« On Culture | Main | Good Samaritans »
June 11, 2005
Unemployment By County
Vie Econbrowser, this map showing unemployment rates by county is really very interesting (click on it for full size version):
How're Nebraska and Kansas doing so well? Nevada and Texas seem in good shape as well. Ohio and its neighbors, not so much. Oregon's in terrible straits and, let's be honest, poor Michigan. Anyway -- interesting visual of how the country's doing. And with unemployment rates like that, I'm surprised we're not hearing more about Kansas's Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius.
June 11, 2005 in Economics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83422d4cc53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unemployment By County:
» Maps from Rox Populi
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, via Ezra. Most of you are probably familiar with the infamous 2004 Election map. . This map shows the hometowns of US servicemembers who've died in Iraq, as of January 2005. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 12, 2005 9:02:54 AM
» Catching my eye: morning A through Z from The Glittering Eye
Here's what's caught my eye this morning: Across the Bay starts off talking about Lebanon and finishes wondering why Arabists always end up sounding as though they favored tyranny and oppression. Afghan Warrior reports that the bombing of the Kandahar... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 12, 2005 1:06:53 PM
» A Few Comparisons from DCDL
Rox Populi has a good eye. Starting from a post by Ezra Klein, she’s taken graphs of unemployment, who voted for Bush, and who has died in Iraq.
While she didn’t draw explicit conclusions, a few things do leap out at you:
The Red cou... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 12, 2005 11:49:20 PM
Comments
The agriculture-based economy there has to account for much of this, the swath of yellow goes right up the Great Plains.
My poor old north country of NY is representing badly, I see. I looks like in New England, the rural parts are hurting. I hope some people like John Edwards get some good news out there for the rural poor. It's only a matter of time until the 2nd home owners buy up all the land around them, drive up the taxes and force them into the cities. Can't someone make a buck in the woods?
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Jun 11, 2005 6:53:07 PM
Interestingly, though, CA's ag region is doing terribly. I wonder why?
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 11, 2005 6:59:35 PM
Michigan has the worst unemployment in America and the lowest economic growth. Thank you Democratic Governor Granholm, she is such a loser. The Democratic leadership has left the state in terrible trouble.
Nebraska on the other hand voted for President Bush more than Texas. Dump your Democrat Governor and give prosperity a chance.
Let's just hope that Michigan turns red and the state regains a little hope. I know I'm doing my part paying $500 a minute on WJR (Detroit) for radio commercials that always say, "President Bush says, Become empowered with a tax free HSA." If you want to reach about 22 people talk on a blog. If you want to reach thousands and thousands buy commercials on Rush radio, America's largest radio show.
Posted by: Ron Greiner | Jun 11, 2005 7:13:20 PM
My first thought looking at that map was about the lumber industry, which wouldn't make much sense in a housing boom.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 11, 2005 7:36:00 PM
The problem in Michigan has a lot to do with stupid decisions in the American motor vehicle industry.
The usual caveats about a land-area map apply here. A lot of those yellow counties in the middle of Kansas contain gigantic wheat fields and eight people. There's more population density in the northeastern part of the state, which is darker.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 11, 2005 7:36:06 PM
It might be more useful to see this juxtaposed with a population-density map, or better yet, adjusted to reflect population and unemployment at the same time.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 11, 2005 7:50:07 PM
There are no jobs to speak of in the Great Plains, but all the jobseekers have long since left, so there isn't much unemployment, either. Lots of those Nebraska/Dakota towns with low unemployment have been losing population for years.
Nationally, unemployment is probably the most important statistic. And locally, unemployment rates can tell you how economic change is affecting an area in the short term. But job growth is a better indicator of a region's economic outlook. Net migration, too: people move to where the jobs are.
Posted by: kth | Jun 11, 2005 7:54:19 PM
In a lot of these Counties, people have run through their unemployment and/or have left to find better jobs.
Posted by: Ted Smith | Jun 11, 2005 8:08:35 PM
For all y'all who suggest that jobseekers have all left the great plains, thus accounting for their low unemployment rate, why have the people of Michigan or Oregon not done the same? I'm not being picky. Genuinely curious.
Posted by: battlepanda | Jun 11, 2005 8:53:15 PM
Note the white area in SW Idaho. A desert as I recall. So, yes, the rural areas have low employment since the job seekers have long gone and still going - except for the old folks. The great plains are turning to desert-like conditions, where the buffalo roam.
Bob McManus mentioned timber, and Oregon does that, but not so much anymore: a combination of conservation measures on state and federal land and competition from Canadian lumber - read NAFTA. OR urban areas in the northwest and west are doing OK. Eastern OR, on the dry side of the Cascades, is mostly vacant.
I don't see much that this map tells us that isn't pretty well known. Post WWII, the population has been mobile for both job-related and life-style-related reasons. Density is increasing in places have that one or both of the above: hence SF Bay Area (and surrounds), SD, LA, etc.
I'd like to see a version of this map by major age groups. Retirement is now an industry, but only the support workers have jobs.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jun 11, 2005 9:00:06 PM
I wonder why Alaskans keep sending so many Republicans to Washington.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Jun 11, 2005 10:11:41 PM
Randy Paul... because the blacked-out areas of Alaska have hardly any population to speak of. And rural Alaska is less like the barren Great Plains than the reservations of Arizona -- people live there by tradition, whether there are jobs or not. However, one part of Alaska is much like the yellow Plains counties: the Aleutians. For much of the fishing season, there's hardly any unemployment, because nobody goes there without a job. (It's hard to see on the map.)
Remember that the broad swathes of below-average counties are sparsely populated to begin with -- like the red counties on an election map. That tends to skew the picture, visually.
Weird how Montana has yellow, red, and black counties. Like a venemous coral snake!
Posted by: Grumpy | Jun 11, 2005 10:27:36 PM
Looking again, Montana isn't weird at all. The black counties are the Crow and Blackfeet reservations. Which is why Arizona shows the same mixture, and South Dakota. They show up like cigarette burns; it's like the nighttime image of the Korean DMZ!
My guess is that New Mexico avoids such a stark pattern because its reservations cross county lines, and are surrounded by cities.
Posted by: Grumpy | Jun 11, 2005 10:33:21 PM
One further observation: What's the deal with California's San Juaquin Valley? That seems like another place where people won't stay when the jobs go away, but I guess I'm wrong.
Posted by: Grumpy | Jun 11, 2005 10:36:58 PM
Is there a problem Rob Greiner can't solve with health savings accounts? I mean, besides his complete inability to post anything worthwhile here?
Posted by: Mike in CO | Jun 11, 2005 10:38:06 PM
Also notice that he spends enormous amounts of time posting comments on a blog, despite mocking the medium's reach. Odd.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 12, 2005 12:21:54 AM
Dear Ron,
Yes, as you can see from us, voting Republican can do wonders for your state's economy.
Sincerely,
Mississippi-on-the-Scioto (the state formerly known as Ohio)
Posted by: Doug | Jun 12, 2005 1:25:05 AM
Yeah, one interesting thing about this map is how bipartisan prosperity and devastation are. Tennessee is in the toiler, but then, so is Oregon. Kansas and Nebraska are doing great, the first with a Demo governor, second with a Republican. But that shouldn't be too surprising -- this is about industry, not partisanship. Oregon and Nor Cal have been rocked by the tech collapse, Ohio and Michigan by outsource and the deathof maufacturing jobs, etc.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 12, 2005 1:52:45 AM
Interesting how high unemployment seems to follow the Mississippi River (as opposed to state boundaries).
Posted by: JakeV | Jun 12, 2005 3:19:19 AM
Ezra, you wrote, "Also notice that he spends enormous amounts of time posting comments on a blog, despite mocking the medium's reach. Odd."
Notice how you don't have advertisers beating down your doors giving you money. I can see how that might change in the future but it would have to be a national advertiser. Local advertisers in Detroit would pick a Detroit blog.
The auto makers are closing up shop in Michigan. The biggest reason they keep screaming about is health insurance. Yet Governor Granholm's State of the State address didn't even mention health insurance. How can a Governor of any state not address the problems of health insurance today? Her solution is to raise taxes on insurance premiums. If you have some solutions for her let her know because she is in for a battle in 2006.
Michigan state law demands no exclusionary riders on health insurance. So insurance carriers simply decline their citizens. Children can't get insurance if they are declined in Michigan. Why would Michigan make their children uninsurable by state law? If you have a sick child and you get fired in Michigan, be prepared for an eye opening experience.
Posted by: Ron Greiner | Jun 12, 2005 8:10:35 AM
Well, at least Ron does add a different perspective to the chatter here. Of course, anyone who doesn't tow the radical left line is labeled a troll, so who will be surprised when he is collectively jumped upon?
Posted by: Robert Zimmerman | Jun 12, 2005 8:50:38 AM
Ezra, for some perspective, you might want to cross reference this with a map of population density (admittedly, the map referenced is a red/blue map that combines 2004 votes with population density, but it's still useful).
Your perspective seems to be skewed, though. You say "Nebraska and Kansas are doing well" (by all accounts, they are), but you single them out because their size produces large swaths of yellow. Looking closely, Maryland, Delaware, and NJ also seem to be doing well, but their smaller size doesn't make that as obvious.
South Carolina looks like it has problems as well-- maybe in the same way Michigan's woes come from the auto industry, South Carolina's woes stem from the problematic textile industry. I'm sure Ron Granier can give us the HSA angle on that.
Posted by: Constantine | Jun 12, 2005 9:39:16 AM
Constantino, I was wondering if MIT is hiring young women and putting them on a group health employee plan that they lose if they become too sick to work?
Just look at your own plan and report back to us.
Maybe you could do some research and tell us how many employees MIT has fired in the last 40 years.
Posted by: Ron Greiner | Jun 12, 2005 9:57:45 AM
Grumpy,
It's also interesting to note that Alaskans share in a government handout based on royalties from the Alaska Pipeline. The public sharing in wealth from oil taken from public lands. What a f#%^ing Commie thing to do.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Jun 12, 2005 11:29:13 AM
This is a tangent, but...
Alaska's state ownership of oil is enshrined in the constitution -- which was written in the 1950s, when Democrats were the overwhelming majority. And it's less communistic than anti-colonial; the main thrust of statehood was to shake off the perceived exploitation by the federal government. What better way than to collectively seize mineral assets? (Though, at the time, nobody knew there was that much oil in Alaska.)
Posted by: Grumpy | Jun 12, 2005 12:33:43 PM
