which has better economy (jobs..), Seattle or Twin Cities (Minneapolis: job market, to live)

[sendij1]

Please let me know trying to decide where to move.

[HarborEastGuy]

Hands down I would bet that the job market is tough in every US city..

You are best served by finding a job using a job search portal like "indeed"
and move after you get the job. That's how I got here 2 months ago..

Also..
I lived in Seattle for many years and I'll take -5F MSP dry cold over the raw 32F
damp Seattle cold any day.. I found Seattle's winters to be absolutely miserable..

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by sendij1

Please let me know trying to decide where to move.

As of Novmeber 2010, the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro had a 6.5% unemployment rate, while Seattle-Tacoma's was 9.1%. So, statistically, the job market is stronger in MSP.

[sendij1]

How come nd has the 2 lowest UR in US (3 of top 5) ? Bismarck 3.3, Fargo 3.5, Grand Forks 3.7

[audadvnc]

The Dakotas have been losing population for decades due to lack of work. Most people in ND that became unemployed, left long ago.

[sendij1]

wow thanks for letting me know, was already working on plans to look at ND.

[MplsTodd]

While North Dakota has traditionally had little or no population growth due to people moving away from small towns and farms, the economy in ND is actually BOOMING now due to the gas and oil production. Places like Minot are going crazy, with not enough places for workers to live.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

^THAT is the reason.

[DirtMagurt]

Originally Posted by sendij1

How come nd has the 2 lowest UR in US (3 of top 5) ? Bismarck 3.3, Fargo 3.5, Grand Forks 3.7

Low population states always, always have lower unemployment rates for the same reason that when unemployment rates are low everywhere, these states have garbage economies by comparison. States like SD, ND and Iowa have populations that are either shrinking as a percentage of total US population or, in the case of Iowa and ND, are even shrinking in absolute terms. ND has fewer residents now than they did in 1920, and Iowa hasn't grown in number of residents since the 1970s.

It's faulty rationale to assume that because ND has lower unemployment rates than Washington state, that there are somehow more jobs in ND than in Seattle. There aren't. There are far fewer available jobs, even with a lower rate of unemployment, and entire industries that are doing fine elsewhere don't even exist in a place like Fargo or Bismarck. If you can't find a job as an account executive for an advertising agency in Seattle or Minneapolis, as one example, you won't find such a position in ND or Iowa because the industry literally does not exist in either place to any significant degree.

Long story short, unemployment in small states is low because nobody lives there, nobody moves there and when the economy is booming in other places, there isn't anything happening in the sparsely populated states. That's why on the whole, the upper Midwest continues to bleed population towards the coasts. Well, that and the weather.

[sendij1]

Originally Posted by DirtMagurt

Low population states always, always have lower unemployment rates for the same reason that when unemployment rates are low everywhere, these states have garbage economies by comparison. States like SD, ND and Iowa have populations that are either shrinking as a percentage of total US population or, in the case of Iowa and ND, are even shrinking in absolute terms. ND has fewer residents now than they did in 1920, and Iowa hasn't grown in number of residents since the 1970s.

It's faulty rationale to assume that because ND has lower unemployment rates than Washington state, that there are somehow more jobs in ND than in Seattle. There aren't. There are far fewer available jobs, even with a lower rate of unemployment, and entire industries that are doing fine elsewhere don't even exist in a place like Fargo or Bismarck. If you can't find a job as an account executive for an advertising agency in Seattle or Minneapolis, as one example, you won't find such a position in ND or Iowa because the industry literally does not exist in either place to any significant degree.

Long story short, unemployment in small states is low because nobody lives there, nobody moves there and when the economy is booming in other places, there isn't anything happening in the sparsely populated states. That's why on the whole, the upper Midwest continues to bleed population towards the coasts. Well, that and the weather.

great analysis, I thought.