CA's real unemployment rate 20.3 percent (Los Angeles, San Jose: income, taxes, to live in)

[Fontucky]

Let them eat cake!

[hueyeats]

Figures!

Sheeps are just that, sheeps.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Let them eat cake!

Beat me to it ...

[oldtrader]

And in California when you add in the underemployed which are only working part time, or at jobs far beneath their normal jobs trying to put food on the table after unemployment runs out it is almost 1/3rd of the work force unemployed, given up hope, or underemployed.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

And in California when you add in the underemployed which are only working part time, or at jobs far beneath their normal jobs trying to put food on the table after unemployment runs out it is almost 1/3rd of the work force unemployed, given up hope, or underemployed.

Same is true everywhere ... More meaningless specious alarmism about California being the world's new dead zone.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

From this article explaining the U-6 unemployment figures generated by the federal government.

If California's real unemployment rate is 20.3 percent, the interior must be several points higher.

For the record, young homeless and semi-destitute men in Chico are more visible every day. It looked much different one year ago.

This doesn't really say much. If CA's "real" unemployment rate is higher than the "official" rate, then the same is true for all the other states.

And if the interior is much higher, that just means the exterior is much lower.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Same is true everywhere ... More meaningless specious alarmism about California being the world's new dead zone.

For one of the first times I must disagree with you at least partly. While CA isn't the dead zone many desperately want us to believe, unemployment here has been a problem. We are or were second in the nation with unemployment. With a population as large as ours, that leads to a large absolute number. Within the state I moved from a really bad job market into a better one. This was only possible because I have a support network where I moved to. For those who don't, they can't just up and move or they will join their new areas homeless. CA's economy is so large that it has the ability to kickstart a good portion of the US economy. We're not a dead zone but it is a big deal to a degree.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

For one of the first times I must disagree with you at least partly. While CA isn't the dead zone many desperately want us to believe, unemployment here has been a problem. We are or were second in the nation with unemployment. With a population as large as ours, that leads to a large absolute number. Within the state I moved from a really bad job market into a better one. This was only possible because I have a support network where I moved to. For those who don't, they can't just up and move or they will join their new areas homeless. CA's economy is so large that it has the ability to kickstart a good portion of the US economy. We're not a dead zone but it is a big deal to a degree.

I'm not sure we are understanding each other here. I was responding to a comment that said:

taking factors into account such as underemployment and people who have given up looking for work and those who have decided to become stay-at-home moms and dads, the government's statistic for unemployment is too low -- the real number is higher.

The poster had cited this as if unique to California. The poster is on a perpetual campaign to prove that California is on a different and more fatal course than every other state. My response was that the same factors exist everywhere. California unemployment is not secretly higher than its cited statistic -- where other states' are not. All places have the same issue of people who have quit looking for work and those who have decided to stay home, etc. Thus the percentages are relational across the country. California is not the only state with those same realities.

Where California's unemployment is cited at 10.6% -- but the poster says it is really over 20% ...
I am saying that where Pennsylvania is cited as 8.1% -- it is likewise really over 16% for the same reasons.

[oldtrader]

The federal government has the unemployment rate for each state (U3 rate) , but they also have the U6 rate which is the combined unemployment rate, and underemployment rate.

California U6 is 31.4% second to only Nevada. On the other hand, the North Dakota U6 rate is 6.1%.

For a list of 10 worst U6 states, see the slide show at Underemployment: 10 States Where Underemployment Is Highest

The national U6 rate is 14.9%, less than half of the California rate.

To get California back to a good economy they not only have to solve the (U3) unemployment rate, but they have to solve the U6 rate. Until they do the economy will limp along, and the tax revenues needed to run the state and cities will be way too low. Due to the sheer number of people in California, it will be a lot harder to solve the U6 rate and take more time than in many states.

Durring the great Depression of the 1930s they did not separate into two classes including the U6 rate. The 25% unemployment rate of the Depression at its peak, is similar to the states with high U6 rates today. In fact, California U6 rate is above 25%.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

The federal government has the unemployment rate for each state (U3 rate) , but they also have the U6 rate which is the combined unemployment rate, and underemployment rate.

California U6 is 31.4% second to only Nevada. On the other hand, the North Dakota U6 rate is 6.1%.

For a list of 10 worst U6 states, see the slide show at Underemployment: 10 States Where Underemployment Is Highest

The national U6 rate is 14.9%, less than half of the California rate.

To get California back to a good economy they not only have to solve the (U3) unemployment rate, but they have to solve the U6 rate. Until they do the economy will limp along, and the tax revenues needed to run the state and cities will be way too low. Due to the sheer number of people in California, it will be a lot harder to solve the U6 rate and take more time than in many states.

Durring the great Depression of the 1930s they did not separate into two classes including the U6 rate. The 25% unemployment rate of the Depression at its peak, is similar to the states with high U6 rates today. In fact, California U6 rate is above 25%.

Good information. Now everyone who is unhappy in California knows they can go improve their life in North Dakota. I endorse it.