news-record.com

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

State unemployment rate unchanged in April

Friday, May 22, 2009

(Updated 1:24 pm)

By Emery P. Dalesio
Associated Press

RALEIGH (AP) — North Carolina's jobless rate for April was unchanged at 10.8 percent, marking a third straight month the rate was nearly flat and offering hope that the worst of the state's job losses may be over, the state Employment Security Commission reported Friday.

North Carolina's jobless rate of 10.8 percent in April and March was still the highest on record since states started the current measuring method in 1976. It was 10.7 percent in February. The state rate in April 2008 was 5.7 percent, the third-fastest rise in unemployment after Oregon and South Carolina.

"Things are still bad but the decline isn't as bad as it has been. That's hopeful and that's the first step in the process" of economic recovery, said James Kleckley, director of the Bureau of Business Research at East Carolina University. "I think what we're seeing is fairly consistent with what you may call a bottoming process. It's good in the fact that it's not getting any worse."

North Carolina's jobless rate has soared from 7 percent in October. And North Carolina remained one of eight states with double-digit jobless rates in April, led by Michigan with 12.9 percent.

The national unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent in April, from 8.5 percent in March.

The fact that North Carolina continues to be a magnet for people looking for work was borne out by data showing an additional 26,042 people held jobs in April compared to March, the ESC said. The state's labor force has grown by 62,556 in the past year, after adjusting for seasonal differences.

The number of jobless North Carolinians decreased by 815 over the month, but that wasn't enough to change the unemployment rate that reflects 492,785 people were out of work.

Education and health services jobs continued to show the best prospects as the sector added 4,100 jobs in April. Manufacturing continue to shed jobs, with companies cutting payrolls by 4,600.

Despite layoffs like the nearly 250 jobs cut by apparel-maker Polkton Manufacturing Co. in Wadesboro and Robersonville, Kleckley saw some hopeful signs for manufacturers in the April data.

Hours worked stayed almost the same from March to April, while hourly wages rose slightly from month to month. That suggests that manufacturing companies, which represent about a fifth of North Carolina's economic output, may have finished laying off newer, lower-paid workers and were stabilizing staffing levels with more senior, higher-paid employees.

Accompanying Photos

H. Scott Hoffmann (News & Record)

Photo Caption: Job seekers stand in line at the Triad Careers Job Fair on March 18 in Greensboro.

What do you think?

14 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

rmacz

May 22, 2009 - 3:39 pm EDT

Obama's plan of hope and change is well under way! The kool-aid drinkers can't blame Bush and Chaney now. And how about that stimuous pork bill?

Andrew Brod

May 22, 2009 - 5:29 pm EDT

The unemployment numbers indicate that we may finally be getting close to the bottom in this recession, and to you it's evidence of how Obama has hurt the economy? Who exactly is drinking the Kool Aid here? What we're in is obviously the continuation of the recession that started under Bush. Obama may not be doing everything right in fighting it, but it's definitely weird to blame the recession on him. But I guess that's what Kool Aid does to a person.

rmacz

May 22, 2009 - 8:21 pm EDT

Andrew, I knew one you wizards of smart would respond.So, how about before 2006 unemployment below 6%, your D-boys drove it up. What about the trillion dollar bail out down the drain, GM and Chyrsler bankruptcy, hogher taxes, weaker national security, and there're not McDonald jobs left. Go sell BS( Barbara Streisand) somewhere else.

Andrew Brod

May 23, 2009 - 12:25 pm EDT

I see, so when questioned you nimbly switch from blaming Obama, which apparently even you think is hard to defend, to blaming Democrats in general. Well sure, of course some Democratic policies contributed to the current recession. But if you're pretending that Republican policies didn't contribute as well, then you're just not a serious person. I'd rather fix our problems than assign blame for them, but I guess that's just me.

Andrew Brod

May 23, 2009 - 12:30 pm EDT

And of course the least serious thing about your post is that you've clearly missed the point of the news article. I could understand blasting the Dems if the economy were getting worse. It wouldn't be reasonable but at least there'd be a certain partisan logic to it. However, the point of the article is that the employment picture isn't getting worse. It's too soon to say it's getting better, but it's possible that we're starting to bottom out. If this had any partisan meaning (which it really doesn't), it'd make the party in charge look better not worse.

NRay

May 23, 2009 - 10:13 am EDT

One of the reasons I read these comments is to see if there is ever a glimmer of anything new from far-righters like MACZ. Alas, today I'm disappointed again. From MACZ it's the same old thing: the world started in 2006; a trillion dollars "down the drain"; businesses bankrupted; the guilt by association with folks like (gads!) Barbra Streisand; and, of course, the anti-intellectual swipe at "smart boys", etc.etc, etc. The MACZ's never have any answers to any questions other than (as best as I can gather, because they just won't say) a return to some kind of no-government state of nature.

Well, if I am wrong, and your response to Mr. Obama's program is something more than ill-informed braying, just what is (or are) your proposal(s) regarding a proper response to the economic crisis? And that first thought is not fair: you are not allowed to just shoot it with one of your guns.

rmacz

May 23, 2009 - 12:33 pm EDT

Nray, try FDR and the new deal all over again, or would you prefer Jimmy Carter II. They all match.

NRay

May 23, 2009 - 1:30 pm EDT

Now we are getting somewhere. So, it is the Mr. Obama's and the Democratic Party's adherance to FDR-like policies that you don't like. I suppose that would mean that you believe FDR's administration was too activist for your liking.That conclusion would dictate that you would prefer that we harken back to the policies of some less activist President. Well,that's OK as a point for argument, but how far back would you have us go? Calvin Coolidge? Teddy Roosevelt (But you couldn't like him, he broke up the monopolies and used public money to buy private lands for national parks.) Maybe Chester Arthur and his corporate robber barons? You tell us.

Ditching Roosevelt means ditching his break with a do-nothing past and his Social Security program, banking and securities regulation, and even rural electrification programs. If this is the sort of social engineering that you detest, well, that is your privilege as a citizen. But instead of name calling and guilt-by-association attacks, I would encourage you to attack these programs and their kin ( medicare, medicade, student aid, etc.) in particular for whatever evil you believe they represent. And then you could suggest what to do with those of us left high and dry in their absense.

rmacz

May 23, 2009 - 4:50 pm EDT

Nray, you're a hypocrite, you are against monopolies, but that is exactly what you voted for. Big government, more taxes, more spending, Raganomics worked. Evidently you not that old.

NRay

May 23, 2009 - 7:37 pm EDT

How disappointing, but expected: one instance of name calling and a gratuitous insult in only two sentences. You have failed to convince me to join your crusade. So long my friend.

rmacz

May 23, 2009 - 8:05 pm EDT

Nray, just like a true liberal, you don't like the message, so attack the messenger.

Andrew Brod

May 23, 2009 - 9:56 pm EDT

NRay, you hit the nail on the head with your observation that people like rmacz think the world started in 2006 (though, even so, wasn't there a Republican in the White House then?). For them there's history or context. In fact, for them the world started on the day Obama was inaugurated. If the economy was bad one minute later, then clearly it's Obama's fault.

Moreover, rmacz has drunk the conservative Kool Aid about Obama raising taxes. I guess if Fox News says something enough times, some people start believing it. But only the richest 5% will see higher taxes. The rest of us will have our federal taxes stay the same or fall. And even the richest 5% will pay taxes at a rate lower than during most of the administration of St. Ronald of Reagan. But facts are beside the point to the true believers.

As for bigger government and more spending, rmacz is right to be concerned. It's troubling that we have to resort to such measures now. But rmacz wants us to forget that we have to resort to them precisely because of the failure of years of anti-regulation policies put in place mostly by Republicans (but also, to a lesser extent, by Democrats). He wants us to forget that conservatives have specialized for years in government deficits, and to pay attention only to conservatives' sudden swing back toward that ol' anti-deficit religion. Fiscal responsibility is a good thing. Too bad conservatives have shown they can't be trusted to do it.

Andrew Brod

May 23, 2009 - 10:02 pm EDT

Never mind the fact that FDR's New Deal worked. What didn't work was when FDR moved away from the New Deal after his reelection in 1936. He raised taxes and reduced the federal deficit, and as a result we went into recession in 1937. So sure, FDR wasn't an unmitigated success, but the issue isn't FDR or any other personality. The issue is policy, and what history shows is that FDR's fiscal stimulus worked as long as he actually pursued it. History also shows that what finally pulled us out of the Depression was WWII, which from an economic perspective was a massive fiscal stimulus. It's hard to look at the Depression and say that fiscal stimulus doesn't work. But conservatives like rmacz don't let themselves get sidetracked by such petty concerns as facts and history.

NRay

May 24, 2009 - 10:47 am EDT

Agreed. All of the war materials produced for WWII could have been simply dumped in the ocean just after leaving port, for all the long-term benefit their production did for the economy. But it seems obvious from any impartial reading of history that the FDR "stimulous", which must be seen to have included WWII production, did have the effect of reviving the American economy.

The most interesting question raised by conservatives such as the poster in this string, is why facts don't appear to matter to them. Maybe this is a result of a fragmented media, where a Fox Network can get away with producing news "shows" containing only information which does little more than inform their viewers' prejudices. Maybe it's information overload, where we are confronted with so much that any particular piece of information is devalued in the discount. Maybe it's an irrational reaction to so much change, so that their reasoning faculties shut down in favor of some sort of good vs. evil perspective of events. Is it simply anti-intellectualism? Anyone who attempts to counter their statements receives no substantive response other than the usual cliches and conclusions begging the question, as was the case with my questions to the conservative poster. When we present for examination any "inconvenient truths", we are quickly relegated to the ranks of "bad" Americans to be denegrated and insulted at will. This makes the debate of any policy question frustrating, to some extent destructive, and definitely uncivil. A fascinating psychology.