Ohio unemployment rate declines

Perhaps the figures look as they do since people's benefits have run out and they are no longer on the counted as unemployed.

Cindy wrote:

Perhaps the figures look as they do since people's benefits have run out and they are no longer on the counted as unemployed.

Agree with you Cindy, they may have just up and left the state as well.
Imagine a government agency being positive and accurate on a state's well being; I'm getting dizzy with the SPIN ACTION their hoping to sell.

In the firestorm touched off by Barack Obama's comments about those who "cling to" guns and religion out of economic resentment, most analysis missed a crucial point: The "bitterness" felt in the so-called Rust Belt is mainly a product of high-tax, highly unionized states.

While there are pockets of prosperity in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan, a good deal of this area is economically depressed. That's not because of Washington's policies (or lack thereof). These policies aren't killing Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and Florida.

While southern states do have problems, their governments generally don't smother economic growth by layering on ever-rising taxation, regulation and expenses. They don't permit workers to be forced to join closed-shop unions. No one in D.C.– Obama, Clinton, McCain or Superman – can fix the Rust Belt's self-inflicted wounds.

Western New York offers a prime example. Despite proximity to major markets, a long international border with a major trading partner, a well-developed transport system, untold natural splendors and a well-educated workforce, the Buffalo area's population shrinks every year. Why? High taxes, high government costs and forced unionization are major factors.

New York state is run by and for its public-employee unions, particularly teachers, but several others as well. The unions collect dues and then recycle a significant amount of what they collect into politicians' campaign funds. These contributions (plus state electoral law, which seems designed to protect incumbents and hobble challengers) produce tax-and-expense structures that drive employers away. To varying degrees, the same is true for much of the Rust Belt.

Mr. Obama referred to the ire of poor folks who've been given false promises in the past by national politicians. The real falsehood is the notion that federal programs or subsidies can overcome a state's own ruinous policies
(From today's Wall Street Journal)

Who is st...p enough to believe this number?

They numbers declined because the numbers only represent those who are drawing unemployment. They do not represent those that are unemployed or thrown off unemployment after 6 months. They are misleading numbers

Yes these numbers only represent who is drawing unemployment, not how many people they have declined or thrown off unemployment, or who are in fact unemployed.

George N wrote:

The real falsehood is the notion that federal programs or subsidies can overcome a state's own ruinous policies
(From today's Wall Street Journal)

No mention of the subsidies that support foreign governments at the expense of our own, AKA, trade deficit. Hmmm, who does that effect?

Who wins, who loses when you do that? Eliminate those subsidies to foreign countries, and you move the problems in those areas back to where they came from.

Close the trade gap to 10% of it's current level, and the biggest problem you'll have is billionaires having to go back to being millionaires. As a bonus, you can also reduce military spending, because you're no longer funding a foreign military that wants to dominate you.

Dummy wrote:

<quoted text>
No mention of the subsidies that support foreign governments at the expense of our own, AKA, trade deficit. Hmmm, who does that effect?
Who wins, who loses when you do that? Eliminate those subsidies to foreign countries, and you move the problems in those areas back to where they came from.
Close the trade gap to 10% of it's current level, and the biggest problem you'll have is billionaires having to go back to being millionaires. As a bonus, you can also reduce military spending, because you're no longer funding a foreign military that wants to dominate you.

Be specific about those so-called subsidies. Explain who and how much.

George N wrote:

<quoted text>
Be specific about those so-called subsidies. Explain who and how much.

Trade deficit. 750 billion. I think you can guess who gets most of it.

Dummy wrote:

<quoted text>
Trade deficit. 750 billion. I think you can guess who gets most of it.

Oil producing countries first, then China, etc. They are not subsidized. China, et. al. simply sell goods at a great price. I don't have to buy goods that are overpriced.

I know this pains ABJ to report.Libs always have an excuse when there is positive news... those who draw unemplyment have run out..give me a break!Hey George those States you mentioned like Michigan etc. are run by the Democrats what a joke "economic policies from Washington" all dems have is blame game!!!

sgmode from BarbertonOh wrote:

I know this pains ABJ to report.Libs always have an excuse when there is positive news... those who draw unemplyment have run out..give me a break!Hey George those States you mentioned like Michigan etc. are run by the Democrats what a joke "economic policies from Washington" all dems have is blame game!!!

Obviously you're more interested in taking a shot at the "libs" rather than the article itself.

"5.6%" is terrible under ANY circumstances, and any attempt to suggest it better than "5.8%" when there are fewer people working in total is ludicrous.

Please try and see the forest...

George N wrote:

<quoted text>
Oil producing countries first, then China, etc. They are not subsidized. China, et. al. simply sell goods at a great price. I don't have to buy goods that are overpriced.

It looks like a subsidy, smells like a subsidy. But it's called a trade deficit.

We donate over $2000 annually per per household, in exchange for cheap labor and at the expense of our GDP. The money doesn't come back unless we borrow it back and pay interest on it. And/or as investment into companies who will help the cause (ie, chain stores).

As for cheap goods that are so coveted, we're going to pay the price one way or the other. A huge tax increase to patch up a deteriorating backbone is most likely. Increased tariffs are less likely.

We're the chump at the poker table, we just can't see it yet.

Dummy wrote:

<quoted text>
It looks like a subsidy, smells like a subsidy. But it's called a trade deficit.
We donate over $2000 annually per per household, in exchange for cheap labor and at the expense of our GDP. The money doesn't come back unless we borrow it back and pay interest on it. And/or as investment into companies who will help the cause (ie, chain stores).
As for cheap goods that are so coveted, we're going to pay the price one way or the other. A huge tax increase to patch up a deteriorating backbone is most likely. Increased tariffs are less likely.
We're the chump at the poker table, we just can't see it yet.

Maybe your own little world is hurting because your politicians keep shooting you in the foot, but things are going well here and in other parts of the country, manufacturing included.(See my post above) Ask yourself why so many are leaving.

This is the typical union view of the world, which is to ignore everything outside of the industrial midwest. And you can keep doing it, and you'll ride that point of view right into bankruptcy court.

George N wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe your own little world is hurting because your politicians keep shooting you in the foot, but things are going well here and in other parts of the country, manufacturing included.(See my post above) Ask yourself why so many are leaving.
This is the typical union view of the world, which is to ignore everything outside of the industrial midwest. And you can keep doing it, and you'll ride that point of view right into bankruptcy court.

Nope, no union view. Maybe just something in common like practical math? Dunno.

Maybe I'm just bad at fundamental math, or you are. Let's see, stunted tax base, increasing national debt. Maybe the answer lies in a quantum equation that magically makes it all work?

Dummy wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, no union view. Maybe just something in common like practical math? Dunno.
Maybe I'm just bad at fundamental math, or you are. Let's see, stunted tax base, increasing national debt. Maybe the answer lies in a quantum equation that magically makes it all work?

Increasing incomes, low unemployment, lots of foreign investment, thriving exports, we and other states with the right policies have it all. Take a trip beyond the confines of your little world.

George N wrote:

<quoted text>
Increasing incomes, low unemployment, lots of foreign investment, thriving exports, we and other states with the right policies have it all. Take a trip beyond the confines of your little world.

If it is so wonderful where you live, why do you own rental property back here (your words)?

George N wrote:

<quoted text>
Increasing incomes, low unemployment, lots of foreign investment, thriving exports, we and other states with the right policies have it all. Take a trip beyond the confines of your little world.

If exports were thriving, we wouldn't be closing in on a trillion dollar trade deficit.

And as far as exports, the only reason they seem to be booming right now is because our money is becoming more worthless. And that includes you and me both, regardless of what we're making.

George, you're a lot of fun. But your math is horrible. Then again, maybe that's why you're so much fun?

Dummy wrote:

<quoted text>
If exports were thriving, we wouldn't be closing in on a trillion dollar trade deficit.
And as far as exports, the only reason they seem to be booming right now is because our money is becoming more worthless. And that includes you and me both, regardless of what we're making.
George, you're a lot of fun. But your math is horrible. Then again, maybe that's why you're so much fun?

Don't make fun of the elderly, it's not NICE! Unless we die first, we will all be old and senile someday... ;)

All these theories and no course of action from any of these theorists. Whatever the problems, no solutions from anyone. Our solution was to move. Never, EVER, expected to leave Ohio, really didn't want to. Couldn't continue to have my children growing up in a state that can't offer them any better life than their parents struggled to achieve. Honestly feel for all the friends and family that can't leave as we did. Miss them terribly, but at least our children now have futures in a state that is prospering rather than dying. I wish the entire state of Ohio all the best at solving the problems, just couldn't wait any longer for results.