Posted today at newgeography.com is an interesting state-by-state analysis of job growth (or loss) over the last four years. What sets this analysis apart is that it measures job changes relative to national trends. In other words, for North Carolina (and all the other states) it measures how many jobs the state should have if it followed national job trends and then compares that to actual jobs in the state. The time frame examined is 2007-2011, so the study essentially examines how states have fared during the recession.
According to this methodology, North Carolina has not fared very well. NC ranks 19th worst, meaning that it has lost ground in terms of its share of the nation’s jobs. The study’s authors offer the following cloudy conclusion for states (like NC) that lost ground:
If a state is hemorrhaging jobs faster than the national economy, there should be cause for concern. There are likely toxic conditions within industry sectors and economic policies that make it very difficult for employment and economic activity to flourish. As the nation recovers these states will likely recover much slower, and other states might just keep pulling more jobs away from them.
Meanwhile, the states with much higher union densities fared much better.
What is it about this that some foks here in my homestate can’t understand?
Matthew,
Please quantify your observation for clarification (i.e. identify which states you define as having higher union density and show a correlation to this state ranking). And be sure to site sources.
Otherwise, your comment is meaningless speculation.
Alaska and Montana are two states with unfilled jobs. Many of them. The energy sector is booming in those states, and neither are “Right to Work for Peanuts” States. Also, Michigan is the big news today, with orders up for domestically produced vehicles, Michigan (with all her unions and regulations) is expected to add hundreds of thousands of jobs within the next three years.
Want citations? Look them up like I did. Otherwise, you’re just another bean-counting right-wingnut hellbent on wrecking our economy.
Enjoy!
Just as I thought, Matthew – all bark and no bite. Make comments with nothing to back it up.
Michigan? Really? So to back up your comment that high union density states fared much better in the ranking, you site a state that fared among the bottom five in the ranking.
Brilliant.
Did you read what I wrote Brian? While it is true that Michigan has fared poorly due to the collapse of the middle-class and their inability to buy American made vehicles (and instead buying cheap Korean cars), that trend has reversed and Michigan is about to go boom. If you watch the news, you’ve heard about it as recently as TODAY. If you are a blog troll, ten you probably haven’t heard.
If you’re having difficulty reading this, slow down and sound it out, like they taught yo in your socialist public school.
Since you’re too lazy…
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/news/economy/auto_jobs_midwest/
Look at it yourself. And how did we save the American Auto Industry??? Huh??? Bailouts??? Don’t think so. LOANS. Loans that have been paid back already. The taxpayers actually made a little money on the deal.
Did you read what YOU wrote- “Meanwhile, the states with much higher union densities FARED much better.”
Your comment referred to the ranking – now you change gears to some hopeful thinking about the future of the domestic auto industry by alluding to “news” that you refuse to site.
Feel free to comment more, but you’ve revealed yourself to be belligerent and not worthy of any more responses.
Oh wait – this is too good to pass up.
Since you finally decided to link to an article, you may enjoy this passage in the article you linked to:
The Center for Automotive Research’s estimates for hiring are pretty conservative by comparison, projecting only about 10,250 additional hourly workers at the traditional Big Three. But it also projects the companies will add more than 20,000 salaried workers — plant supervisors, as well as engineers and other technical staff — that aren’t in the United Auto Workers union.
Well looks like Art’s boy Brian B… got schooled again. Getting your talking points from Civitas is like asking a Republican to give to the poor- iffy at best and downright impossible most of the time lol!! go matthew
brianb,
You sound as if you only want to count the union jobs. Are you working with me now?
To me, a job is a job is a job, whether union or not. Yes, unions need desperately to grow, but other people need to go back to work too, even supervisors and engineers! The nice thing about supervisors and engineers is that they (like union workers) typically get a fair wage, retirement package, and healthcare benefits. ANd workers receiving these benefits are FAR less likely to burden taxpayers through “entitlement programs” than those without. Oh wait… I’m being optimistic again… How dare I?
And why have you nothing to say about Alaska and Montana? Why did you run from that? You want citations?
LOOK UP “OILFIELDS IN NORTH AMERICA”!!!