I am very curious about the unemployment rate in the US. Look at the map. The highest rate of unemployment is: 1. Michigan: 14.6 (Auto Industry)
2. Nevada: 13.0 (Gambling, Tourism)
3. Rhode Island: 12.9 (Fishing; AgJobs)
4. South Carolina: 12.6 (Textile; AgJobs)
5. California: 12.4 (AgJobs; Entertainment; Technology)
6. D.C.: 12.1 (Fed Gov & Professional Jobs)
Population doesn't seem to be a factor. Both the most populated state, California (37M) and Rhode Island (.49M) smallest state are in the top 5. Average Salary doesn't seem to be a differentiator. DC's average annual salary is 92.5K. South Carolina is 40K.
In some states, their Top Industry is a major factor. The devastation of the Auto Industry wrecked havoc on Michigan's economy and unemployment ratio ranking number 1 at 14.6%. The status of our country's overall economy wrecked havoc on Nevada's Gambling/Tourism industries. Rhode Island's small size may be a factor. One major layoff sends their rates into double digits. Experts say the reason for South Carolina's high rate is due to their non-unionization, making it easier for business to release their employees with little or no notice. Additionally, the NAACP has boycotted SC over the last several years due to their flying of the Confederate Flag at their state capital. They ask all minorities, minority owned businesses, not to frequent or purchase from that state. The NCAA also refuses to allow NCAA events in that state. With all of these boycotts and protests by these groups, it is sure to have an economic impact on their state.
California has their own unique problems. According to wiki, one major reason is the number of rich people in California: "in 2004, the richest 3% of state taxpayers paid approximately 60% of all state taxes. The taxable income of this population is highly dependent upon capital gains, which has been severely impacted by the stock market declines of this period." Additionally, Technology is a major factor: "California's economy is very dependent on trade and international related commerce accounts for approximately one-quarter of the state’s economy. In 2008, California exported $144 billion worth of goods, up from $134 billion in 2007 and $127 billion in 2006. Computers and electronic products are California's top export, accounting for 42 percent of all the state's exports in 2008."
However, when all is said and done, will Americans move to another state to find a job that pays less and has them work physically harder than their previous jobs? Additionally, does the fact that Americans are aging and the Boomer are rapidly approaching retirement age add into this equation? I think it does. Take for example an unemployed auto worker. Will he move to Texas to work on a construction job for $14 an hour in Texas' brutal summer heat (100+ degrees)? Will the unemployed Textile Worker in South Carolina move up to Northern Wisconsin to pick fruit and vegetables for $8 - $10 an hour? For those who say migrant laborers are impacting the unemployment rate in America, I say they are wrong. They have not studied the issues. The high Unemployment rate is NOT due to migrant laborers working. The Unemployment rate is primarily due to offshore outsourcing. We let Big Business do it and they do it. Americans, especially aging Americans, do not want the jobs, like I saw today, of construction work being subcontracted out to small companies run by ole boys who pick up day laborers.
Posts
15 comments:
From what I understand, migrant workers are some of the hardest hit. Considering most were doing construction and the sharp downturn in the housing/commercial markets...
Here in the Phoenix metro area, the Mesa unified school district is closing several schools, citing a sharp drop in attendance at these schools.
These schools also just 'happen' to be in areas of high 'migrant worker' population, well they used to be areas of high migrant workers.....
Here's a quiz that shows you where you lie on the political spectrum. Does this relate in ay way to how you view unemployment figures?
Sounds like opinion rather than proof. Part of the reason folks won't move to take lower paying jobs is because of our welfare system of food stamps and other goodies that enable folks to stay where they are even though they could contribute to their support if they moved elsewhere and were willing to work. In the old days it used to be people would accept any kind of work to feed themselves and their families. Now they like to depend on the government. Take the quiz and tell us your result. That will help us to understand where you are coming from.
Often it is not a matter of having to move but rather a willingness to do whatever work is available in your area, some of it very hard. Have we become a nation of softies?
My score was "centrist".
I saw a thing on NBC news that showed a significant number of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. are in Maryland with Lodoun County topping the list. These are you hard won tax dollars at work paying Washington bureacrats.
Anon-Az,
I agree with you. The migrant workers are the hardest hit with unemployment with this downturn in the economy, however, they are not included in the unemployment rate.
I think the economy, and no jobs, more than any ICE Raids or racial profiling, are causing them to return to their home countries. This is causing major economic impacts on our country.
I can only be reminded of Postville. After their massive ICE Raid, the town went out of business. That is, Agriprocessors went out of business. Small businesses catering to the workers went out of business. Churches and Schools were forced to close. The town's economy was devastated.
If the 12 - 20M (with their children) were Mass Deported, that would spell disaster economically for our country.
Ulty,
Your poll says I am a Centrist.
CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
I agree with you that people don't move for jobs because they don't have to. My father uprooted his entire family and extended family to look for work in Michigan during the last depression. That is why we moved there.
Today, there are many programs that allow people to stay in their home towns vs moving. These programs include Unemployment Benefits and Welfare. I am also seeing generations of families moving in with one another vs moving. I see more adult children and their families living with their parents.
I cited two very important issues which impact this and you didn't comment on them:
1. Age: The Boomers are aging. They can't perform the manual labor jobs like Construction in Texas heat or Agjobs, picking crops.
2. Entitlement: Many people do not want to take jobs they feel are beneath them. They don't want to work in the fields for $8 an hour picking crops or work for $14 an hour working Construction. They don't even want to work at Walmart or McDonalds for $8 - $14 an hour and both places are always hiring.
The unemployment rates are determined based on surveys and number on unemployment. As long as unemployment is extended, they can lump their checks together and live in one house and they don't have to move. When the extensions stop, you are going to see a change. Either they will be forced to go on welfare or forced to move to find a job. My guess they will line up for the Walmart and other entry level jobs and continue the pattern of multiple generations of family living together. At least the unemployment rate will go down but this is not good for the economy.
The choice of the question on the survey, Welfare or Private Charities: I think it would be nice if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett did start a foundation to help the poor and old find jobs that suit them so they don't have to move and at the same time, maintain their dignity.
We need a viable research done to determine our true foreign labor needs instead of just allowing all illegal aliens to stay without this study being done first. That just makes sense if you are a loyal American. Once that study is completed based on returning Americans to jobs that used to pay a liveable wage and making sure all of our able bodied youth and less educated are working the low end jobs, then and only then can we think about importing LEGAL foreign labor such as for Ag jobs. No loyal, law abiding American should disagree with this sensible solution. If you disagree then please show where this doesn't make sense and that this isn't in the best interests of our country.
There is 15% unemployment in the Inland Empire region of California.
A lot of this had to do with artificial inflation of property values by granting home loans to anyone with a pulse (no "discrimination" concerning legality of presence). Massive overbuild.
It had to pop, and it did. And the benefactors of all this?
They ran laughing all the way to the bank while the people they "helped" are being foreclosed on and taxpayers are being forced to "stimulate".
ilbegone
Dee, I fully recognize the aging boomers and their physical limitations. That is one of the problems of Social Security. Although people may be living longer, that doesn't necessarily mean they are capable of continuing to work after age 70. As you point out this is particularly true of those who do manual labor.
Entitlements are a big problem and it looks like we are about to see another one dumped on us. Obama should have asked the Congress to for legislation that would permit freezing the budget across the board, including all entitlements, at least until he can figure our a way to get our country back into solvency.
ilbegone,
I thought the actual housing problem in CA was their over-inflated pricing. My girlfriend paid over $450K for a 2 bdrm condo in orange county and it only had one parking space. That is more than double my 4/3 mcmansion with pool in a TX suburb. She bought the condo with one of those interest only loans. I told her she was nutz and should do a conventional 30 yr mortgage like I did. She said no. Everyone did interest only loans in CA and with the rising home prices, she was sure to get more than her money back. That was just before the bubble burst. Now, those same homes and condos in CA are selling for half the price, yet the owners are stuck with the huge mortgage payments. That's why they are defaulting. It's cheaper than paying off their bloated loans.
The people laughing all the way to the bank are those mortgage brokers who sold those interest only loans. The banks who were bailed out. The owners themselves who defaulted vs paying off the bloated loans.
The losers: taxpayers who are footing the bill.
And Ilbegone,
Those homeowner defaulters who purchased those interest only loans were NOT the imaginary "Acorn recommended minorities." Instead they were middle income yuppies living who chose to live in the overpriced, popular CA 'burbs.
Ultima,
I somewhat agree with you about entitlements. I think our leaders need to step back and take a look at our country. We are not who were were in the last depression.
Currently we have an aging population. During the Great Depression we had a young population. Those looking for work are the middle aged, used to middle income. They are continuing to age, but still want to work.
Target this group to stimulate and create new jobs and then you will stimulate the economy.
New York Times : Nobel Prize Winner for Economics Paul Krugman welcomes the Health Care Reform of Mr Obama and the Democrats
All these presidents have tried to pass Better Social Legislation and some measure of Health Care : Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush
Some of these presidents have been greatly frustrated in these endeavors : Teddy Roosevelt wasn't elected in 1912, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman could not do everything they wanted. Johnson was frustrated by Vietnam, Bill Clinton was miserably attacked by the Party of NO and OBSTRUCTION.
George W. Bush only could make a miserable reform to Medicaid.
When you read the speech about Health Care of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 you see everything that Obama tries to do now.
New York Times
Why We Reform
By Paul Krugman
March 18, 2010
Why We Reform
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19krugman.html
Some excerpts :
So what’s the answer? Americans overwhelmingly favor guaranteeing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions — but you can’t do that without pursuing broad-based reform. To make insurance affordable, you have to keep currently healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that everyone or almost everyone buy coverage. You can’t do that without financial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can pay the premiums. So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies.
Or to put it another way, you end up with something like the health care plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts in 2006, and the very similar plan the House either will or won’t pass in the next few days. Comprehensive reform is the only way forward.
Can we afford this? Yes, says the Congressional Budget Office, which on Thursday concluded that the proposed legislation would reduce the deficit by $138 billion in its first decade and half of 1 percent of G.D.P., amounting to around $1.2 trillion, in its second decade.
But shouldn’t we be focused on controlling costs rather than extending coverage? Actually, the proposed reform does more to control health care costs than any previous legislation, paying for expanded coverage by reducing the rate at which Medicare costs will grow, substantially improving Medicare’s long-run financing along the way. And this combination of broader coverage and cost control is no accident: It has long been clear to health-policy experts that these concerns go hand in hand. The United States is the only advanced nation without universal health care, and it also has by far the world’s highest health care costs.
Can you imagine a better reform? Sure. If Harry Truman had managed to add health care to Social Security back in 1947, we’d have a better, cheaper system than the one whose fate now hangs in the balance. But an ideal plan isn’t on the table. And what is on the table, ready to go, is legislation that is fiscally responsible, takes major steps toward dealing with rising health care costs, and would make us a better, fairer, more decent nation.
All it will take to make this happen is for a handful of on-the-fence House members to do the right thing. Here’s hoping.
Youth, Minorities, Politics :
Milenials.com
Vicente Duque
Cogito, ergo sum - I Tea Party, therefore I exist ..... Cogitations on the image of Obama turned into a Murderous Hitler - How Hitler killed Black Fellows ...
I like Poetry and Poetic Images but I can not produce the poems. Like the Tea Party being a ship losing wind on its sails. Like America being a patient recovering and becoming stronger with the new Legislation.
The Biggest Cost is doing nothing - That is what Republicans never calculate in their "cogitations".
Perhaps the Teabaggers will have a better existence thanks to Democrats.
I dislike Mr Obama turned into a Hitler --- Hitler killed all the Black French Soldiers. Those were Colonial French soldiers that fought against the German Invasion and when they surrendered they were mass murdered as inferior animals.
The Nazi Cameramen took pictures of the ugliest black soldiers in order to present the Black Race as very degenerate to the German Public.
They did the same trick with the Jews in the Polish Ghettos, they filmed only the ugliest and sickest Jews.
Today there are spectacular Jewish Super Models and Divine Girls, but Hitler and Nazis were looking for racist propaganda and extermination.
Raciality.com
Vicente
Post a Comment