"31 states added jobs in January..."

[Clio the Leo]

31 states added jobs in January, though jobless rates rose

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia posted net gains in employment in January, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, providing further evidence that the economy is slowly gaining momentum.

The state-by-state January employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics clarifies and deepens the national employment data released last week, which suggested that employers have stopped firing workers and are starting to hire.

In January, the BLS said, California led all states in employment growth with 32,000 net new jobs. Illinois and New York state followed with respective net gains of 26,000 and 25,500, and the state of Washington followed with 18,900. Eighteen states saw employment decrease, and one state saw no change.

"The fact that you have three important and largely service-based economies showing gains may tell us that we have a broader recovery emerging, and this may be a bit of a bright light here," said Steve Cochrane, a managing director at forecaster Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa.

States with big manufacturing operations showed positive signs last year, he said, thanks to demand created by the government's "cash for clunkers" program and growing exports. So improvement in states with large service sectors is another positive indicator.

"Through the end of last year, most of the recovery was centered around the manufacturing centers or commodity-producing areas such as the Plains states and Texas, and increasingly towards the Southeast," Cochrane said.

<snip>

Wednesday's news was a bit darker on state unemployment rates. Thirty states and the nation's capital reported an uptick in their jobless rates. Only nine states saw jobless rates fall, and 11 saw no change. The national unemployment rate stood at 9.7 percent in January and February.

The unemployment rate is rising in many states because workers who gave up and exited the labor force are seeking employment again as the economy resumes growing. That means there's greater confidence that the economy is rebounding, but it also suggests that the national jobless rate could rise again.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/10/90149/jobs-ticking-up-in-many-states.html

A follow up to....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x216044

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. Wrong link perhaps?

[Clio the Leo]

3. ha, that was funny, lemme fix it. NT

[NightWatcher]

2. 30 states lost jobs, 31 gained jobs. Good thing I went to public school, else I'd question this.

unemployment rates went up because people are looking again, signaling confidence???

how 'bout signaling HUNGER, DESPERATION.....?

Next I expect to see the headline "millions of children starving to death helping bring childhood obesity rates down"

[Clio the Leo]

4. If you think there's no chance of getting a job, why would you go looking for one? NT

[dmallind]

5. No 30 states saw higher RATES of unemployment. 31 gained JOBS

These are in no way mutually exclusive. In fact easy to reconcile. 9 million people working and 1 million people looking for work is 10% unemployment. 9.1m people working and 1.1m people looking for work is 10.8% unemployment but more jobs.

So lemme guess, when the number of people seeking work went down that was bad because it showed they had given up, right? But now when the number of people seeking work went UP that's ALSO bad news because now it shows they are desperate.

Now THAT'S hard to reconcile!

[4lbs]

11. Furthermore the current way the BLS computes the unemployment rate is far more accurate than how the

Bush admin did it.

BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics

Under Bush, anyone out of work for more than 6 months was no longer counted as unemployed by the BLS, even if they were actively looking for work. That's what allowed the Bushies to claim a low 4.5% unemployment rate at certain points.

However, under Obama, the BLS counts as unemployed all those who haven't worked for 18 months, and anyone actively seeking employment regardless of how long they've been unemployed.

If they would have used that formula under Bush, the unemployment rate wouldn't have been 4.5% but 8%.

The new, current, more accurate way is in part why more people can be employed, in absolute numbers, but the unemployment rate increases still.

We now have more people actively seeking employment again than jobs added. So, they get added to the unemployment figure when they weren't before, and outweigh the hundreds of thousands of jobs created nationwide the last 3 or 4 months.

Thus, a higher unemployment rate figure.

Another example, in Texas:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST48000003

In July 2009, Texas had 11,006,221 people employed, 944,986 people actively seeking work, and a total labor pool of 11,951,207 (the sum of the two previous numbers). That's an unemployment rate of about 7.9% if you take 944986 divided by 11951207.


In January 2010, Texas had 11,094,538 people employed, 996,864 people actively seeking work, and a total labor pool of 12,091,402. The unemployment rate with those numbers would be 8.2% (which is 996864 divided by 12091402).

So, even though Texas added about 88,000 jobs in the six months from July 2009 to January 2010, the unemployment rate increased because the people actively seeking work also increased, thereby increasing the labor pool significantly as well.

If instead, the people actively seeking work would have stayed at the lower number, the unemployment rate wouldn't have been 8.2% for January 2010, but rather 7.8%. A slight drop of 0.1% instead of the 0.3% increase.

[Yuugal]

13. Do they use a crystal ball?

"However, under Obama, the BLS counts as unemployed all those who haven't worked for 18 months, and anyone actively seeking employment regardless of how long they've been unemployed."

Ok, so if someone hasn't worked for 5 yrs to take care of a young child and now wants to return to the labor market and is desperately looking for a job........just how would the govt know that? BLS is NOT counting those people.

[4lbs]

14. That's why you see revised figures about a month after they are initially released.

They know this because employers report the applicants to the BLS.

Job applications where you fill in your SSN? That job application gets reported to the BLS and they, by the SSN, use it to determine when you last worked, and how long it's been since you were included and received unemployment.

Anytime a prospective employer does a background/credit check on an applicant, counts as a person seeking work.

So, someone returning to work after 5 years off, the BLS would eventually get that information when you apply for a job. They would correlate your job application and/or check to the last time you had payroll taxes or unemployment monies applied.

It's assumed that the job application and/or employment was begun with a search 30 to 60 days prior. Thus previous employment figures are revised upward or downward for the one or two months prior.

[GeorgeGist]

16. We have 61 states now?

PS. Clio didn't go to public school.

[M155Y_A1CH]

6. Ouch, my head just exploded

Does this mean that the people getting the "new" jobs are not on the unemployment rolls?
Where are these mystery people coming from?

[dmallind]

8. See above - the mystery people are those just starting looking for work

You can easily reduce a rate by increasing both the dividend and the divisor. Unemployemnt is the number of people without a job divided by the number of people who are actively engaged in the workforce. Both can go up and both can go down. More poeple working does NOT necessarily mean lower unemployment RATES.

[Jennicut]

7. Nevada looks to be in the roughest shape.

Wonder why the worst ended up being there.

[dmallind]

9. Overinflated Vegas boom/bust I'd guess

Five years ago they were building houses like crazy and desperately recruiting teachers etc. Like the image by the way - really speaks to the idiocy of using "talk to my neighbors and look at the plant down the road" method of gauging the economy or job market.

[Jennicut]

10. Looks like they expanded way too fast and were really caught off guard to worst

when the recession came.

[Cha]

12. Any sign of encouragment is Good News! nt

[HughMoran]

15. Thanks for posting this follow up to that post from yesterday

...or, at least I saw one yesterday on this topic.

There's always good news in the bad during a recovery (or bad news in the good, depending on one's perspective.)