So below I have a rather detailed chart which took me nearly 4 hours to compile for all 50 states. Each state is color coded to how they voted in the Nov 08 election. Underneath each state is the difference between the national unemployment rate, and the state unemployment rate. Below are the Aug, Sep and Oct unemployment rates. I figured the 1 month percent change from Sep to Oct.
Next is the unemployment rate from 1 year ago, Oct 07. Next to that I figured the 1 year percent change between Oct 07 and Oct 08.
After that is the unemployment rate from 2 years ago, Oct 06. After that I figured the 2 year percent change between Oct 06 and Oct 08.
And finally, because I have no life, I figured the 10 year unemployment average, from Oct 1989 to Sep 2008. Again after that, I figured the percent change between the 10 year average and Oct 2008. Now the reason I do this is because historically some states do normally have a higher unemployment rate than others. What is important to look at are the percent changes.
For example, looking at Arkansas their current unemployment rate is 5.4% with a 10 year change of +0.3%. Now 5.4% isn’t bad since it’s below the current national average. But looking at Alabama, with a unemployment rate of 5.6%, their 10 year change is +1.2%, a more drastic change. This is why I believe you have to look at the big picture, and not just selected numbers.
And this is why I don’t agree with what Congress did with the extensions on the unemployment. They set a number, 7% and any state at that number or above, gets that extra 13 week extension above the 7 week extension. So it’s not really fair to those states who have a historically lower unemployment rate than the average rate but a higher change versus those states who historically have a higher rate of unemployment but a lower change. And this goes back to my original belief that sometimes, you have to look at the bigger picture, than just a few months. And this is where Congress has made their mistake and should have used percentage increases over a flat number.
But all in all, I don’t think it really matters, as by the end of the 1st Q 2009, all states will be over the 7% unemployment rate, with some as high as 12%, namely Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois? Why? Because of the auto industry. Even if they do get bailed out, there will still be an increase in layoffs in those areas.
Also, I believe that the three states that are the highest in foreclosure rates, which are California, Florida and Nevada, their unemployment levels will reach around 10% by the end of the 1st Q 2009 as their largest industries are construction and tourism.
And expect these numbers to get higher since Obama has stated that he does plan on creating 2.5 million new jobs however, that will not happen until 2011. Two years is a long time for millions of people to be out of work.
The final interesting thing to note are the Midwest states. In the Great Depression these states suffered the most, with the highest unemployment and had the most people leave for other states, mostly to California. It’s an interesting comparison. The states that had jobs during the Great D now have the highest unemployment in the country, and the states that had the lowest unemployment rates during the Great D now have the highest. Many who lived in the “Dust Bowl” of the Midwest, most coming from Oklahoma, went to California for jobs working in the fields.
California (D) currently has a 8.2% unemployment rate with a +2.4% over the 10 year average. Currently Oklahoma (R) has an extremely low unemployment rate of 4.3% with NO CHANGE over the 10 year average.
Other Midwest states from which many migrated west during the Great D were Kansas (R) at 4.9% with a +0.6% change over the 10 year average. Arkansas (R) currently at 5.4% with only a +0.3% change over the 10 year average. Iowa (D) currently sits at 4.4%, with a +0.7% change over the 10 year average. Nebraska (R) currently sits at 3.6% with a +0.5% change over the 10 year average. It’s interesting how history is reversing itself.
The state with an unemployment rate that is actually LOWER than the 10 year average is New Mexico. Currently their unemployment rate is 4.4%, with a reduction in unemployment over the 10 year average of –0.4% and they are running pretty consistent with the 1 month, 1 year and two year change of +0.4%, virtually unchanged in 2 years. Why do I believe that there is a 10 year reduction when the rest of the United States are increased? Illegal immigrants. They are leaving in record numbers heading back to Mexico or leaving the state, thus there are more jobs for legal Americans. Arizona however, does not show this trend with increased unemployment numbers across the board. This is a “project” I plan on working on for the future, focusing on border areas in South Texas, South New Mexico, South Arizona and South California to see if the unemployment increases or decreases over time in relation with state and national average.
One other state that is doing quite well is Wyoming (R) at a 3.3% rate, with an increase over the 2 year unemployment of only +0.2%, and the 10 year average an actual reduction in unemployment of –0.6%. South Dakota (R) and North Dakota (R) also well off for unemployment at only 3.3% (+0.2/10 year) and 3.4% (+0.1/10 year).
And another state with the least amount of change over all, with the best unemployment rate is West Virginia (R). Their unemployment rate is 4.7%, with a 1 year change of +0.3%, a 2 year change of nothing, and a change that is actually a lowered unemployment on the 10 year average of –0.1%. This however, will change if Obama decides to shut down the coal industry with stricter standards for the environment. If this does happen, expect that number to rapidly increase to at least 15%,if not higher, within a very short time.
The worst states? Rhode Island (D) leads them all at 9.3%, +0.5% for 1 month, +4.2% for 1 year, +4.3% for 2 year and 10 year. And Michigan (D), of course. Historically, over a 10 year period, their unemployment rate averaged 6.1%, much higher than the rest of the country. They currently do have a 9.3% unemployment rate however, over a 1 year period, their unemployment rate has risen –1.8%, very similar to many other states. Over a 2 year period, +2.2%. And over 10 year, +3.2%. So yes on average they are higher than other states however, they are not quite as drastic of a change as Florida and Rhode Island. But they are bad, yes, in the top 5.
States that depend on tourism as their main industry are suffering horribly. California (D) is at 8.2% with a +2.4%/10 year change. Nevada (D) is at 7.6% with a +2.7%/10 year change. And Florida (D) at 7.0% with a +3.5%/10 year change. South Carolina (R) is at 8.0% with a +2.3%/10 year average. Hawaii (D) however is sitting at 4.5% with only a +0.9%/10 year avg.
And it would seem that New York (D) would have the worst unemployment rates with large increases due to Wall Street. This doesn’t seem to be the case. Their rate is 5.7%, below the national average, with a 1 month change of –0.1%, which is a decrease in unemployment from 5.6%. 1 year change sits at +1.1%, 2 year at +1.4% and only +0.5% over the 10 year average. So why is the governor talking about raising sales tax 7-15%?
Remember in all of this, the National unemployment rate for October 2008 was 6.5%. As a comparison, after the 1929 Stock Market Crash in October 1929, the national unemployment rate went from 3.2% (1929) to 8.7%(1930) a +5.5% increase. Rhode Island at 9.3% is past this rate however, they are a bit of a ways from that drastic of an increase currently sitting at a +4.2% for one year. In the following year, 1931 the national unemployment rate went to 15.9%. And in 1932, the national unemployment rate went to 23.6%.
Anyone care to comment? *tap, tap* Is there anybody out there? [Sorry, I’ve been listening to entirely too much Pink Floyd and Queensrÿche today.] BTW, what you see below you will not find anywhere else in this format so if you decide to borrow, link back okie? Four hours of my time is quite a bit of time. Thanks.
The unemployment numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Oct numbers being preliminary. As for the election results, I used Electoral-vote.com. And remember, I am not a Democrat and I am not Republican. I am Independent.
| STATE
% Diff From Nat Avg. | AUG 08 | SEP 08 | OCT 08 | 1MTH CHG | 1YR
OCT 07 | 1YR CHG | 2YR
OCT 06 | 2YR
CHG | HIST
AVG
(10 YR) | 10YR
CHG |
Alabama
-0.9% | 4.9% | 5.3% | 5.6% (p) | +0.3% | 3.5% | +2.1% | 3.6% | +2.0% | 4.4% | +1.2% |
Alaska
+0.9% | 6.9% | 6.7% | 7.4% (p) | +0.7% | 6.2% | +1.2% | 6.4% | +1.0% | 6.7% | +0.7% |
Arizona
-0.4% | 5.6% | 5.9% | 6.1% (p) | +0.2% | 3.9% | +2.2% | 4.0% | +2.1% | 4.7% | +1.4% |
Arkansas
-1.1% | 4.8% | 4.9% | 5.4% (p) | +0.5% | 5.5% | -0.1% | 5.3% | +0.1% | 5.1% | +0.3% |
California
+1.7% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 8.2% (p) | +0.5% | 5.7% | +2.5% | 4.8% | +3.4% | 5.8% | +2.4% |
Colorado
-0.8% | 5.4% | 5.2% | 5.7% (p) | +0.5% | 3.9% | +1.8% | 4.2% | +1.5% | 4.5% | +1.2% |
Connecticut
0.0% | 6.5% | 6.1% | 6.5% (p) | +0.4% | 4.8% | +1.7% | 4.8% | +1.7% | 4.1% | +2.4% |
Delaware
-1.1% | 4.8% | 4.8% | 5.4% (p) | +0.6% | 3.5% | +1.9% | 3.4% | +2.0% | 3.7% | +1.7% |
D.C.
+0.9% | 6.9% | 7.0% | 7.4%(p) | +0.4% | 5.7% | +2.0% | 5.8% | +1.6% | 6.5% | +0.9% |
Florida
+0.5% | 6.6% | 6.6% | 7.0% (p) | +0.4% | 4.3% | +2.7% | 3.5% | +3.5% | 4.5% | +3.5% |
Georgia
+0.5% | 6.3% | 6.4% | 7.0% (p) | +0.6% | 4.5% | +2.5% | 4.5% | +2.5% | 4.5% | +2.5% |
Hawaii
-2.0% | 4.2% | 4.5% | 4.5% (p) | UNC | 2.8% | +1.7% | 2.3% | +2.2% | 3.6% | +0.9% |
Idaho
-1.2% | 4.6% | 5.0% | 5.3%
(p) | +0.3% | 2.7% | +2.6% | 3.0% | +2.3% | 4.3% | +1.0% |
Illinois
+0.8% | 7.3% | 6.9% | 7.3% (p) | +0.4% | 5.3% | +2.0% | 4.3% | +3.0% | 5.5% | +1.8% |
Indiana
-0.1% | 6.4% | 6.2% | 6.4% (p) | +0.2% | 4.5% | +1.9% | 4.8% | +1.6% | 4.5% | +1.9% |
Iowa
-2.1% | 4.5% | 4.2% | 4.4% (p) | +0.2% | 3.8% | +0.6% | 3.7% | +0.7% | 3.7% | +0.7% |
Kansas
-1.6% | 4.7% | 4.8% | 4.9% (p) | +0.1% | 4.0% | +0.9% | 4.3% | +0.6% | 4.5% | +0.4% |
Kentucky
+0.3% | 6.8% | 7.1% | 6.8% (p) | - 0.2% | 5.4% | +1.4% | 5.8% | +1.0% | 5.5% | +1.3% |
Louisiana
-1.0% | 4.7% | 5.2% | 5.5% (p) | +0.3% | 3.6% | +1.9% | 4.2% | +1.3% | 5.2% | +0.3% |
Maine
-0.8% | 5.5% | 5.6% | 5.7% (p) | +0.1% | 4.9% | +0.8% | 4.8% | +0.9% | 4.4% | +1.3% |
Maryland
-1.5% | 4.5% | 4.6% | 5.0% (p) | +0.4% | 3.6% | +1.4% | 3.8% | +1.2% | 4.0% | +1.0% |
Massachusetts
-1.0% | 5.2% | 5.3% | 5.5% (p) | +0.2% | 4.3% | +1.2% | 4.8% | +0.7% | 4.5% | +1.0% |
Michigan
+2.8% | 8.9% | 8.7% | 9.3% (p) | +0.6% | 7.5% | +1.8% | 7.1% | +2.2% | 6.1% | +3.2% |
Minnesota
-0.5% | 6.2% | 5.9% | 6.0% (p) | +0.1% | 4.6% | +1.4% | 4.1% | +1.9% | 4.1% | +1.9% |
Missouri
0.0% | 6.7% | 6.5% | 6.5% (p) | UNC | 5.4% | +1.1% | 5.0% | +1.5% | 4.8% | +1.7% |
Montana
-1.7% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.8% (p) | +0.2% | 3.2% | +1.6% | 3.2% | +1.6% | 4.2% | +0.6% |
Nebraska
-2.9% | 3.5% | 3.6% | 3.6% (p) | UNC | 3.1% | +0.5% | 3.1% | +0.5% | 3.3% | +0.3% |
Nevada
+1.1% | 7.1% | 7.2% | 7.6% (p) | +0.4% | 5.1% | +2.5% | 4.3% | +3.3% | 4.9% | +2.7% |
New Hampshire
-2.4% | 4.2% | 4.1% | 4.1% (p) | UNC | 3.3% | +0.8% | 3.6% | +0.5% | 3.6% | +0.5% |
New Jersey
-0.5% | 5.9% | 5.8% | 6.0% (p) | +0.2% | 4.2% | +1.8% | 4.5% | +1.5% | 4.7% | +1.3% |
New Mexico
-2.1% | 4.6% | 4.0% | 4.4% (p) | +0.4% | 4.0% | +0.4% | 4.0% | +0.4% | 5.0% | - 0.6% |
New York
-0.8% | 5.8% | 5.8% | 5.7% (p) | -0.1% | 4.6% | +1.1 | 4.3% | +1.4% | 5.2% | +0.5% |
North Carolina
+0.5% | 6.9% | 6.9% | 7.0% (p) | +0.1% | 4.7% | +2.3% | 4.8% | +2.2% | 5.1% | +1.9% |
North Dakota
-2.1% | 3.6% | 3.6% | 3.4% (p) | -0.2% | 3.2% | +0.2% | 3.3% | +0.1% | 3.3% | +0.1% |
Ohio
+0.8% | 7.4% | 7.2% | 7.3% (p) | +0.1% | 5.7% | +1.6% | 5.4% | +1.9% | 5.3% | +2.0% |
Oklahoma
-2.2% | 4.0% | 3.8% | 4.3% (p) | +0.5% | 4.3% | UNC | 4.2% | +0.1% | 4.3% | UNC |
Oregon
+0.8% | 6.5% | 6.4% | 7.3% (p) | +0.9% | 5.4% | +1.9% | 5.3% | +2.0% | 6.3% | +1.0% |
Pennsylvania
-0.7% | 5.8% | 5.7% | 5.8% (p) | +0.1% | 4.4% | +1.4% | 4.4% | +1.4% | 4.9% | +0.9% |
Rhode Island
+2.8% | 8.6% | 8.8% | 9.3% (p) | +0.5% | 5.1% | +4.2% | 5.0% | +4.3% | 5.0% | +4.3% |
South Carolina
+1.5% | 7.6% | 7.3% | 8.0% (p) | +0.7% | 6.4% | +1.6% | 6.4% | +1.6% | 5.7% | +2.3% |
South Dakota
-3.2% | 3.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% (p) | +0.1% | 2.9% | +0.4% | 3.1% | +0.2% | 3.2% | +0.1% |
Tennessee
+0.5% | 6.6% | 7.2% | 7.0% (p) | - 0.2% | 5.0% | +2.0% | 5.0% | +2.0% | 5.0% | +2.0% |
Texas
-0.9% | 5.0% | 5.1% | 5.6% (p) | +0.5% | 4.3% | +1.3% | 4.8% | +0.8% | 5.2% | +0.4% |
Utah
-3.0% | 3.7% | 3.5% | 3.5% (p) | UNC | 2.8% | +0.7% | 2.7% | +0.8% | 4.1% | +0.6% |
Vermont
-1.3% | 4.9% | 5.2% | 5.2% (p) | UNC | 3.9% | +1.3% | 3.8% | +1.4% | 3.3% | +1.9% |
Virginia
-2.1% | 4.6% | 4.3% | 4.4% (p) | +0.1% | 3.2% | +1.2% | 3.1% | +1.3% | 3.3% | +1.1% |
Washington
+0.8% | 6.0% | 5.7% | 6.3% (p) | +0.6% | 4.6% | +1.7% | 4.9% | +1.4% | 5.7% | +0.6% |
West Virginia
-1.8% | 4.1% | 4.4% | 4.7% (p) | +0.3% | 4.7% | UNC | 4.8% | - 0.1% | 5.3% | +0.6% |
Wisconsin
-1.4% | 5.1% | 5.0% | 5.1% (p) | +0.1% | 4.8% | +0.3% | 4.7% | +0.4% | 4.6% | +0.5% |
Wyoming
-3.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% (p) | UNC | 2.9% | +0.2% | 3.2% | +0.1% | 3.9% | - 0.6% |
