Jobless Rate Climbs in 46 States - CA @ 11.2%

[MintJulep]

APRIL 18, 2009

Jobless Rate Climbs in 46 States, With California at 11.2%

By STU WOO (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=STU+WOO&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND) and SUDEEP REDDY (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=SUDEEP+REDDY&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)
California and North Carolina in March posted their highest jobless rates in at least three decades, as unemployment increased in all but a handful of states during the month, the Labor Department said Friday.

California's unemployment rate jumped to 11.2% in March, while North Carolina rose to 10.8%, the highest for both since the U.S. government began a comprehensive tally of state joblessness in 1976.

The state-by-state employment figures showed only a few states avoiding the deterioration seen nationwide. Unemployment rose in 46 states during the month, and 12 states plus the District of Columbia posted unemployment rates in March that were significantly higher than the 8.5% nationwide figure the government released earlier this month.

The Nation's Unemployed

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DM872_promo__D_20090417175451.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBLESSDATA09.html)


March unemployment rates, state-by-state.



The chief economist for California's finance department, Howard Roth, said the state's unemployment rate hasn't been this high since reaching 11.7% in January 1941. The highest level on record in California is 14.7% in October 1940, he said.

California lost 62,100 jobs in March, with Florida next at 51,900 jobs lost, Texas at 47,100 and North Carolina at 41,300, according to the federal figures.

California, the nation's most-populous state, has been hit particularly hard by the housing-market crash. That led to major job losses in the construction and financial industries. "We did it bigger in terms of the housing bubble," Mr. Roth said. "You pay for that by falling farther."

Still, the latest figures offered a "glimmer of hope," he said. March losses were about half the 114,000 jobs shed in February, a sign that the pace of decline in California's job market may be slowing.

Most economists expect job losses across all U.S. nonfarm employers to continue in April at or near the rapid pace seen in March, when 663,000 jobs disappeared.

California exemplifies the troubles across America. Teresa Nelson, a 54-year-old public-interest lawyer, has sought work at government or nonprofit agencies since last summer. She has applied for 20 jobs and landed five interviews. "I have a lot of qualifications, lots of experience, but people assume I need a higher salary," said Ms. Nelson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area. "It's been frustrating."

The federal report showed 48 states and the District of Columbia posted payroll declines in March. Only Mississippi and North Dakota had slight gains of about 300 jobs.

Among states, North Carolina experienced the largest month-over-month percentage drop in payroll employment, about 1%. It was followed closely by Idaho, Minnesota and Washington state, each losing about 0.9%.

Eight states have already seen double-digit unemployment rates, which are calculated on a different survey than payroll numbers. As the economy deteriorates, and job hunters face difficulty finding new work, economists expect joblessness to top 10% nationwide by late 2009 or early 2010.
Michigan, battered by turmoil in the auto industry, reported the highest unemployment at 12.6%. Oregon followed at 12.1%, then South Carolina at 11.4%.

Only North Dakota and the District of Columbia saw unemployment rates decline for the month. Rates remained flat in Georgia, New York and Rhode Island.

Write to Stu Woo at Stu.Woo@wsj.com (Stu.Woo@wsj.com) and Sudeep Reddy at sudeep.reddy@wsj.com (sudeep.reddy@wsj.com)

[UABblazer]

What's your point? You can't be blaming Obama on it.

[SeniorChief]

I thought dipshit (AKA Obama) was bringing change?

This is change?

This is fucked-up.

[UABblazer]

I thought dipshit (AKA Obama) was bringing change?

This is change?

This is fucked-up.

Its been three months dipshit.

[Moby]

What's your point? You can't be blaming Obama on it.The point that Americans are hurting. It's always heart breaking to see honest hard working Americans that want to work when there are no jobs for them. History shows that this trend takes a little time to change.

It took Reagan 2 years to see any improvement in unemployment and since he's the only republican president in history to see improvements in unemployment from the day he started to the day he left office it's a good measure.

He was following 12 years of terrible economic policies and by borrowing massive amounts of money he was able to boost the economy.

Now we have a very difficult situations as we're following 8 years of disastrous economic policy and we've already borrowed massive amounts of money and the last administration left us with a massive deficit and a tax plan that can't possibly pay our debt.

We need massive improvements in our economic policy and hopefully we can repair the last 8 years of damage.

My concern is will people learn from history and finally wake up and see what happens with employment when republican presidents are in office.

[SeniorChief]

Its been three months dipshit.

When does change kick in, dicklips? Do you have a specific date?

Also, can you tell us who the "rich" are by dollar amount?

No one seems to have the start-point, in dollars, where one is considered "rich."

Thanks asshole. It would be helpful if you could provide answers to those two questions, since you seem to have your mouth on the head of Liberalism quite well.

No pun intended.

Thanks.

[Moby]

When does change kick in, dicklips? Do you have a specific date?
Like I've said before, it took Reagan 2 years to see change in the economy and he started with a balanced budget and a little debt.

My guess is 1 to 2 years before we see improvements in unemployment.

[SeniorChief]

The point that Americans are hurting.

That's a pretty broad assertion.

Do you have a source for that?

I certainly am not, and neither are the people I just returned with from an Alaskan cruise with.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

[Bill Cosby]

Also, can you tell us who the "rich" are by dollar amount?

No one seems to have the start-point, in dollars, where one is considered "rich."

Thanks.

LOL........ It is always relative..... Rich I guess is anyone w/ a lot more money then you/I...........

You could prob buy a nice house in The Dakota's for about $50,000 but here in Calif you would be hard put to find a garage for that price....

[SeniorChief]

Like I've said before, it took Reagan 2 years to see change in the economy...


Source please??

[SeniorChief]

LOL........ It is always relative..... Rich I guess is anyone w/ a lot more money then you/I...........

You could prob buy a nice house in The Dakota's for about $50,000 but here in Calif you would be hard put to find a garage for that price....

Relative??

So a man living in a trailer is rich compared to a man living in a box?

Relative like that?

Be serious, imbecile.

[Bill Cosby]

Relative??

So a man living in a trailer is rich compared to a man living in a box?

Relative like that?

Be serious, imbecile.

Make your own comparisons kid.... If that works for you.......:dunno:

[Moby]

Also, can you tell us who the "rich" are by dollar amount?
Why is that an issue?

Unemployment saw improvements with a more top heavy tax code under both Reagan and Clinton. Why not go back to what worked? Why is it going back to a more Reagan style tax code considered socialism today?

In 1983 when we started to see improvements in unemployment under Reagan the highest tax rate was 50% for families making $109k and after a few years went to $175k.

Then it dropped to $90k and went even lower. Unemployment numbers started to creep up again.

Eventually Clinton got things headed back on a good trend with the highest tax bracket being $250k at about 40%.

I say we adjust the numbers for inflation, figure out what we need to generate to stop taking on debt and then create a tax plan that is close to the prosperous times of improved unemployment under Reagan and Clinton.

If it worked so well before, why are people insisting that it can't work today?

[Moby]

Source please??
How many times do I have to post the same unemployment figures, which everyone that discusses taxes, unemployment or elections should already know?

[Moby]

That's a pretty broad assertion.

Do you have a source for that?

I certainly am not, and neither are the people I just returned with from an Alaskan cruise with.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.
Lady Liberty posted the source. Didn't you read it?

[Bill Cosby]

Why is that an issue?

Unemployment saw improvements with a more top heavy tax code under both Reagan and Clinton. Why not go back to what worked? Why is it going back to a more Reagan style tax code considered socialism today?

In 1983 when we started to see improvements in unemployment under Reagan the highest tax rate was 50% for families making $109k and after a few years went to $175k.

Then it dropped to $90k and went even lower. Unemployment numbers started to creep up again.

Eventually Clinton got things headed back on a good trend with the highest tax bracket being $250k at about 40%.

I say we adjust the numbers for inflation, figure out what we need to generate to stop taking on debt and then create a tax plan that is close to the prosperous times of improved unemployment under Reagan and Clinton.

If it worked so well before, why are people insisting that it can't work today?

Great points.............. :)

Historicly taxes are great right now......... What about when Ike & Kennedy were in town.............

[SeniorChief]

Lady Liberty posted the source. Didn't you read it?

I was under the assumption (through you) that we had to cite our assertions. Now you're telling me I need to find sources, on information you post, through another poster?

[Smurf-Herder]

Like I've said before, it took Reagan 2 years to see change in the economy and he started with a balanced budget and a little debt.

My guess is 1 to 2 years before we see improvements in unemployment.

And how do you explain the rush to pass the Stimulus Bill, so fast it didn't even have time to be fully read and reviewed - because so many people were losing their jobs by the day?

[Smurf-Herder]

Why is that an issue?

Unemployment saw improvements with a more top heavy tax code under both Reagan and Clinton. Why not go back to what worked? Why is it going back to a more Reagan style tax code considered socialism today?

In 1983 when we started to see improvements in unemployment under Reagan the highest tax rate was 50% for families making $109k and after a few years went to $175k.

Then it dropped to $90k and went even lower. Unemployment numbers started to creep up again.

Eventually Clinton got things headed back on a good trend with the highest tax bracket being $250k at about 40%.

I say we adjust the numbers for inflation, figure out what we need to generate to stop taking on debt and then create a tax plan that is close to the prosperous times of improved unemployment under Reagan and Clinton.

If it worked so well before, why are people insisting that it can't work today?

Can you please explain to me how personal taxes reduce unemployment. :confused:

There seems to be a serious disconnect there. What do the tax rates of individuals have to do with their getting a job?

Wouldn't corporate taxes be more of a factor?

[UABblazer]

And how do you explain the rush to pass the Stimulus Bill, so fast it didn't even have time to be fully read and reviewed - because so many people were losing their jobs by the day?

There is hardly ever a bill that is passed that gives everyone enough time to read it. The Patriot Act was introduced the same way.

[Smurf-Herder]

There is hardly ever a bill that is passed that gives everyone enough time to read it. The Patriot Act was introduced the same way.


This was rushed - probably the biggest individual spending bill I've seen to date - after Obama made a point of saying all legislation would be up on a web server for the public to view for 5 days. Not to mention a very important bill, in regards to the amount and at a time when the economy was in crisis.

Yet the rush didn't seem to be relevant to the actual spending - most of the spending in it doesn't kick in until late 2010.

[MintJulep]

What's your point? You can't be blaming Obama on it.It is a preview of things to come.

I predict we will be well into the double-digits before he leaves office.

[MintJulep]

The point that Americans are hurting. It's always heart breaking to see honest hard working Americans that want to work when there are no jobs for them. History shows that this trend takes a little time to change.

It took Reagan 2 years to see any improvement in unemployment and since he's the only republican president in history to see improvements in unemployment from the day he started to the day he left office it's a good measure.

He was following 12 years of terrible economic policies and by borrowing massive amounts of money he was able to boost the economy.

Now we have a very difficult situations as we're following 8 years of disastrous economic policy and we've already borrowed massive amounts of money and the last administration left us with a massive deficit and a tax plan that can't possibly pay our debt.

We need massive improvements in our economic policy and hopefully we can repair the last 8 years of damage.

My concern is will people learn from history and finally wake up and see what happens with employment when republican presidents are in office.Reagan didn't sign a trillion dollar check in the first two months of his Presidency or ever.

[UABblazer]

It is a preview of things to come.

I predict we will be well into the double-digits before he leaves office.

Well considering you think the Dow took the worst his since January, your predictions don't mean shit.

[MintJulep]

I guess we'll see, now won't we? LOL

[Bill Cosby]

Reagan didn't sign a trillion dollar check in the first two months of his Presidency or ever.

He didn't need to- I guess Carter was not so bad afterall............lol

Had bush had a third term would he not wrote another check?? & then another??

Isn't Obama just doing what bush did........???

I have personally lost a lot of money & many ppl I know have as well........

I think we are all torn between wanting to just send them all to jail & hoping things get worked out $ooner than later..........

There is no easy solution........ We can speculate what would have happen if bush just let them all fail but that did not happen.......

[SeedyROM]

There is hardly ever a bill that is passed that gives everyone enough time to read it. The Patriot Act was introduced the same way.

Politicians had more time to review the PA than the Porkulus and they made a $787 billion dollar mistake with no way to track the funds, plu many banks didn't want the money, others didn't need it but they were forced to take it.

They used to give time to read bills, receive public comment and make adjustments.

Did you read that Obama wanted to force Vets to pay for thier own insurance? It was a bad idea and he got hammered for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.

[UABblazer]

Did you read that Obama wanted to force Vets to pay for thier own insurance? It was a bad idea and he got hammered for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.

It was an idea that was put out on the table, and once he met with IAVA he decided it wouldn't be a good idea. He never WANTED to, it was just a suggestion that was shot down real quick

[Bill Cosby]

He didn't need to- I guess Carter was not so bad afterall............lol

Had bush had a third term would he not wrote another check?? & then another??

Isn't Obama just doing what bush did........???

I have personally lost a lot of money & many ppl I know have as well........

I think we are all torn between wanting to just send them all to jail & hoping things get worked out $ooner than later..........

There is no easy solution........ We can speculate what would have happen if bush just let them all fail but that did not happen.......


http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/g...mo_code=7D64-1

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich warns that conservatives could leave the GOP and form a third party in 2012 if Republicans don’t do more to rein in government spending.

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

Gingrich attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget,” but acknowledged that Republicans are also to blame for the huge increase in federal spending, CNN reported.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

“If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”
:hi:

:woohoo:

[Moby]

Reagan didn't sign a trillion dollar check in the first two months of his Presidency or ever.
Do you know of someone that did?

Someone has to fix the economy that was created during the Bush administration. How do you propose that we do that?

[MintJulep]

Do you know of someone that did?

Someone has to fix the economy that was created during the Bush administration. How do you propose that we do that?How is all of the excess in the trillion dollar "stimulus" package going to fix the economy? If the money was genuinely geared toward creating jobs I would have no problem with it, however, many of the the giveaways in the goody bag have nothing to do with the economy.

And BTW, Bush is hardly solely responsible for the mess we're in. That is the result of another failed government social engineering experiment called the CRA.

[Binky]

Like I've said before, it took Reagan 2 years to see change in the economy and he started with a balanced budget and a little debt.

My guess is 1 to 2 years before we see improvements in unemployment.


That sounds feasible to me. It isn't going to happen overnight. Instant repair job isn't going to cut it.

[Moby]

And BTW, Bush is hardly solely responsible for the mess we're in. That is the result of another failed government social engineering experiment called the CRA.
Even though the CRA wasn't responsible for at least 80% of the sub prime mortgages while Bush was taking credit for the home ownership rate in America?

Interesting how a piece of legislation that was responsible for such a small amount of those loans could be the cause of this economic down fall.

What about the credit default swap market?

What about the tax policy that created a dependency on borrowing that people are complaining about today?

[Moby]

Can you please explain to me how personal taxes reduce unemployment. :confused:

There seems to be a serious disconnect there. What do the tax rates of individuals have to do with their getting a job?

Wouldn't corporate taxes be more of a factor?
There's always the debate of who really creates jobs. Do businesses or do customers?

Take the sign shop where you work as an example. If we gave them $1,000,000 today they might put everyone back on a 40 hour work week but they don't have to. There's no need for them to do that in order to make more money.

On the other hand, if $1,000,000 was given to the sign shop's customers then the sign shop would have to work hard to get their share of that money. They would get more orders and people would have to spend more time working in order to fill those orders. The company has no choice but to pay people to work more and hopefully hire more people if they want to increase profits.

Go to your local mall, strip mall, grocery store or what have you. Almost all of those businesses focus on a local base of customers. Until those customers are willing to spend money they don't need to hire more people to increase profits.

A restaurant doesn't need to hire more staff unless more people are eating at that restaurant. Sure, giving them more money might mean that they can afford to hire more people but why would they if they don't have more customers? They might be able to open a second restaurant but if the same number of people are eating out then they're not creating jobs but just moving them around as they're taking business from other restaurants.

In some businesses, there are untapped markets where customers don't have access to products and giving those businesses $1,000,000 means that they can reach those markets, get more customers and then hire more people to meet the customer demand. It's still based on customers.

Giving other businesses more money might mean that they can invest in new manufacturing processes that can lower prices and in turn increase customer demand. That's important for manufacturing businesses that compete with Asia and other imports.

Now that exports account for the less 15% of our economy most businesses focus on customers that are local. If those customers have more money to spend then the businesses can get more money by working harder and usually has to hire more people.


The bottom line is that investment helps some businesses create jobs by increasing demand for products and services. Still, the best way to insure that businesses hire more people is by making sure that customers want the products and services while having enough money to buy them.

Making a more top heavy tax system means that the bulk of consumers are paying less in taxes giving them more money to spend on goods and services. More money being spent means that businesses need to compete for that money and they have to hire more people. Giving most business money doesn't mean that they have to hire more people. It just means that they have more money.

[Smurf-Herder]

There's always the debate of who really creates jobs. Do businesses or do customers?

Take the sign shop where you work as an example. If we gave them $1,000,000 today they might put everyone back on a 40 hour work week but they don't have to. There's no need for them to do that in order to make more money.

On the other hand, if $1,000,000 was given to the sign shop's customers then the sign shop would have to work hard to get their share of that money. They would get more orders and people would have to spend more time working in order to fill those orders. The company has no choice but to pay people to work more and hopefully hire more people if they want to increase profits.

Go to your local mall, strip mall, grocery store or what have you. Almost all of those businesses focus on a local base of customers. Until those customers are willing to spend money they don't need to hire more people to increase profits.

A restaurant doesn't need to hire more staff unless more people are eating at that restaurant. Sure, giving them more money might mean that they can afford to hire more people but why would they if they don't have more customers? They might be able to open a second restaurant but if the same number of people are eating out then they're not creating jobs but just moving them around as they're taking business from other restaurants.

In some businesses, there are untapped markets where customers don't have access to products and giving those businesses $1,000,000 means that they can reach those markets, get more customers and then hire more people to meet the customer demand. It's still based on customers.

Giving other businesses more money might mean that they can invest in new manufacturing processes that can lower prices and in turn increase customer demand. That's important for manufacturing businesses that compete with Asia and other imports.

Now that exports account for the less 15% of our economy most businesses focus on customers that are local. If those customers have more money to spend then the businesses can get more money by working harder and usually has to hire more people.


The bottom line is that investment helps some businesses create jobs by increasing demand for products and services. Still, the best way to insure that businesses hire more people is by making sure that customers want the products and services while having enough money to buy them.

Making a more top heavy tax system means that the bulk of consumers are paying less in taxes giving them more money to spend on goods and services. More money being spent means that businesses need to compete for that money and they have to hire more people. Giving most business money doesn't mean that they have to hire more people. It just means that they have more money.

My arument, although it's general, is that BOTH must be stimulated as equally as possible, with lowering taxes; then as recovery becomes established, taxes should gradually be brought back up to a sustainable level - predominantly at the top heavy end of the spectrum.

IMO, most of the problems (specifically concerning taxes) is because of shifts in tax rates incompatibly timed to whatever the current economic situation may be at the tme - but only for the sake of the needs of feeding the beast of government overspending.

[Moby]

My arument, although it's general, is that BOTH must be stimulated as equally as possible, with lowering taxes; then as recovery becomes established, taxes should gradually be brought back up to a sustainable level - predominantly at the top heavy end of the spectrum.

IMO, most of the problems (specifically concerning taxes) is because of shifts in tax rates incompatibly timed to whatever the current economic situation may be at the tme - but only for the sake of the needs of feeding the beast of government overspending.
I tend to agree. My only concern is that we already sent capital gains taxes to what I believe is too low years ago. I just don't see room to keep lowering them and since the biggest issue is that unemployment is rising, we need to get money in the hands of consumers first and let it bubble up.

We almost agree. I'm just concerned that we sent things too low years ago and have very little wiggle room left, if any.

[SeedyROM]

It was an idea that was put out on the table, and once he met with IAVA he decided it wouldn't be a good idea. He never WANTED to, it was just a suggestion that was shot down real quick

I know and it was a terrible idea to put out there as if the people would accept it!!! fyi, the Party Chair who oversees Vet Affairs Senator Daniel Akaka (Democrat) from HI. Keep an eye on this man who hasn't ket an eye on Vet Affairs as he should.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/1285