 3.0
2 Omaha city, NE 3.1
3 Minneapolis city, MN 3.3
4 Honolulu County/city, HI 3.4
5 Oklahoma City city, OK 3.5
6 San Francisco County/city, CA 3.6
7 Denver County/city, CO 3.7
7 San Antonio city, TX 3.7
9 Tulsa city, OK 3.9
10 Columbus city, OH 4.1

What's your point. Most major cities have a Democrat mayor due to minority demographics. On your Unemployment Rates for the 50 Largest Cities that you refer to, 16 of the last 18 of the cities showing the WORST unemployment numbers are run by Democrats. The only exceptions being Long Beach and Fresno. I guess we can make an assumption to the contrary using these numbers too.


Everyone knows the bang up jobs being done in cities like Detroit, New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and Baltimore since their dirty laundry is always hanging out there.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by jmgg

What's your point. Most major cities have a Democrat mayor due to minority demographics. On your Unemployment Rates for the 50 Largest Cities that you refer to, 16 of the last 18 of the cities showing the WORST unemployment numbers are run by Democrats. The only exceptions being Long Beach and Fresno. I guess we can make an assumption to the contrary using these numbers too.


Everyone knows the bang up jobs being done in cities like Detroit, New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and Baltimore since their dirty laundry is always hanging out there.

Here is the point. For every city you say is doing bad because of Democrats, I can point out cities that are liberal, run by Democrats, and are doing well. And as for Detroit and Baltimore, those are essentially Rust Belt cities where the poorest of Blacks are living in large numbers. Blacks pretty much are poorer than everywhere else in the USA with a few exceptions. Doesn't matter if it's a Democratic of Republican place.

Since this is about Omaha, let's take a shot. A few interesting reads about Omaha and its Black population, as well as Hispanic population.

UNO Study Finds Rising Rates of Poverty in Omaha | News | University of Nebraska Omaha

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/pove...dd27c2b56.html

We Are Poor

Nebraska’s North Omaha has the highest child poverty level of any U.S. Black metropolitan area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...maha,_Nebraska

Omaha, Nebraska: The Most Dangerous Place In America To Be Black

If conservatism was the answer, then Omaha would have the wealthiest Black population of any major city. The opposite is occurring.

My point? Liberal or conservative, it does not matter.

Question is: Which large cities are Blacks doing the best in this nation?

[jmgg]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Here is the point. For every city you say is doing bad because of Democrats, I can point out cities that are liberal, run by Democrats, and are doing well. And as for Detroit and Baltimore, those are essentially Rust Belt cities where the poorest of Blacks are living in large numbers. Blacks pretty much are poorer than everywhere else in the USA with a few exceptions. Doesn't matter if it's a Democratic of Republican place.

Since this is about Omaha, let's take a shot. A few interesting reads about Omaha and its Black population, as well as Hispanic population.

UNO Study Finds Rising Rates of Poverty in Omaha | News | University of Nebraska Omaha

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/pove...dd27c2b56.html

We Are Poor



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...maha,_Nebraska

Omaha, Nebraska: The Most Dangerous Place In America To Be Black

If conservatism was the answer, then Omaha would have the wealthiest Black population of any major city. The opposite is occurring.

My point? Liberal or conservative, it does not matter.

Question is: Which large cities are Blacks doing the best in this nation?

The current Republican mayor has only been in office for less than 3 years. The city was under Democratic leadership for 12 years prior to her being elected to office. There was a stint of Republicans in office before 2001.


There's no definitive pattern one way or another as to who to point blame at or give kudus to when it comes to the current state of the city of Omaha.


If there is a pattern at all, it's that the articles you reference were either written during the 12 years of Democrat leadership of Omaha or reference the years during the Democrat leadership of the city.


The comparison of the enormous leap in poverty for the Hispanics from when they were doing pretty well (the final year of a Republican mayor being 2000-2001) THRU 2013 which is the last year the Democrats were in charge does not bode well for the Democratic mayors. UNO Study Finds Rising Rates of Poverty in Omaha | News | University of Nebraska Omaha


The "We are Poor" article was written in 2011. Once again, at the tail end of the Democratic run.


The article about Omaha being the most dangerous place in America for being black is using statistics from 2011 with a mention of the pattern continuing into 2014. Omaha, Nebraska: The Most Dangerous Place In America To Be Black This was at the end of a decade of Democratic rule (2001-2013).


MY conclusion is that if there was party with more responsibility for Omaha's increase in crime or poverty, it was under the leadership of the Democratic mayors Fahey and Suttle.


Personally, I don't believe either party's leadership can be totally blamed entirely for the failures nor lauded for the successes.


Omaha is not Chicago or Detroit where one party has universally been responsible (Democrats) for the fact that both are becoming more dangerous places to live than Baghdad.


My point? Liberal or conservative, it does not matter. (Quote - green_mariner) This I pretty much agree with you on IN OMAHA'S CASE. In a large percentage of the other major cities in the U.S. liberal policies have helped to destroy their economy AND safety.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by jmgg

The current Republican mayor has only been in office for less than 3 years. The city was under Democratic leadership for 12 years prior to her being elected to office. There was a stint of Republicans in office before 2001.


There's no definitive pattern one way or another as to who to point blame at or give kudus to when it comes to the current state of the city of Omaha.


If there is a pattern at all, it's that the articles you reference were either written during the 12 years of Democrat leadership of Omaha or reference the years during the Democrat leadership of the city.


The comparison of the enormous leap in poverty for the Hispanics from when they were doing pretty well (the final year of a Republican mayor being 2000-2001) THRU 2013 which is the last year the Democrats were in charge does not bode well for the Democratic mayors. UNO Study Finds Rising Rates of Poverty in Omaha | News | University of Nebraska Omaha


The "We are Poor" article was written in 2011. Once again, at the tail end of the Democratic run.


The article about Omaha being the most dangerous place in America for being black is using statistics from 2011 with a mention of the pattern continuing into 2014. Omaha, Nebraska: The Most Dangerous Place In America To Be Black This was at the end of a decade of Democratic rule (2001-2013).


MY conclusion is that if there was party with more responsibility for Omaha's increase in crime or poverty, it was under the leadership of the Democratic mayors Fahey and Suttle.


Personally, I don't believe either party's leadership can be totally blamed entirely for the failures nor lauded for the successes.


Omaha is not Chicago or Detroit where one party has universally been responsible (Democrats) for the fact that both are becoming more dangerous places to live than Baghdad.


My point? Liberal or conservative, it does not matter. (Quote - green_mariner) This I pretty much agree with you on IN OMAHA'S CASE. In a large percentage of the other major cities in the U.S. liberal policies have helped to destroy their economy AND safety.

I went and looked up some information about Omaha in the 1990s, before the 2001-2013 administrations. Life was hard for Blacks in Omaha during those days as well. Unemployment rates for Black males in the 90s was 4 fold what it was for Whites.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=5Z...Bomaha&f=false

I think we both agree neither Democrat or Republican mayors could help Blacks in Omaha. However, things were quite bad for Blacks in the 1990s as well, under a Republican mayor.

[skidamarink]

Omaha is good for unskilled jobs that pay $7.00/hr (i.e. cashier at a grocery store). But if you have a Bachelor's degree in a liberal arts discipline and you're looking for a desk job that pays more than $40K.yr, the job search will be the same as any other city.

[countrylv22]

Originally Posted by ARPARP

Technically there is some truth to this. There are U1 through U6. U1 basically is the number of people who cannot find work within a reasonable amount of time. In other words people out of work for a long time (99ers and the like). This rate is actually pretty low in most states. In MI it is high at 5% but in NE it is only 1.7. I imagine most people in good economy states are unemployable, people with no HS degree, felons, and the like.

U-3 is what we commonly call the unemployment rate. Meaning all in the labor force looking for work. In Nebraska the rate was 4% in late 2012 (I think a bit lower now).

However U-6 is also important. It refers to those working part time not by choice. I find myself in U-6. In MI this is 16%, but in NE it was 8.6% for late 2012, I'm guessing a bit lower now. As a general rule it seems this rate is about twice the unemployment rate.

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

Now the underlying health of the economy also has other measures. The labor force participation rate is key. Meaning the number actually in the labor force. Obviously retirees will not be included, so this is not an issue, but a lot of discouraged people have given up.

In March 2012 (latest data I could find, a year old) the rate in Nebraska was 71%, a decline from 73% from 2007. Aging contributes some, but a lot of it in recent years is discouraged workers giving up. A lot of it is people going back to school. One silver lining of recessions is college education increases. Essentially you've only had around 2% of your labor force drop out. My home state by contrast saw a 5% decline. Our participation rate was only 64% in 2007, in 2012 59%. With the unemployment rate figured in only 54% of Michiganders were employed in 2012. 68% of Nebraskans were a year ago, and before the recession it was 71%. In Michigan it was still only 59%. But Michigan has had higher than average unemployment since around 2003. So there is the contrast between MI (where I live) and NE (where I am considering moving).

The underlying fundamentals in MI are still bad.

Finally we have wages. The median household income in NE in 2011 rounding off was 5000 more than MI (50,000 vs. 45,000 respectably). Buhttp://www.city-data.com/forum/omaha/1868752-why-does-omaha-have-low-unemployment-5.htmlt the COL in MI is 4% higher. So incomes in MI are 10% lower than Nebraska but COL is 5% higher, so on average Michigan people who are actually lucky enough to be employed are earning 90 cents on the dollar to Nebraskans, but paying five cents more on average for basic baskets of goods for every dollar. Michiganders are 15% poorer than Nebraskans on average.

Finally Tax Freedom day arrives two days earlier for Nebraskans than Michiganders, so you also actually pay slightly lower taxes overall. Both states are near the middle. Connecticut, the latest state, comes a month later. Meanwhile the lowest states, MS and LA come in on Mar 29. Tax Freedom day is the number of days the average person must work to cover their tax burden, if all state, local, and federal taxes added up.

Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is April 18, Five Days Later Than Last Year | Tax Foundation

Thanks for the links!