CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs CEPR Blog The States and Full Employment

The States and Full Employment

Print
Written by John Schmitt   
Monday, 26 November 2012 13:45

State governments spend a lot of money — usually in the form of tax breaks for companies — trying to bring jobs to their states. The problem with this kind of race-to-the-bottom strategy is that the most they can hope to achieve is to shift jobs from one state to another, leaving total national employment unchanged.

When it comes to state employment, the real drivers of success or failure lie almost completely beyond the reach of state governments. The overwhelming determinants of state employment are monetary and fiscal policy, which are set entirely at the federal level.

The chart below helps to illustrate the point. The third and longest bar in the figure shows the unemployment rate in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2010, the worst year in the labor market in the recent recession. Not only was the overall unemployment rate high (9.6 percent), but the range in unemployment rates across states was large – from under 4 percent in North Dakota, to over 12 percent in California, Michigan, and Nevada.

Click for larger version

state-unemployment-2012

By contrast, when the national unemployment rate was low – as was the case in the labor-market peaks of 2000 (4.0 percent) and 2007 (4.6 percent) – the range of unemployment rates across the states was tight, with only one state above 6 percent in 2000 (Alaska) and only three states above that level in 2007 (Alaska, Mississippi, and Michigan).

A low national unemployment rate – something determined completely by fiscal and monetary policy at the federal level – appears to have a much bigger effect on how individual states fare than any state-level policies. The same states that had very different unemployment rates in 2010, had very similar unemployment rates in 2000 and 2007, independent of the particular state-level employment policies they pursued.

The best thing state governors can do to improve the labor market in their states is to band together to press federal authorities to pursue full employment policies.

Meanwhile, state governments actually do have substantial leverage over the quality of jobs in their states. States can, for example, set minimum wages (as 19 already do), mandate health insurance coverage (as Hawaii does), offer paid family leave (as California and New Jersey do), or require employers to provide paid sick days (as Connecticut will, starting January 1).

Annual Unemployment Rate by State for Select Years

2000

2007

2010

2012

Alabama

4.0

3.4

9.5

7.8

Alaska

6.2

6.1

7.9

7.2

Arizona

4.1

3.7

10.5

8.4

Arkansas

4.2

5.3

7.9

7.3

California

5.0

5.4

12.3

10.7

Colorado

2.8

3.8

8.9

8.0

Connecticut

2.3

4.6

9.3

8.2

Delaware

3.3

3.5

8.0

6.9

District of Columbia

5.7

5.5

10.2

9.3

Florida

3.8

4.0

11.3

8.9

Georgia

3.5

4.7

10.2

9.1

Hawaii

4.0

2.7

6.9

6.3

Idaho

4.7

3.0

8.8

7.7

Illinois

4.5

5.1

10.5

8.9

Indiana

2.9

4.6

10.1

8.2

Iowa

2.8

3.8

6.3

5.2

Kansas

3.8

4.1

7.1

6.1

Kentucky

4.3

5.6

10.2

8.4

Louisiana

4.9

3.8

7.5

7.2

Maine

3.3

4.7

8.2

7.4

Maryland

3.6

3.4

7.8

6.8

Massachusetts

2.7

4.5

8.3

6.4

Michigan

3.7

7.1

12.6

8.8

Minnesota

3.1

4.7

7.3

5.7

Mississippi

5.7

6.3

10.5

9.2

Missouri

3.3

5.0

9.3

7.3

Montana

4.8

3.4

6.9

6.3

Nebraska

2.8

3.0

4.7

4.0

Nevada

4.2

4.7

13.7

12.0

New Hampshire

2.7

3.5

6.1

5.3

New Jersey

3.7

4.3

9.6

9.4

New Mexico

5.0

3.5

7.9

6.8

New York

4.5

4.6

8.6

8.7

North Carolina

3.8

4.8

10.9

9.7

North Dakota

2.9

3.1

3.8

3.0

Ohio

4.0

5.6

10.0

7.3

Oklahoma

3.1

4.1

6.9

5.2

Oregon

5.1

5.2

10.6

8.6

Pennsylvania

4.2

4.4

8.4

7.7

Rhode Island

4.2

5.2

11.7

10.9

South Carolina

3.6

5.6

11.2

9.2

South Dakota

2.7

2.9

5.0

4.3

Tennessee

4.0

4.8

9.8

8.1

Texas

4.4

4.4

8.2

7.0

Utah

3.4

2.6

8.0

5.8

Vermont

2.7

3.9

6.4

4.9

Virginia

2.3

3.1

6.9

5.7

Washington

5.0

4.5

9.9

8.4

West Virginia

5.5

4.2

8.5

7.2

Wisconsin

3.4

4.8

8.5

7.0

Wyoming

3.9

2.8

7.0

5.4

United States

4.0

4.6

9.6

8.2


Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics and Current Population Survey. Note: The rates for 2012 are the average of seasonally adjusted data covering the months January to September.

Comments (1)Add Comment
nice data, wrong conclusion
written by mnemos, November 27, 2012 1:25
I like the data set, but it doesn't support your conclusion. I could read the data as saying that as the national unemployment rose, state policies had a greater effect on unemployment. So state policies may have had a direct impact on employment stability during a downturn. If there were groupings of states with similar policy, and you could see that states with similar policy were spreading as much as states with dissimilar policy, that could support your argument, but this does not. As it is, the only thing that is obvious is that a few "low regulation" states (ND, NE, SD) didn't have as large a rise in unemployment. Is that due to state policy, or for example a smaller real estate bubble which allowed labor to be more mobil? Or just because they are also low population states? The idea that 4% vs. 14% unemployment is somehow negligible is pretty poor thinking.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613
budget economy education employment Haiti health care housing inequality jobs labor labor market minimum wage paid family leave poverty recession retirement Social Security taxes unemployment unions wages Wall Street women workers working class

+ All tags