Mindfully.org
note:
The economy is rocketing,
but only for the wealthy.
See Labor Statistics below
Cartoon by Mike Luckovich
Summer quarter rate reaches 19-year high -- White House points to tax cut rebates
|
Mindfully.org
note: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cartoon by Mike Luckovich |
|
The nation's economy turned on the afterburners in spectacular fashion during the summer as sharply higher spending by consumers and businesses powered the biggest quarterly growth surge in 19 years.
Gross domestic product -- the nation's total output of goods and services, considered the broadest measure of the economy's performance -- soared at a torrid 7.2 percent annual rate in the three months that ended in September, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday. That's the economy's best performance since it expanded at a 9 percent pace in the first quarter of 1984, when the nation was also coming out of a downturn.
The summer growth spurt led some analysts to declare that the economy's three-year episode of recession and subpar growth has finally come to an end.
"The nation's economic engine seems to have been restarted," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist with Banc of America Capital Management.
No separate data were available for the Bay Area. Analysts cautioned that the region is recovering slower than the rest of the nation. But, they said, the reports estimate that technology spending expanded at a 15.5 percent rate, and that represents the most hopeful sign for the area since the local economy crashed at the beginning of 2001.
"I don't see how we can be left out of this strong recovery,'' said Menlo Park economic consultant Anne Wenzel.
The White House hailed the report as evidence that President Bush's tax cut program is working. The president's plan "helped fuel the surge," Bush's office said in a statement.
Even Bush's critics conceded that tax rebates, which put an estimated $100 billion into the hands of consumers, helped boost consumer spending in July and August. Another factor was last spring's record wave of mortgage refinancing, the proceeds of which were spent throughout the summer.
Not all economists were ready to declare victory. For one thing, the economy experienced a similar but smaller bounce in the first quarter of 2002, when low interest rates fueled purchases of homes and motor vehicles, only to tumble back into a slow-growth pattern.
Job growth still stalled
What's more, although the economy grew strongly in the third quarter, the nation's employment machine remained stalled. Despite a small rise in jobs in September, payrolls outside the farm sector shrank by 41,000 during the period as a whole. Analysts worry that, if robust employment growth doesn't resume soon, the economy could lose much of its newfound momentum.
"Even with strong demand, there was very little reason for employers to add workers,'' said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal Washington, D.C. research group. "If they were able to handle this upsurge in business without hiring, it doesn't look like the nation will be adding many jobs."
In any case, forecasters say growth is already slowing from its lightening summer pace as refinancings ebb and the effects of tax rebates fade.
The economy should expand at a respectable but much more moderate pace of 4 percent in the fourth quarter, according to economists polled by the newsletter Blue Chip Economic Indicators.
Whatever happens in the months ahead, the third quarter was a barn burner.
Even during the leanest times of the last few years, ordinary Americans kept reaching for their wallets. In the summer, they took their shopping game to a new level. Consumer spending rose at a 6.6 percent annual rate, the highest in years.
Refinancing pays for 'fun'
San Francisco public relations consultant Jill Turner and her husband refinanced their Yountville house in August, taking out about $80,000 in cash. Most of the money went to pay down debt or make home improvements. But they also spent $6,000 on two oil paintings, a Napa Valley landscape dating from the 1920s and a maritime scene of sailing ships.
"In addition to doing things on the house, we also had a little bit of fun,'' Turner said.
"I'm tentatively hopeful. I'm pleased that we went up, but I'll reserve judgment on the overall health of the economy until next quarter," said Sharla Draemel, 26, who works at the U.S. General Accounting Office. She follows economic news "pretty closely," she said, and was "very surprised" that growth was as much as it was.
"The economy has been sort of flat for a long time. Any growth is a good thing, for sure, but what I want to see is a consistent pattern of growth accompanied by more jobs. Good news is good news, right?"
Economists said the most encouraging development in the third quarter was that businesses finally seemed to throw off their reluctance to invest in equipment, especially computer hardware. "We are looking at an investment-led recovery," said Mat Johnson, chief economist at Sausalito's Quantit Economic Group.
Some of the gains of equipment makers stemmed from the fall in the value of the dollar, which made U.S. goods cheaper for foreign buyers. But it also reflected a greater willingness on the part of corporate America to buy equipment and software.
In essence, corporate managers -- particularly those in the technology sector -- are putting money into hardware and software that allows them to boost output without hiring more workers.
Steeply rising costs for health care and other benefits "are making corporations hesitant to add to payrolls," Wenzel said. "Companies are going to wait until they have no choice but to hire."
There are some signs that's beginning to happen. In September, the nation saw its first increase in payrolls in eight months. And hiring of temporary workers, often a prelude to permanent work force expansion, has been rising in recent months.
Mostly though, spiffy new equipment and cutting edge software installations have become substitutes for hiring. That's producing stunning improvements in efficiency. Some economists believe the rate of worker productivity rocketed up at an almost-unheard-of 9 percent pace in the third quarter.
Said Mark Zandi, chief economist of the Pennsylvania consulting firm Economy.com: "Businesses are essentially asking workers to suck it up."
GDP surge: A sign of economic turnaround? The gross domestic product measures all goods and services produced by workers and capital located in the United States.
WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. economy grew at a 7.2 percent rate, the biggest quarterly gain in 19 years.
WHY: Consumers are more confident and their spending soared, fueled by rebates from the Bush tax cut as well as record mortgage refinancings. Meanwhile, businesses, which had scaled back spending during the recession, showed a new willingness to invest.
WHAT'S NEXT: The economy's explosive growth in the third quarter can't be sustained, economists say. But healthy growth of 4 percent or more is possible,
especially if jobs begin to grow at a more rapid pace. Experts are divided on how long it will take for the job market to recover.
Sources: Department of Commerce; Associated Press
source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/31/MNG3S2NHOH1.DTL&type=printable 1nov03
Mindfully.org
note:
The data below only account for people who are still eligible for
unemployment compensation.
The severely underemployed, who may be working two or three jobs, are not
accounted for.
Those who have exhausted their benefits are not accounted for in unemployment
statistics.
The tens and hundreds of thousands of homeless in each city are not accounted
for.
Poverty in the US is rising at incredible rates and yet, the
"economy is rocketing."
Bus has put the country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will feel
it.
Doesn't this mean that Bush is doing a rotten job?
Technical information: (202) 691-6392 USDL 03-90 http://www.bls.gov/lau/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EST Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, February 28, 2003
STATE AND REGIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT, 2002 ANNUAL AVERAGES
Annual average unemployment rates rose between 2001 and 2002 in nearly all of the states and in each of the Census regions and divisions, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment- population ratios declined in 40 states. At the national level, the jobless rate rose by 1.1 percentage points to 5.8 percent in 2002, while the employment-population ratio dropped by 1.0 percentage point to 62.7 percent.
State Unemployment
Rising unemployment persisted across the U.S. in 2002. Compared with the prior year, jobless rates were higher in 47 states, lower in 2 states, and unchanged in 1 state and the District of Columbia. Two states in the Mountain division--Colorado and Utah--reported the largest unemployment rate increases from 2001 (+2.0 and +1.7 percentage points, respectively). Massachusetts and New Jersey recorded the next largest increases (+1.6 percentage points each). Seventeen additional states registered over-the-year rate increases of at least a full percentage point. These 21 states with at least 1.0-percentage point increases in their unemployment rate were spread across the nation: 6 each were in the Northeast and West, 5 were in the South, and 4 were in the Midwest. In 2002, only Hawaii and South Dakota reported annual unemployment rate declines (-0.4 and -0.3 percentage point, respectively). (See table 1.)
For the second year in a row, the states with the highest jobless rates were located in the Pacific division. Alaska registered the highest rate in 2002, 7.7 percent, followed by Oregon, 7.5 percent, and Washington, 7.3 percent. Twelve additional states and the District of Columbia posted unemployment rates of 6.0 percent or more for the year. The lowest jobless rates in 2002 were in two West North Central states: South Dakota, 3.1 per- cent, and Nebraska, 3.6 percent. Overall, 32 states had unemployment rates below the national average, 16 states and the District of Columbia had rates above it, and 2 states had rates equal to it. All seven states in the West North Central division and all six in New England posted rates below the U.S. rate. In contrast, four of the five Pacific states recorded rates above that of the nation.
Regional Unemployment
The Northeast and West regions experienced the largest jobless rate increases from 2001 (+1.2 percentage points each), while the Midwest and South recorded smaller rate increases (+1.0 and +0.9 point, respectively). For the 11th consecutive year, the West registered the highest regional unemployment rate, 6.5 percent. The Midwest reported the lowest rate, 5.5 percent. The range between the highest and lowest regional unemploy- ment rates--1.0 percentage point--increased slightly, after narrowing substantially since the mid-1990s.
Among the nation's nine geographic divisions, the Mountain division posted the largest over-the-year unemployment rate increase (+1.3 percentage points), closely followed by the Middle Atlantic, New England, and Pacific divisions (+1.2 points each). The smallest jobless rate increases from 2001 were re- corded in the East South Central and West North Central divisions (+0.7 percentage point each). The Pacific also continued to register the highest job- less rate--for the 11th straight year--6.8 percent. The West South Central division had the next highest rate, 6.0 percent. The West North Central division recorded the lowest unemployment rate, 4.6 percent, followed by New England, 4.9 percent, which had reported the lowest divisional rate for the prior 2 years.
State employment-population ratios
In 2002, 40 states and the District of Columbia posted declines in their employment-population ratios--the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over with a job--while 9 states reported increases. The largest employment-population ratio declines occurred in Michigan (-3.0 percentage points) and Delaware (-2.6 points). Four other states recorded decreases of 2.0 percentage points or more from 2001, and 20 additional states and the District of Columbia registered declines of at least 1.0 point. The largest increases in employment- population ratios were in South Dakota and Arkansas (+1.2 percentage points and +1.0 point, respectively). Iowa and Vermont were the only other states that reported increases of at least 0.5 percentage point. (See table 2.)
West Virginia continued to have the lowest employment-population ratio, 52.6 percent, a decline of 2.0 percentage points from 2001. The seven states recording the next lowest ratios also were located in the South--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina--with employment-population ratios ranging between 56.4 and 59.1 percent. New York, at 59.3 percent, was the only other state with a ratio below 60.0 percent. Minnesota again reported the highest proportion of employed persons, 72.4 per- cent, despite a 0.7-percentage point decline from 2001. Three other Mid- western states--Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota--registered the next highest ratios, all of which were over 70.0 percent. Twenty-seven states recorded employment-population ratios higher than the U.S. figure of 62.7 percent, while 21 states and the District of Columbia posted lower ratios. All states in the New England and West North Central divisions had ratios above that of the U.S., while all of those in the Middle Atlantic and East South Central divisions had ratios below it.
Regional employment-population ratios
All four regions reported declines in their proportion of employed persons from 2001, ranging from -1.5 percentage points in the Midwest to -0.2 point in the Northeast. The Midwest and West continued to register ratios (65.0 and 63.0 percent, respectively) above the U.S. average, while the Northeast (61.9 percent) and South (61.5 percent) again had lower ratios.
Of the nine geographic divisions, the East North Central recorded the largest decrease in its employment-population ratio relative to 2001 (-1.9 percentage points). The next largest decreases were in the Pacific, South Atlantic, and West South Central divisions (-1.0 percentage point each). The two Northeast divisions--the Middle Atlantic and New England--registered the smallest declines in 2002 (-0.2 and -0.3 percentage point, respectively). Once again, the West North Central recorded the highest employment-population ratio (68.7 percent) and the East South Central registered the lowest (59.3 percent).
NOTE
All estimates presented in this release, except those for Puerto Rico, were derived from the Current Population Survey, a sample survey of about 60,000 households conducted monthly for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau. A description of the survey and information about the reliability of the state estimates appear in Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 2000, Bulletin 2550. Effective with this release, annual averages for regions, divisions, states, and the District of Columbia, shown in tables 1 and 2, reflect updated population controls, incorporating the results of Census 2000. This decennial adjustment generally results in changes to levels for the current and previous years and may also affect unemployment rates and employment-population ratios, unlike the more routine population control updates in other years.
The length of the annual series varies by state and ranges from 27 to 33 years. The region and division annual series begin in 1976.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and over by region, division, and state, 2001-02 annual averages
(Numbers in thousands)
Region, division, and state Civilian labor Unemployment rate, 2002(1)
Population force Employed Unemployed rate Error range of
2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 rate, 2002(1)
United States(2).......... 215,092 217,570 143,734 144,863 136,933 136,485 6,801 8,378 4.7 5.8 5.7 - 5.9
Northeast...................... 41,678 42,028 27,070 27,576 25,883 26,026 1,187 1,550 4.4 5.6 5.4 - 5.8
New England................. 10,909 11,020 7,422 7,556 7,150 7,190 272 367 3.7 4.9 4.7 - 5.1
Connecticut.............. 2,604 2,623 1,755 1,773 1,698 1,696 57 77 3.3 4.3 3.8 - 4.8
Maine.................... 1,019 1,034 686 686 658 656 27 30 3.9 4.4 3.9 - 4.9
Massachusetts............ 5,003 5,046 3,393 3,486 3,268 3,301 125 185 3.7 5.3 4.9 - 5.7
New Hampshire............ 972 989 700 706 676 672 25 33 3.5 4.7 4.2 - 5.2
Rhode Island............. 827 840 548 556 522 528 26 28 4.7 5.1 4.6 - 5.6
Vermont.................. 484 489 340 349 328 336 12 13 3.6 3.7 3.3 - 4.1
Middle Atlantic............. 30,769 31,008 19,648 20,020 18,734 18,836 915 1,183 4.7 5.9 5.7 - 6.1
New Jersey............... 6,513 6,585 4,305 4,368 4,125 4,113 180 255 4.2 5.8 5.4 - 6.2
New York................. 14,701 14,816 9,132 9,362 8,689 8,790 443 573 4.9 6.1 5.8 - 6.4
Pennsylvania............. 9,555 9,607 6,212 6,290 5,920 5,934 291 356 4.7 5.7 5.3 - 6.1
Midwest........................ 49,197 49,600 34,265 34,125 32,711 32,247 1,554 1,878 4.5 5.5 5.3 - 5.7
East North Central.......... 34,465 34,721 23,637 23,410 22,496 22,024 1,141 1,385 4.8 5.9 5.7 - 6.1
Illinois................. 9,440 9,524 6,473 6,378 6,125 5,963 349 415 5.4 6.5 6.1 - 6.9
Indiana.................. 4,626 4,656 3,134 3,175 2,998 3,012 136 163 4.4 5.1 4.6 - 5.6
Michigan................. 7,594 7,650 5,158 5,001 4,886 4,691 271 310 5.3 6.2 5.8 - 6.6
Ohio..................... 8,664 8,701 5,844 5,828 5,596 5,497 248 331 4.2 5.7 5.3 - 6.1
Wisconsin................ 4,141 4,190 3,028 3,028 2,891 2,861 137 167 4.5 5.5 4.9 - 6.1
West North Central.......... 14,732 14,879 10,628 10,716 10,215 10,223 413 493 3.9 4.6 4.4 - 4.8
Iowa..................... 2,261 2,277 1,625 1,667 1,572 1,601 54 67 3.3 4.0 3.5 - 4.5
Kansas................... 2,021 2,041 1,383 1,414 1,324 1,342 59 72 4.3 5.1 4.5 - 5.7
Minnesota................ 3,805 3,855 2,889 2,918 2,783 2,790 106 128 3.7 4.4 3.9 - 4.9
Missouri................. 4,288 4,330 3,020 2,990 2,879 2,825 141 165 4.7 5.5 5.0 - 6.0
Nebraska................. 1,298 1,311 953 959 923 925 29 34 3.1 3.6 3.1 - 4.1
North Dakota............. 490 492 346 346 336 332 10 14 2.9 4.0 3.5 - 4.5
South Dakota............. 569 574 412 421 398 408 14 13 3.4 3.1 2.7 - 3.5
South.......................... 76,681 77,831 50,296 50,711 47,922 47,861 2,374 2,849 4.7 5.6 5.5 - 5.7
South Atlantic.............. 40,140 40,766 26,479 26,682 25,283 25,255 1,197 1,427 4.5 5.3 5.1 - 5.5
Delaware................. 612 622 429 423 414 405 15 18 3.4 4.2 3.7 - 4.7
District of Columbia..... 462 460 313 304 293 285 20 20 6.4 6.4 5.8 - 7.0
Florida.................. 12,687 12,926 8,020 8,084 7,639 7,642 381 442 4.8 5.5 5.2 - 5.8
Georgia.................. 6,223 6,337 4,220 4,292 4,053 4,071 167 221 4.0 5.1 4.6 - 5.6
Maryland................. 4,065 4,126 2,841 2,898 2,727 2,772 114 126 4.0 4.4 3.9 - 4.9
North Carolina........... 6,187 6,262 4,202 4,171 3,971 3,890 231 281 5.5 6.7 6.1 - 7.3
South Carolina........... 3,096 3,145 1,952 1,968 1,848 1,851 104 117 5.3 6.0 5.4 - 6.6
Virginia................. 5,379 5,454 3,680 3,735 3,556 3,583 125 152 3.4 4.1 3.6 - 4.6
West Virginia............ 1,432 1,436 822 804 782 755 40 49 4.8 6.1 5.5 - 6.7
East South Central.......... 13,083 13,200 8,285 8,293 7,868 7,821 417 472 5.0 5.7 5.4 - 6.0
Alabama.................. 3,411 3,432 2,135 2,103 2,022 1,978 112 124 5.3 5.9 5.3 - 6.5
Kentucky................. 3,144 3,184 1,985 1,966 1,878 1,857 107 110 5.4 5.6 5.0 - 6.2
Mississippi.............. 2,122 2,136 1,305 1,298 1,234 1,210 71 88 5.5 6.8 6.1 - 7.5
Tennessee................ 4,407 4,448 2,860 2,926 2,733 2,776 126 150 4.4 5.1 4.5 - 5.7
West South Central.......... 23,457 23,864 15,531 15,735 14,771 14,785 760 950 4.9 6.0 5.7 - 6.3
Arkansas................. 2,044 2,060 1,248 1,285 1,185 1,216 63 70 5.0 5.4 4.8 - 6.0
Louisiana................ 3,314 3,336 2,053 2,006 1,931 1,883 122 123 5.9 6.1 5.4 - 6.8
Oklahoma................. 2,590 2,619 1,671 1,693 1,607 1,617 64 76 3.8 4.5 3.9 - 5.1
Texas.................... 15,510 15,849 10,560 10,751 10,048 10,070 512 681 4.8 6.3 6.0 - 6.6
West........................... 47,962 48,899 32,428 32,947 30,722 30,811 1,706 2,136 5.3 6.5 6.3 - 6.7
Mountain.................... 13,844 14,158 9,502 9,707 9,074 9,148 427 559 4.5 5.8 5.5 - 6.1
Arizona.................. 3,928 4,033 2,580 2,672 2,458 2,507 121 165 4.7 6.2 5.5 - 6.9
Colorado................. 3,328 3,394 2,379 2,437 2,291 2,298 89 140 3.7 5.7 5.2 - 6.2
Idaho.................... 970 989 681 684 647 645 34 40 5.0 5.8 5.2 - 6.4
Montana.................. 698 706 463 464 442 442 22 21 4.6 4.6 4.0 - 5.2
Nevada................... 1,564 1,616 1,104 1,122 1,045 1,060 59 62 5.3 5.5 5.0 - 6.0
New Mexico............... 1,360 1,382 861 878 820 830 42 48 4.8 5.4 4.8 - 6.0
Utah..................... 1,619 1,655 1,161 1,180 1,110 1,108 51 72 4.4 6.1 5.5 - 6.7
Wyoming.................. 378 383 272 270 262 259 11 11 3.9 4.2 3.7 - 4.7
Pacific..................... 34,118 34,742 22,926 23,240 21,647 21,663 1,279 1,577 5.6 6.8 6.6 - 7.0
Alaska................... 440 449 320 323 299 298 21 25 6.4 7.7 7.0 - 8.4
California............... 25,600 26,083 17,183 17,405 16,260 16,242 923 1,163 5.4 6.7 6.4 - 7.0
Hawaii................... 872 889 591 582 564 557 27 25 4.6 4.2 3.7 - 4.7
Oregon................... 2,673 2,716 1,817 1,834 1,702 1,695 115 138 6.3 7.5 6.8 - 8.2
Washington............... 4,533 4,605 3,015 3,097 2,822 2,871 193 226 6.4 7.3 6.6 - 8.0
Puerto Rico(3)................. 2,873 2,934 1,297 1,356 1,150 1,190 147 166 11.4 12.3 (4)
1 Error ranges are shown at the 90-percent confidence level.
2 Because of separate processing and weighting procedures, totals for the United States differ from the results obtained by
aggregating data for regions, divisions, or states.
3 The source of these data is the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources.
4 Not available.
NOTE: Region and division data are derived from summing the component states. Sub-national data incorporate updated 2000
census-based
population controls.
Table 2. Employment-population ratio of persons 16 years of age and over by region, division, and state, 2001-02 annual averages
(Percent)
Employment-population Error range of
ratio(1) Over-the-year employment-population
Region, division, and state 2001 2002 change ratio, 2002(1)
United States................. 63.7 62.7 -1.0 62.5 - 62.9
Northeast.......................... 62.1 61.9 -0.2 61.5 - 62.3
New England..................... 65.5 65.2 -0.3 64.5 - 65.9
Connecticut.................. 65.2 64.7 -0.5 63.1 - 66.3
Maine........................ 64.6 63.5 -1.1 62.0 - 65.0
Massachusetts................ 65.3 65.4 0.1 64.1 - 66.7
New Hampshire................ 69.5 68.0 -1.5 66.6 - 69.4
Rhode Island................. 63.1 62.9 -0.2 61.7 - 64.1
Vermont...................... 67.7 68.6 0.9 67.2 - 70.0
Middle Atlantic................. 60.9 60.7 -0.2 60.2 - 61.2
New Jersey................... 63.3 62.5 -0.8 61.5 - 63.5
New York..................... 59.1 59.3 0.2 58.5 - 60.1
Pennsylvania................. 62.0 61.8 -0.2 60.9 - 62.7
Midwest............................ 66.5 65.0 -1.5 64.6 - 65.4
East North Central.............. 65.3 63.4 -1.9 62.8 - 64.0
Illinois..................... 64.9 62.6 -2.3 61.6 - 63.6
Indiana...................... 64.8 64.7 -0.1 63.2 - 66.2
Michigan..................... 64.3 61.3 -3.0 60.1 - 62.5
Ohio......................... 64.6 63.2 -1.4 62.0 - 64.4
Wisconsin.................... 69.8 68.3 -1.5 66.8 - 69.8
West North Central.............. 69.3 68.7 -0.6 68.0 - 69.4
Iowa......................... 69.5 70.3 0.8 69.0 - 71.6
Kansas....................... 65.5 65.8 0.3 64.1 - 67.5
Minnesota.................... 73.1 72.4 -0.7 70.8 - 74.0
Missouri..................... 67.1 65.2 -1.9 63.4 - 67.0
Nebraska..................... 71.1 70.6 -0.5 69.2 - 72.0
North Dakota................. 68.5 67.5 -1.0 65.6 - 69.4
South Dakota................. 69.9 71.1 1.2 69.4 - 72.8
South.............................. 62.5 61.5 -1.0 61.1 - 61.9
South Atlantic.................. 63.0 62.0 -1.0 61.5 - 62.5
Delaware..................... 67.7 65.1 -2.6 63.6 - 66.6
District of Columbia......... 63.4 61.9 -1.5 60.4 - 63.4
Florida...................... 60.2 59.1 -1.1 58.2 - 60.0
Georgia...................... 65.1 64.3 -0.8 62.9 - 65.7
Maryland..................... 67.1 67.2 0.1 65.8 - 68.6
North Carolina............... 64.2 62.1 -2.1 60.8 - 63.4
South Carolina............... 59.7 58.9 -0.8 57.4 - 60.4
Virginia..................... 66.1 65.7 -0.4 63.9 - 67.5
West Virginia................ 54.6 52.6 -2.0 50.9 - 54.3
East South Central.............. 60.1 59.3 -0.8 58.4 - 60.2
Alabama...................... 59.3 57.6 -1.7 55.9 - 59.3
Kentucky..................... 59.7 58.3 -1.4 56.4 - 60.2
Mississippi.................. 58.2 56.6 -1.6 54.8 - 58.4
Tennessee.................... 62.0 62.4 0.4 60.7 - 64.1
West South Central.............. 63.0 62.0 -1.0 61.3 - 62.7
Arkansas..................... 58.0 59.0 1.0 57.5 - 60.5
Louisiana.................... 58.3 56.4 -1.9 54.7 - 58.1
Oklahoma..................... 62.1 61.7 -0.4 60.1 - 63.3
Texas........................ 64.8 63.5 -1.3 62.5 - 64.5
West............................... 64.1 63.0 -1.1 62.6 - 63.4
Mountain........................ 65.5 64.6 -0.9 63.9 - 65.3
Arizona...................... 62.6 62.2 -0.4 60.6 - 63.8
Colorado..................... 68.8 67.7 -1.1 65.9 - 69.5
Idaho........................ 66.7 65.2 -1.5 63.5 - 66.9
Montana...................... 63.3 62.7 -0.6 60.9 - 64.5
Nevada....................... 66.8 65.6 -1.2 64.1 - 67.1
New Mexico................... 60.3 60.0 -0.3 58.3 - 61.7
Utah......................... 68.6 66.9 -1.7 65.1 - 68.7
Wyoming...................... 69.3 67.6 -1.7 66.0 - 69.2
Pacific......................... 63.4 62.4 -1.0 61.9 - 62.9
Alaska....................... 68.0 66.4 -1.6 64.0 - 68.8
California................... 63.5 62.3 -1.2 61.7 - 62.9
Hawaii....................... 64.7 62.7 -2.0 61.3 - 64.1
Oregon....................... 63.7 62.4 -1.3 61.0 - 63.8
Washington................... 62.3 62.3 0.0 60.9 - 63.7
Puerto Rico(2)..................... 40.0 40.6 0.6 (3)
1 Error ranges are shown at the 90-percent confidence level.
2 The source of these data is the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources.
3 Not available.
source: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/srgune.txt 1nov03
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |