Question: What do you get when you mix excessive government growth, an anti-competitive business climate and a national recession?
Answer? A debilitating unemployment rate that has remained at stratospherically-high levels for nearly two years.
That’s the sorry lot that Palmetto state residents are stuck with … and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
South Carolina’s unemployment rate remained stuck at 11 percent in September, although the State Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW) did adjust August’s unemployment rate upward to 11.1 percent, meaning that the Palmetto state’s abnormally high jobless measure technically dropped by a tenth of a percent.
Obviously, that’s small consolation to the hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians who find themselves out of work.
It’s also the latest evidence that $3 billion in federal “stimulus” money – which has helped fund two of the largest budgets in state history – has failed miserably to turn our economy around. In fact, things appear to be getting worse – unless of course you’re a government bureaucrat.
The private sector shed 12,600 positions in September, according to the latest employment report. Meanwhile, government gained 14,400 jobs last month – although most of that increase was associated with “local government education services staff” which are continuing their return from summer vacation.
Nonetheless, government has added more than 4,200 positions compared this time a year ago, further evidence that bureacrats aren’t hurting during these difficult economic times.
More than 150,000 private sector employees have lost their jobs since the recession began in December 2007. Meanwhile, government payrolls in South Carolina have expanded by more than 25,000 over that same time period.
Nationally, the unemployment rate remained at 9.6 percent last month, although the “underemployment” rate – a broader, more accurate jobless measure – shot up from 16.7 to 17.1 percent. Current statistics are not available, but South Carolina’s “underemployment” rate was 19 percent during the second quarter of 2010, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
These numbers are clearly unacceptable – particularly in light of the political promises coming out of Washington, D.C.
Back in April, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that America would enjoy a “Summer of Recovery” this year that would include the creation of “between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month.”
In May, President Barack Obama said that the economy was on a “path to recovery.”
“We can say beyond a shadow of a doubt today we are headed in the right direction,” Obama said during a speech in Buffalo, New York. “All those tough steps we took, they’re working, despite all the naysayers who were predicting failure a year ago.”
In touting his so-called “economic stimulus” last year, Obama said the plan would create 3.5 million jobs. His top economic advisors also said it would keep the U.S. unemployment rate below 8 percent.
Clearly that hasn’t happened. Unemployment has remained at 9.4 percent or higher for the past seventeen months. Meanwhile, total employment currently stands at 130.2 million – or 7.6 million lower than Obama forecast for this point in the “recovery.”
In South Carolina, the state’s unemployment rate has remained above 10.7 percent for twenty consecutive months. On top of that, poverty is up and income levels are down in the Palmetto state – with median household income in South Carolina shrinking by $1,600 last year.
Still, at a recent economic development announcement in the Upstate, S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford touted his administration’s record, saying “we can’t afford to rest on our laurels as a state.”
Talk about the “Audacity of Stupid …”
WEB EXTRA
September S.C. Unemployment Report
***
By Helen October 22, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Thank you, George W. Bush, for the 2001 tax cuts and the war against Al Quaida, now in year 10. We really appreciate both.
Oops, forgot about the weapons of mass destruction; they didn’t exist in Iraq.
And Al Quaida, well, we now know Sadaam hated Bin Laden, that Bin Laden, Al-Quaida and the Taliban ALWAYS operated from Afghanistan and Somalia and NEVER from Iraq (until we arrived).
Oops.
Is that why Colin Powell resigned three weeks after your second term began? Because he convinced the UN that “based on strong intelligence” WMDs were in IRAQ?
It that why it’s called “Bush’s War”?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
Thanks, George W.
Take it easy. Hope things go great with your new book…
By Old Bike Dude October 22, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I thought Joe Meant Jobs. Joe Lies!
By CNSYD October 22, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“excessive government growth” because teachers are coming back from summer vacation. “an anti-competitive business climate”, so anti-competitive that Boeing is coming here and new businesses in support of BMW and ICAR are announced all the time. I will concede that Lexington/Richland does not get firms of this type.
By Skidmarks October 22, 2010 at 2:57 pm
CNSYD has nailed it. This is just blame-government bullshit, yada, yada, yada, libertarian bullshit. (Notable amongst the crap is the assertion that the underemployment rate is a broader, more accurate jobless measure. OK, Chi-Square, please to explain how that is accurately measured?)
Go after the free enterprise, under-regulated banks that have screwed up mortgages and construction for years to come.
PS – If you’ve had a job, you haven’t even noticed the recession.
By CDB October 22, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Da gummint won’t “solve” SC’s unemployment problem, and expecting a quick change is plain silly no matter who is in power.
Jobs for people without skills are few and far between, and SC has a service industry economy vulnerable to the bursting of the mortgage bubble.
“Go after the free enterprise, under-regulated banks that have screwed up mortgages and construction for years to come.”
No chance of that when BOTH parties are too busy attacking each other in order to get elected! Damn good idea though.
I can’t be the only one noticing that while the elites keep getting richer, their puppets in both (there is no third) parties are by and large distracting the public by flinging poo…
By Dagny Taggart October 22, 2010 at 6:33 pm
I sense a left-wing caballing of FITS. It’s suddenly all Bolsheviks, all the time on these comments. “Go after free enterprise.” Ok, let’s go after free enterprise, let’s put a stop to it! We’ll see how many jobs that creates.
By The Saint October 22, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Wouldn’t the unemployment rate being even higher if the government had frozen hiring and shed jobs? Weren’t you just congratulating the Brits on slashing 500,000 public jobs (which will eliminate at least 500,000 more private sector ones)? So do you want to lower the unemployment rate or not?
It’s amazing to see people diagnose the problems so wrong. SC is one of the smallest-government, free market, capital-friendly (and labor-unfriendly) states in the country. The idea that we would have more people employed if the business class could just do whatever they wanted is absurd, because contrary to popular belief, capitalists want to employ as few people as possible. This isn’t some leftist attack, this is just basic economics.
Ask any business owner the following: would you rather hire one person to work 70 hours a week for minimum wage or two people to work 35 hours a week for a good salary plus benefits? They’ll choose the first option every time, and they’d be right to do so. Their goal is to maximize profit. Just because option A is in their best interest doesn’t mean its in ours though. So how do we keep them from choosing option A? Government regulation (of, by, and for the people, right?) and unifying workers.
By exyank October 23, 2010 at 8:17 am
Question: What do you get when you mix excessive government growth, an anti-competitive business climate and a national recession?
You need to add “a poorly educated workforce” to that mix.
By Recovering Lobbyist October 23, 2010 at 11:59 am
Two factors to consider regarding the unemployment rate:
It is much higher in the rural areas of our state than the urban areas.
In the urban areas, it is heavily weighted in the construction trades.
The solution in the rural areas is generational and not easily solved.
The solution in the urban areas is simple: get construction back on track.
By CDB October 23, 2010 at 1:36 pm
“You need to add “a poorly educated workforce” to that mix.”
Now, now, there’ll be no pointing out the truth of LOCAL screw-ups! :)
Until SC residents understand that THEY need to compete, not just their government, expect more of same.
Go read the many adverts for skilled workers, then compare THOSE job slots to jobs lost in OTHER parts of the economy.
Construction and tourism depended on the bubble economy. No bubble = few damn jobs for those segments of the economy for quite a few years.
High unemployment among people who were never going to amount to much in the first place is inevitable. What isn’t inevitable is unemployment among people who, if retrained, could function fine at skilled jobs that have vacancies.
“Ask any business owner the following: would you rather hire one person to work 70 hours a week for minimum wage or two people to work 35 hours a week for a good salary plus benefits?”
MANY of the jobs not filled are for much more than minimum wage! BOTH parties need to understand the “skilled worker gap”.
Pingback: SC Politics 10/24 «
By Elijah Brown October 24, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Ahem. How do I put this?
Certain chir’n lub in home whey da-ayn no daddy. Un the momma, she gots los-a other chir’n, some from ub dif’ren daddy. An’ she woke ab da Puggly Wuggly wher’ she make $8 an hour. An’ she wach da tele-vusion when she done home. An’ she don’ hulp nob chir’n wub dey home-wayk. An’ da chur’n, day doob bad in day skool. An dem chir’n, day’s de ‘bes we gwine hab ‘fo da fuu-cha. Bud ‘don gub non ‘dem gails non dub burt control pulls, cuz day day gwaine do whab Cindi Mosteller say and don’ tek no ‘dum pulls.
By The Saint October 24, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I completely agree CDB. What we need is more (non-profit) programs to train out of work people for these skilled jobs. And my point wasn’t that employers want to pay you exactly 7.25/hr, but rather that they want to pay you as little as they can.