English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Blue-State Employment Blues
As long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.

By Greg Kaza


Bears and partisans are exuberant about the August employment report, which recorded a loss of 4,000 jobs in a labor market that employs 138 million. Employment, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was “essentially unchanged,” with losses concentrated in the manufacturing (-46,000) and government (-28,000) sectors. This was no surprise: Manufacturing has contracted in August in eight of the last ten years, dating back to the Clinton era.

Employment is a broad economic indicator, and last Friday’s less-than-stellar report deserves attention. But another monthly BLS report on regional and state employment offers a view of the jobs market through an alternative lens. In particular, this report allows one to compare employment growth between the so-called Blue and Red states.

Political pundits identify 18 bona-fide Blue states, which backed Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and 29 clear-cut Red states, which supported Republican President George W. Bush both times out. Blue states are said to be “liberal,” and Red states “conservative.” But there might be another reason to term certain states “blue”: weak employment growth in a period of expansion.

Total Blue-state employment growth has been only 3.3 percent during the current expansion, which began in November 2001, compared with the U.S. rate of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, total Red-state employment growth has been 7.5 percent, more than double that of the Blue states.

In baseball terms, one might say the Blue team is hitting only 5-for-13 for a mere .277 average, while the Red team is slugging 18-for-29 for a league-leading .621.

Here’s a closer look at the stats:

Job growth has trailed the U.S. average in 13 Blue states. California, the largest Blue-state labor market, fell behind by the narrow margin of less than a half-percent, while growth has been slower in Rhode Island (5%), Minnesota (4.1%), Wisconsin (3.1%), New York (2.8%), New Jersey (2.7%), Pennsylvania (2.7%), Vermont (2.3%), Maine (2.1%), Connecticut (1.5%), Illinois (1.1%), Massachusetts (-0.2%), and Michigan (-5%). The job losses in Michigan and Massachusetts have been the most severe, falling below 2001 levels.

Regionally speaking, this blue-streak continues. The Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England regions, all predominantly Blue, have trailed the U.S. jobs-growth average. The only Blue region to beat the average has been the West, fueled by above-average jobs gains in Hawaii (15.2%), Washington (9.5%), and Oregon (9%). Two other Blue states — Delaware (5.8%) and Maryland (6.1%) — also have bested the U.S. average.

Now for the Red team:

Of 29 certified Red states, a full 18 have topped the U.S. jobs-growth rate. And here an interesting trend appears: Red states with no income taxes — Nevada (25.7%), Wyoming (15.2%), Florida (13.9%), Alaska (10.2%), Texas (9.1%), South Dakota (8.3%), and Tennessee (5.5%) — have all witnessed above-average job growth.

Not surprisingly, three of four Red regions have led the U.S. in job growth: Red states in the West have expanded 15.9 percent followed by the Plains (7.7%) and the Southeast (7.5%). The only Red region to trail the U.S. jobs-growth average has been the Midwest (1%).

This trend is not new. It has merely been overlooked by the mainstream media. Labor is colorblind in the political context of Red and Blue states. And as long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.

2007-10-04 08:32:47 · 17 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2 in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

Blue states often have poor economies due to a number of reasons. Many Blue states are also home to large urban centers, of which most are in decline. These ubran centers support a large amount of people on welfare programs, which puts considerable strain on government resources. With such large portions of their populations recieving government aid, this means that they are also more likely to be unemployed. This usually develops into a situation where there are more people riding the wagon than their are pulling it, so people are less likely to start new businesses in these areas, because they will face higher tax rates to support the masses who are supported by the system. Red states usually prefer less governmental intervention in most areas, therefore keeping taxes a lot lower. A small government costs less to run. Businesses are attracted to these low tax, small government environments for obvious reasons. This creates a chain of growth that leads to economic success. The more businesses there are, the more people have jobs. The businesses are able to pay higher wages due the low taxes, which in turn gives the labor population more money to spend supporting business. It can also be noticed that Red states also tend to have a budget surplus rather than a deficit.

2007-10-04 08:54:42 · answer #1 · answered by rumraba 2 · 2 1

I agree, Michigan used to have a booming economy. Now we lag behind Mississippi! California may be a better off blue sate but look, they have more millionaires per capita. In general where you increase taxes, you slow the economy. Lower taxes on the other hand increase discretionary spending, which allows small businesses to large corporations to expand. With expansion comes jobs. More people working to pay taxes. And we don't have big government on our backs, so we have more disposable income to invest for old age or to buy that plasma TV that will in turn give someone a job!
Maryland is having big deficit problems too! Don't let that guy who posted how grand Maryland is fool you. I know the stats!

2007-10-04 16:12:31 · answer #2 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 1 0

I had printed out a long list of states with high minimum wages ($7+). Every state with a high minimum wage had REALLY bad employment and/or homeownership numbers.

For some unknown reason, Yahoo removed the question.


Yeah, obviously you guys haven't been south in a while. We have affordable homes, tons of job opportunities, and less crime.

Oh, and better food! :P

2007-10-04 15:52:35 · answer #3 · answered by freedom first 5 · 3 2

Oh please...what's the wealthiest state in the nation? Maryland. Where is the most expensive places to live? New York City, San Francisco, Washington DC. Where are the biggest mansions and the oldest blue money? Connecticut.

Job growth in one place does not mean other states are poorer. Where do you think the poorer states are? The South.

2007-10-04 15:43:18 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 3 4

1. Your 'question' wasn't really a question at all, it was a statement that you then attempted to support with the text of an article.

2. Job 'growth' is easier to attain when there is a smaller percentage of the population working to begin with.

3. A fixed increase in available funds translates to a larger percentage growth in a poor area than in a wealthy area. Since people in blue states have more money in general, this would explain the percentage growth you mentioned in the poorer red states.

4. WTF difference does it make anyway? You need to play 'us' against 'them', leave it to the stadium. It has no place in American life.

2007-10-04 15:40:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6 4

I guess Californians are unable to subtract out their billions of dollars of debt.

Michigan is a good example.

2007-10-04 15:56:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

News have been overlooked by the media because they are the most liberal and it is not in their best interest to print the truth.- Remember Ross Perot ??? Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost - We used to manufacture TV sets - China does that now - Chips ?, no longer / Toys ?. no longer/ Washing machines ? , no longer - Etc. Did ou know that we charge chinese imports a mere 2.2% in tariffs and china collects an average of 22 % !!!!!!!!!!!! and your governmner DOES NOTHING !!! Dem or Rep - When you vote, do not reelect anybory !

2007-10-04 15:42:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Blue State, California is the 7th largest economy in the world. From everything I have heard and read they are doing quite well. Other blue states might have issues but I can bet you most are doing better than states like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana which are all red states, by the way.

2007-10-04 15:38:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8 6

California has by far the # 1 economy in America.

nice spin on your facts !

2007-10-04 15:41:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Interesting that you didn't say that this came from National Review, a right wing rag.

2007-10-04 15:54:24 · answer #10 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers