The PA economy (Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Altoona: 2013, insurance, find a job)

[Pittsburghpride83]

We have the lowest unemployment numbers in a few years. Both Pittsburgh and the Commonwealth have lower than national average numbers. My question is the economy really expanding in Pennsylvania and adding jobs? Are we stuck in a rut?

I really think Pittsburgh is completely flat when it comes to job growth. I am seeing this differently with my own eyes. The articles written seem to contradict what I see and hear regarding the troubles of those seeking employment or shaky job situations locally. Any thoughts on this? I am not sure of Philly or the other cities in the state. I have heard that the best place to find a job in PA is the northeastern part of the state. I know people in neighboring states that seem to be finding work and things are shaking loose.

Here is an article today...


Pennsylvania jobless rate drops to 5.1 percent | TribLIVE

[cwa1984]

Unemployment in the following areas of PA

Lancaster is doing well with only 3.6%
Lebanon is also at 3.6%
Harrisburg-Carlisle Metro area is 3.9%
Altoona is at 4%
Pittsburgh is at 4.2%
York-Hanover PA is at 4.3%

The above confirms what I'm seeing on the ground in south central PA since I live in the Harrisburg-Carlisle metro area that things have been improving. South central Pennsylvania's population has grown rapidly in the last two decades and the area has been really built up. I can't say things have been flat around where I live. I won't comment on the rest of the state in this regard. As far how well we are doing against other states like Ohio I wonder if this is so much we are doing bad as it is that Ohio is getting back to where it was. They got hit harder then PA did by the great recession then PA did so I wonder if there higher growth now is due to that.

Now as far as improving the economy in PA goes the state's corporate tax rate is pathetic with it being the second highest in the nation and then we have the Delaware loophole which does the state no favors either. So big business pays little to no taxes via the loophole and you have small businesses getting slammed by the high tax rate. One step for fixing the PA budget which would also have a good effect on the economy is closing the loophole and dropping the corporate tax rate to 5% which would bring in more money then the state government gets and would help small business.

[pman]

Unemployment rate is different than employment growth. A declining labor force has helped drive down rates. Slashing the cni is an excellent idea.

[Pittsburghpride83]

Originally Posted by pman

Unemployment rate is different than employment growth. A declining labor force has helped drive down rates. Slashing the cni is an excellent idea.

I have read that as well. People could be going elsewhere to find work. Hence the labor decline.

[bluecarebear]

Yes, there are tons of jobs in the service industry.

[fisheye]

In July/August of 2013 our PA Unemployment tightened their belt. Supposedly it was because the Federal requirements. Basically they said that if your unemployed and want benefits; that you must apply three times each week for another job. If you do not fulfill their requirements; they will drop you and you will no longer receive benefits.

My feeling is that this amounted to a rule change and affected our unemployment rates. For some people it was just too difficult to submit the required three applications each week. Therefore many could have been dropped from the rolls. You cannot compare rates if your going to change the rules.

[blazerj]

Originally Posted by fisheye

In July/August of 2013 our PA Unemployment tightened their belt. Supposedly it was because the Federal requirements. Basically they said that if your unemployed and want benefits; that you must apply three times each week for another job. If you do not fulfill their requirements; they will drop you and you will no longer receive benefits.

My feeling is that this amounted to a rule change and affected our unemployment rates. For some people it was just too difficult to submit the required three applications each week. Therefore many could have been dropped from the rolls. You cannot compare rates if your going to change the rules.

I don't think the calculation or the rules of calculating have changed. What has changed is that if people look for work, get discouraged and give up, they are out of the denominator.

Similarly, many people are underemployed (like work in retail with a Masters Degree), which also impacts the rate. However, these 2 phenomena have been going on for a long time.

[pman]

Originally Posted by fisheye

In July/August of 2013 our PA Unemployment tightened their belt. Supposedly it was because the Federal requirements. Basically they said that if your unemployed and want benefits; that you must apply three times each week for another job. If you do not fulfill their requirements; they will drop you and you will no longer receive benefits.

My feeling is that this amounted to a rule change and affected our unemployment rates. For some people it was just too difficult to submit the required three applications each week. Therefore many could have been dropped from the rolls. You cannot compare rates if your going to change the rules.

there was also a change when they decided not to renew long term unemployment which meant people who had not been finding a job dropped from the calculation. of course, extending unemployment insurance also has the impact of raising the rate. I think people just have to recognize that the unemployment rate means (the number of people who did not get jobs that looked for them) and realize that it is a poor indicator of how the overall economy is doing, you simply need other metrics. employment growth is a good one, change in the labor force is another.

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by pman

there was also a change when they decided not to renew long term unemployment which meant people who had not been finding a job dropped from the calculation. of course, extending unemployment insurance also has the impact of raising the rate. I think people just have to recognize that the unemployment rate means (the number of people who did not get jobs that looked for them) and realize that it is a poor indicator of how the overall economy is doing, you simply need other metrics. employment growth is a good one, change in the labor force is another.

All I am saying is that you cannot compare apples and oranges. Any change, that can affect the numbers; nullifies true results.

I was a trucker up until about seven years ago when I retired. Counting the volume of truck traffic on our roads is a very good indicator of good or bad economic times. It is amazing how quickly it can change. It meant that I could get a parking spot at the truck stop or I could not (especially with a set of doubles). In hard times, like 2008, truck traffic disappears. Businesses do not order if they do not have customers. I always felt that, if it was ever possible, we knew how many trucks were on our roads nationally at any given moment; that we would truly know the status of our economy.

[pman]

Originally Posted by fisheye

All I am saying is that you cannot compare apples and oranges. Any change, that can affect the numbers; nullifies true results.

I was a trucker up until about seven years ago when I retired. Counting the volume of truck traffic on our roads is a very good indicator of good or bad economic times. It is amazing how quickly it can change. It meant that I could get a parking spot at the truck stop or I could not (especially with a set of doubles). In hard times, like 2008, truck traffic disappears. Businesses do not order if they do not have customers. I always felt that, if it was ever possible, we knew how many trucks were on our roads nationally at any given moment; that we would truly know the status of our economy.

I don't disagree with you and some financial folks use rail traffic which is available although not all sectors use rail for shipping.