Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"South Carolina's unemployment rate showed the largest percentage point decline compared with February 2013 — down 2.4 points to 5.7%. North Carolina was next, down 2.2 points to 6.4%"
Two states that had previously high unemployment rates, that have now brought them way down. If RI were smart, they would take some guidance from their success (and how they obtained it). But Nooooooo! RIers like the rest of us NEers, we know better. At least we have some nice architecture...
"South Carolina's unemployment rate showed the largest percentage point decline compared with February 2013 — down 2.4 points to 5.7%. North Carolina was next, down 2.2 points to 6.4%"
That's a weird stat because it also says "The largest over-the-year percentage increases in nonfarm jobs were in North Dakota, 4.1%; Nevada, 3.6% and Colorado, Florida, and Texas, all up 2.8%."
You would think that if Nevada had a 3.6% increase in jobs, their unemployment would go down more than North Carolina's 2.2%, kwim? Maybe it's just me.
It's also weird that just the other day I read this, which says RI's unemployment rate was 8.3% for April, down from 8.7%. That is from May 16th. The USA Today piece is from April and seems to be referring to February numbers. So, we are on pace to also bring our unemployment down 2.8% this year.
Actually, only Illinois and Nevada showed better results this month, in terms of decrease in unemployment. Our .4 decrease ties us with Arizona, Ohio, and Tennessee.
The first paragraph of the article states that all comparisons were made from "last month" which was April.
"Employment increased in 33 states last month and jobless rates fell in 29, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday."
Then the article went on, pointing out that currently (April) RI has the highest percentage at +9%; while North Dakota has the lowest percentage at +2.6% due to the energy boom there.
February was mentioned with reference to the February national average, not each state's average. "Unemployment rates were below February's 6.7% national average in 32 states", and so forth.
The figures per state don't change monthly.
The first paragraph of the article states that all comparisons were made from "last month" which was April.
Yes, but the article was dated April 18th, so they couldn't have meant April when they were referring to "last month". And when they compared the yearly drop they were comparing to February 2013, not March or April, which is just odd if they had the recent figures. Anyone can go on the BLS site now and get the April 2013 to 2014 comparison. RI is 17th for biggest drop in unemployment for April 2013 to April 2014, and tied for second for the biggest drop from March 2014 to April 2014. So, things are finally heading in the right direction.
The fact that they said the unemployment rate in RI was 9% makes it clear that this isn't a recent article with updated figures, because as you can see from the Bureau of Labor Statistics site (or the US News and World Report article I linked to), the RI rate was 8.3% for April, and 8.7% for March - it was 9% in February.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuilterChick
"Employment increased in 33 states last month and jobless rates fell in 29, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday."
Then the article went on, pointing out that currently (April) RI has the highest percentage at +9%; while North Dakota has the lowest percentage at +2.6% due to the energy boom there.
February was mentioned with reference to the February national average, not each state's average. "Unemployment rates were below February's 6.7% national average in 32 states", and so forth.
The figures per state don't change monthly.
Sure they do, it's not unusual.
Finally, some good news we can all be happy about, right? Unemployment hasn't been a problem for me, personally, but I still rejoice that things are getting better for others.
That's a weird stat because it also says "The largest over-the-year percentage increases in nonfarm jobs were in North Dakota, 4.1%; Nevada, 3.6% and Colorado, Florida, and Texas, all up 2.8%."
You would think that if Nevada had a 3.6% increase in jobs, their unemployment would go down more than North Carolina's 2.2%, kwim? Maybe it's just me.
The way I believe the unemployment rate is calculated is by (and correct me if I'm wrong) members of the labor force without a job, divided by the total labor force. That is why it is possible for the rate to increase even if the number of jobs increase (if the labor force grows). Likewise, if the labor force decreases (many people give up looking for work); it is possible for the unemployment rate to go down even as jobs are lost.
The reason states like N.D. and Nevada did not see as much of a decrease in the UE rate as the Carolinas, is that their labor forces grew at a faster rate. Most likely, that is because they see a higher rate of inward migration.
Typically the NE states have a lower unemployment rate because they have slow or no population growth, so therefore they don't have to create many jobs to sustain the population. RI is an anomaly in NE.
The reason states like N.D. and Nevada did not see as much of a decrease in the UE rate as the Carolinas, is that their labor forces grew at a faster rate.
Yeah, I'm sure that's it. It just seemed to fly in the face of logic that the so many people are moving to NV when there's higher unemployment, to the point where their laudable growth of jobs is outpaced. If these results came out a month or two later, I would think it also pointed to new graduates attempting to enter the labor force. I tend to think of Nevada as an older state, but I don't know if that has any basis in fact!
I tend to think of Nevada as an older state, but I don't know if that has any basis in fact!
Just know that LOTS of younger people are moving to the LV area, and seem to do fairly well for the most part. Jobs are being created there that will sustain the growing population. Meanwhile, states like ME and VT with low unemployment rates; it is almost impossible to find a job!
The way I believe the unemployment rate is calculated is by (and correct me if I'm wrong) members of the labor force without a job, divided by the total labor force. That is why it is possible for the rate to increase even if the number of jobs increase (if the labor force grows). Likewise, if the labor force decreases (many people give up looking for work); it is possible for the unemployment rate to go down even as jobs are lost.
This got me thinking!
A lot of people believe that the official unemployment rate is not a true reflection of the unemployment picture. As you said, massnative, people who have given up looking for work are not considered part of the labor force, and they are therefore not considered unemployed.
But who qualifies as having given up? Turns out there are multiple definitions, and the federal government keeps track of all of them. I found this page from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which lists six separate unemployment categories, labeled U-1 through U-6:
The unemployment rate we always talk about refers to U-3, which is defined as "total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force." That means people who could work and have looked for a job in the past four weeks. This is the category where Rhode Island does the worst in the nation -- the four-quarter average up to March 2014 is 9.3%. (Nevada does slightly worse when you consider the entire previous year as is done here, at 9.4%.)
But what if you use another measure? U-6 covers anyone who has sought work in the past year, plus the underemployed -- part-time workers who would rather be working full time. Now, as you might expect, Rhode Island still does quite badly here. But it doesn't do the worst! Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona and Illinois all fare worse. We're No. 45!
This, to me, is an interesting alternate reflection of reality. Rhode Islanders are more likely to lack for work, but it seems to me that's partially because they're less likely to give up looking, and they're also less likely to have low-paying, subsistence (or, probably, below subsistence) jobs they don't want. All this may be cold comfort, but it's worth considering.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least we have some nice architecture...
