Cilling Visual of US Unemployment from 2007-2010

[OLG]

It takes seconds to see the impact....

 

http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.html

Edited July 24, 2010 by OLG
TRying to correct my typo on "Chilling"

[Julie in Austin]

Fascinating.

 

I wonder what factors contributed to that North-central strip of the nation avoiding high unemployment. Just their distance from the housing bubble?

[jazzyfizzle]

WOW :ohmy::(

[jazzyfizzle]

Fascinating.

 

I wonder what factors contributed to that North-central strip of the nation avoiding high unemployment. Just their distance from the housing bubble?

 

 

I was wondering if it was farming.

[Teachin'Mine]

Fascinating.

 

I wonder what factors contributed to that North-central strip of the nation avoiding high unemployment. Just their distance from the housing bubble?

 

As JazzyFizzle said, farming. Agriculture has been very profitable as we can see by supermarket prices.

[Food4Thought]

Wow. :blink:

[Sparkle]

Yowza. Pretty shocking.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

Fascinating.

 

I wonder what factors contributed to that North-central strip of the nation avoiding high unemployment. Just their distance from the housing bubble?

 

I wonder if population density is a factor.

[OLG]

I wonder if population density is a factor.

 

I was wondering that as well....Dakota's are not as heavily populated as other areas.

[MamaSheep]

Fascinating.

 

I wonder what factors contributed to that North-central strip of the nation avoiding high unemployment. Just their distance from the housing bubble?

 

I found it interesting to compare both the dark and light areas on that map with this one.

[TravelingChris]

Yes, this map shows my experience as I lived in FL and then moved to a county which is even now orange, not purple or black.

[cathmom]

Some of those counties out west are humungo ginormous!

[FO4UR]

I found it interesting to compare both the dark and light areas on that map with this one.

 

That is not a coinky-dink! Interesting!

[Caitilin]

:eek:

While I have always liked living here in SD, it is borne in upon me how lucky we are that we live where we do.

[Audrey]

As JazzyFizzle said' date=' farming. Agriculture has been very profitable as we can see by supermarket prices.[/quote']

 

 

I'm sure that was facetious. ;) Yes, it is probably farmers, who, whether they make any profit or not, are considered 'employed' for most statistical purposes.

 

If you think farmers are the ones profiting from those inflated supermarket prices, you are woefully misinformed about the process of agriculture from farm to table.

[Perry]

As JazzyFizzle said' date=' farming. Agriculture has been very profitable as we can see by supermarket prices.[/quote']

 

Someone's profiting but it's not the farmers.

If you think farmers are the ones profiting from those inflated supermarket prices, you are woefully misinformed about the process of agriculture from farm to table.

:iagree:

[jazzyfizzle]

Hey there,

Nope, I definitely do not think the farmers are profiting, I just meant they were probably why those states were showing less unemployment- being that there are more farmers. Farmers are woefully underpaid IMO.

It was another poster who mentioned that.

[jazzyfizzle]

Yes, it is probably farmers, who, whether they make any profit or not, are considered 'employed' for most statistical purposes.

 

If you think farmers are the ones profiting from those inflated supermarket prices, you are woefully misinformed about the process of agriculture from farm to table.

 

 

 

:iagree:

[Audrey]

Hey there,

Nope, I definitely do not think the farmers are profiting, I just meant they were probably why those states were showing less unemployment- being that there are more farmers. Farmers are woefully underpaid IMO.

It was another poster who mentioned that.

 

 

Yes... I had thought your post was referrencing employment. It is misleading, on the part of the statisticians, to count underemployed people as if they enjoyed full employment. That said, most farmers work full-time hours -- just not for full-time pay. I do believe that the unemployment would show MUCH higher if they did NOT include those who are working only a few hours a week. It seems to me that part-time work can be found most places, but that doesn't provide for a family (unless you work a few part-time jobs). And, part-time work rarely, if ever, provides essential benefits.

 

It was the other post that (jokingly, I hope) implied that farmers were raising the supermarket prices.

[MamaSheep]

Yes... I had thought your post was referrencing employment. It is misleading, on the part of the statisticians, to count underemployed people as if they enjoyed full employment. That said, most farmers work full-time hours -- just not for full-time pay. I do believe that the unemployment would show MUCH higher if they did NOT include those who are working only a few hours a week. It seems to me that part-time work can be found most places, but that doesn't provide for a family (unless you work a few part-time jobs). And, part-time work rarely, if ever, provides essential benefits.

 

It was the other post that (jokingly, I hope) implied that farmers were raising the supermarket prices.

 

I'm wondering how self-employment figures in all this too. Dh is not "unemployed" in the sense that he owns the business and has not fired himself, but business is REALLY slow this year. Dh is a business-to-business service provider and many of his clients operate in those black areas and have cut WAAAY back on expenditures. So while he's not "unemployed", he's not really working much either.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I found it interesting to compare both the dark and light areas on that map with this one.

 

What an interesting graphic. I like how the intensity of hue conveys the amount to which an area voted one way or the other, rather than awarding the whole county to one color.

[jazzyfizzle]

Thanks Audrey. I thought so, just wanted to be sure to clarify since the above post was somewhat confusing.

[Barry Goldwater]

I'm wondering how self-employment figures in all this too. Dh is not "unemployed" in the sense that he owns the business and has not fired himself, but business is REALLY slow this year. Dh is a business-to-business service provider and many of his clients operate in those black areas and have cut WAAAY back on expenditures. So while he's not "unemployed", he's not really working much either.

 

When your DH's business shrinks it is not captured at all in the 'employment' statistics at all. Neither are those who have quit looking for work, or those who were forced to take retirement before they planned to...

 

However the economic misery of those not covered in the stats is still VERY REAL...and trickles down...your DH's business probably is investing less, not hiring (if they ever had employees), probably delaying any growing plans...it all runs downhill. We are in very serious trouble, particularly after Jan 2011.

[Momling]

I'd like to see a more accurate visual than this one. If they are going to do increments of 0.9% (2.0-2.9%, 3.0-3.9%, 4.0-4.9%) than there is no reason to sneakily lump together 7.0-9.9% as one increment. Of course there's going to be a larger number of counties with those unemployment rates. And frankly, if the average unemployment is around 9.7%, then I think it's important to know which counties are higher than average and which are at average. But just "above 10%" isn't helpful at all.

[Perry]

I'd like to see a more accurate visual than this one. If they are going to do increments of 0.9% (2.0-2.9%, 3.0-3.9%, 4.0-4.9%) than there is no reason to sneakily lump together 7.0-9.9% as one increment. Of course there's going to be a larger number of counties with those unemployment rates. And frankly, if the average unemployment is around 9.7%, then I think it's important to know which counties are higher than average and which are at average. But just "above 10%" isn't helpful at all.

Someone asked her about that on her website. Here is her response:

 

@Ken: You are not the first to notice that. The ranges are preset by the BLS. So, I’ll have to refer you to them. But, my guess is that perhaps they never expected unemployment to ever surpass the 7% mark and never thought they would have to use it? Not sure. But definitely a question worth asking. Thanks!

 

[MamaSheep]

When your DH's business shrinks it is not captured at all in the 'employment' statistics at all. Neither are those who have quit looking for work, or those who were forced to take retirement before they planned to...

 

However the economic misery of those not covered in the stats is still VERY REAL...and trickles down...your DH's business probably is investing less, not hiring (if they ever had employees), probably delaying any growing plans...it all runs downhill. We are in very serious trouble, particularly after Jan 2011.

 

Oh, I know it's not in the stats. I'm just wondering how much more "unemployment" there is out there in the form of self-employed folks who can't find work but also don't get unemployment. Unemployment stats are interesting but they don't tell the whole story.

 

You're right, btw, that dh was planning to hire some people but has been unable to do so because the business isn't making enough this year to pay them.