Posted on 09/14/2007 7:46:35 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
— Greg Kaza is executive director of the Arkansas Policy Foundation.
“I don’t believe that. Individuals in high tax states can deduct that portion paid to the state against that due the Fed.’
I think that is correct.
However, deductions taken for 401k investment serve to reduce taxable income, upon which is based the state income tax. Then when retirees relocate from an income-taxing state and begin to get back their invested funds, the income-tax-deprived previous state gets no handle on the retirement income. This irritates California greatly.
Rural states are on their backs primarily because their resource based economies have been regulated to death. Mining is gone. Ag and ranching are under attack. Forestry is an empty shell. The left has exported those industries.
Are you talking about corporate taxes when you say "contribute far more in net Federal revenues?"
“Ag and ranching are under attack.’
How many billions of agriwelfare constitute an attack?
Aren’t more red states right-to-work states? I’ve seen announcements about manufacturers moving operations from union areas to non. Wasn’t there just a auto factory that shifted 4,000 jobs from MI to GA?
Very interesting statistics, but I suspect they are a bit misleading. The states with the highest “red-state” job growth seem to be skewed towards major producers in what has been the most robust sectors of the economy in the last five years (energy). Only Florida and Nevada don’t fit that description in the list.
Blue states suffer from high costs of living, because of government regulation and spending. These higher costs result in higher wages. But a dollar still goes farther in a red state than in a blue one. Blue states make more money, but can buy less for it.
In the presence of a progessive federal tax structure, high wages are deadly.
It is no coincidence that NJ and California sport the highest debt loads, per capita, of any other states. NJ leads the pack at over $6k per head, with Cali trailing a far secong at over $3k per head.
In short, blue states suck because of the governments the people elect.
Considering the cost of regulation, IMO less than the cost of the payments.
Oh, and it has nothing to do with real estate costs associated with a desirable climate? Get real.
But a dollar still goes farther in a red state than in a blue one. Blue states make more money, but can buy less for it.
In some ways, yes. In others no. A pleasant climate costs money to enjoy.
In the presence of a progressive federal tax structure, high wages are deadly.
True indeed.
It is no coincidence that NJ and California sport the highest debt loads, per capita, of any other states. NJ leads the pack at over $6k per head, with Cali trailing a far secong at over $3k per head.
Frankly, I doubt that. New Jersey has a history a corporate Valhalla because of its industrial heritage. Hence there are a fair number of people paying heavy taxes on those executive salaries and buying houses to match to get as fat a deduction on interest as they can afford. California has similar forces.
In short, blue states suck because of the governments the people elect.
You won't get any argument out of me about that, but the implication that private wages follow government spending is absurd on its face.
Yep. And they bring their silly left wing ways with them and start ruining the schools with BS curriculum. They then start demanding sanctuary for illegals and recognition of same sex marriages/civil unions.
They are thinning the conservative vote. We need to get more of us to the polls and election time. Start breeding conservatives! lol
Illinois’ king is buying jobs with tax credits and still can’t stop the bleeding. This is mostly work comp related. Businessmen aren’t all stupid.
To be fair, the blue states are pretty established especially in the urban areas. Many Red states are still growing which brings in new jobs and population.
So you don’t think government spending causes upward wage pressure? Seriously?
Nissan N.A. just moved their headquarters to Nashville and we have one of their major factories in Smryna along with a Saturn plant in Columbia.
To a degree, but not like Silicon Valley, peninsula VC firms, or the San Francisco financial district do.
Seriously.
Oh, and it has nothing to do with real estate costs associated with a desirable climate? Get real.
What desirable climates? About the only blue state that I can think of that has a desirable climate (read: warm) is California, and that's still only part of the state. How is New Jersey a desirable climate?
On the other hand, states like Florida or Texas or South Carolina have pretty desirable climates and lower housing costs than New Jersey, do they not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.