Update
June 18, 2011: A bigger story is being missed in the raw unemployment numbers. More and more states are actually losing jobs. When jobs are lost, folks drop out of the job search market and are not counted. To be counted as unemployed, one has to be actively searching for a job.
California, Michigan, and Massachusetts, for example, shed jobs in May. Unemployment rates may or may not start to improve, but job losses are becoming the real, if under-reported story.
[Moments after posting the above, I came across
this link: companies are leaving California in record numbers.
Today, California is experiencing the fastest rate of disinvestment events based on public domain information, closure notices to the state, and information from affected employees in the three years since a specialized tracking system was put into place. Out-of-state economic development officials are traveling through the state to alert frustrated business owners and corporate executives to their friendlier business climate versus California's hostility toward commercial enterprises.]
Original Post
The headline:
Unemployment falls in fewer than half US states.
Okay.
The headline is right; it's just hard to sort out first time through (for me).
- Unemployment rates rose in 13 states.
- Unemployment rates remained unchanged in 13 states
- Unemployment rates fell in 24 states.
In April, 39 states reported that unemployment rates fell.
With regard to jobs:
- 27 states lost jobs
- 22 states had a net gain in jobs
Compared to April: much worse. In April, 42 states gained jobs.
So, the AP headline "unemployment falls in fewer than half US states" could have easily been written that "unemployment picture not improving, perhaps worsening."
Other notes:
California, New York and Pennsylvania reported large job losses, partly reversing gains earlier this year. California said employers cut 29,200 jobs last month, with big losses in professional and business services.
New York said employers cut 24,700 jobs and Pennsylvania reported a drop of 14,200 jobs.
And, I love the modifiers -- note "sharply":
Nevada had the highest unemployment rate among the states, at 12.1 percent, though that was down sharply from April's 12.5 percent. California had the second-highest rate, at 11.7 percent, down from 11.8, followed by Rhode Island at 10.9 percent, which was unchanged.
If I did the arithmetic correctly, a 0.4 percent drop from 12.5 to 12.1 percent represents a 3 percent drop from 12.5. That's hardly "sharply" in my mind. I doubt the 11.8 vs 11.7 is either statistically significant or reproducible.
Elsewhere,
from Reuters:
For most of the recession, Michigan held the highest unemployment rate in the country. Even though the state's rate ebbed over the last year, it still edged up to 10.3 percent in May. Its labor force -- the employable population in the state -- lost 6,000 people over the month.
"The state's labor market situation improved significantly throughout 2010 into early 2011," said Rick Waclawek, director of the state's labor information bureau, in a statement. "However, since February 2011, Michigan's unemployment rate has been essentially flat while payroll jobs declined slightly."
North Dakota again held the lowest jobless rate of 3.2 percent, followed by Nebraska at 4.1 percent, and South Dakota at 4.8 percent. Since the recession began in 2007, the commodity-rich states have held the lowest jobless rates.
It was also interesting to note that some unemployment rates decreased, not because more people found work, but because folks who could be employed departed the state, decreasing the employment pool:
In May, those states were joined by New Hampshire, where the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent. The "Granite State," currently a battleground for those vying to become the Republican presidential candidate, probably benefited from its shrinking labor force.
According to the New Hampshire labor department, the number of employed residents increased by 7,730 from May 2010, while the total labor force decreased by 2,320 from May 2010.