If You Are Unemployed In These States, Move!

Tyler Durden's picture

According to Bloomberg's rankings (based on wealth disparity, average unemployment benefits, and overall unemployment pool), and somewhat confirming the food-divide discussion we had last night, the following states are the worst to live in if you are unemployed. Connecticut tops the list with its massive wealth disparity - more than one $200,000 household for every household earning less than $10,000. New York, California, and D.C. are close behind with Oregon and Alabama in 19th and 20th 'worst' place to be unemployed. Welcome to the bifurcated un-recovery.

 

 

Methodology

Bloomberg Rankings used three criteria to identify the worst states to be unemployed: income replacement, or average unemployment benefits (as of the 2Q 2012) as a percentage of median state income per capita; unemployment pool, or how states stack up on unemployment, using October 2012 rates; and wealth disparity, the ratio of households with incomes of at least $200,000 to those with incomes of less than $10,000, according to the most recently available data from 2009. Each state was ranked on the three criteria and the ranks were averaged.

 

Source: Bloomberg Briefs

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
docj's picture

With few exceptions, you could change the title to "If you are unemployed in a state that voted for Obama, move".

Though I'm pretty sure the people who live in the other states would just assume you stay put.

The Juggernaut's picture

Alaska?!?!?  Then whats the best state to be unemployed...?

MachoMan's picture

Arkansas is apparently a good place to go according to all the unemployed folks moving in...  the cost of living is definitely low... 

Matt's picture

It seems that the order rank of the table is suggesting that if you are poor, you should move to a State where everyone else is poor, too.

That doesn't seem like a good idea. If you are poor, wouldn't you be better off having more wealthy people around you, so there is more food and less competition at the food bank, and more manual labor jobs available to be done on a self-employed level working for cash for the wealthy people?

CrazyCooter's picture

Alaska is an odd duck in a lot of ways. The largest city is 300k, the second and third largest cities are tied at 30k each, and it goes down fast from there. Continuing from memory, the state population is 750k.

Generally, unemployment can be very "sticky" because of a few factors. First, if you ever lived in a small town, there is generic work or there is not. What kind of jobs do you think you will find in a small town like Nome? There is a structually high unemployment in AK largely because about half the state lives in rural situations. That doesn't change a lot regardless of what the lower 48 is doing.

On the other hand, professionals are always needed, so if you are a nurse, engineer, accountant, you will have multiple offers to choose from depending on the circumstances.

Personally, I find it is a great place to live and I have done well for myself after moving up about two years ago. But then again, I am an engineer type. If I had to make it working a non-professional type gig, I don't think I could make the numbers fit the cost of living.

Regards,

Cooter

trav777's picture

stupid fking article, dumber conclusions.

Wouldn't you WANT such a tiny number of households earning less than 10k?  Wouldn't you WANT a big multiple of those earning high paychecks to those earning crappy ones?

Yeah, life is great when everyone earns <10k and nobody makes that evil 200k

Big Slick's picture

This article must have been composed by one of the college intern Tylers (I hope).  The analysis is flawed in its assumptions, there is no separation between what the Bloomberg report’s conclusions were vs. Tylers’, and there is no link to the report.

The three Bloomberg criteria – either individually or together – tell me nothing about why the highest listed states might be the “worst” in which to be unemployed.  In fact, if I were unemployed, I might prefer to be unemployed in these states BECAUSE OF the reasons cited in the report (many of these good reasons are explained in the other comments here).

For example I would WANT TO be unemployed in a state where there were a higher number of wealthy households than poor – not because of my prospects for work -  but because of the increased security that unemployment benefits will be available.

This piece slipped through ZH normally great QA/QC filters.

monoloco's picture

 It seems like those states with the most "job creators" should be the best for the unemployed. What gives?

monoloco's picture

 It seems like those states with the most "job creators" should be the best for the unemployed. What gives?

kareninca's picture

I agree with Matt.  I'm from Connecticut, and my family is there.  If I had to be a poor person, I would rather be there, where there are lots of resources for poor people, and where what counts as "poor" would count as rich elsewhere.  My parents tell me of the awful poverty that they see around them in CT  -  and then they describe it  -  and I laugh.  They haven't a *clue* what the rest of the country is like.  Well, actually they do  -  but they still think that everyone around them in CT should be in comfortable circumstances.  Which is good.  And yes, they give a LOT to their local food bank, and help in many other ways.

They earn far less than $200k per year (esp. now that they're retired, but they earned less than that even when working), but more than the median for the state.

There are lots of jobs in CT, even now.  However, they pay about $9 per hour, which admittedly isn't a living wage there.  And I wouldn't want that to be my only option, for certain.  However the jobs do exist  -  because, I imagine, there are so many really rich people around to pay those wages.

Never One Roach's picture

I'm surprised Mississippi is on the list. I was there last Fall and things (food, etc) were dirt cheap.

Freddie's picture

+1

If you voted for dear mullah muslim and are unemployed - stay the ***k where you are.  We don't want you here.    ****ing locusts and parasites.

Keep watching Operation Mockingbird (aka TV and Hollywood) like the good little sheep that you are. 

docj's picture

Case in point - New Hampshire.

NH used to be a reliable fiscal libertarian/conservative state and because of the mass-influx of libtards who moved there since the early 90's allegedly because they "like the lifestyle" it is now electorally indistinguishable from MA and VT.

pods's picture

Statists are like kudzu.  

Oleander's picture

This does not take Mass Health into consideration. Free healthcare and prescription drugs for the uninsured. Its why many unemployed stay.

Richardk888's picture

Right, because Romney would have been so much better?

I would say if you voted for Romney or Obama instead

docj's picture

Wow, so pointing out an electoral fact (that 75% of these voted for King Putt and 25% voted for The Mormon) hit a little too close to home, eh Rich?

Relax, amigo. We were (and are) doomed regardless of who won last year's beauty pagent.

Freddie's picture

Look dumbass you had no choice.  They pushed Ron Paul to the side.  Sheldon casino magnate whatever his name is was backing Romney and CFR Gingrich to make sure Santorum lost.  Romney used vote fraud to beat Santorum in the Midwest.  He did it in the big cities in MI, WI, OH and one or two others.  Santorum had Romney beaten.

Obama then used the same and much greater vote fraud to beat Romney.  Romney did not say dick because he used the same theft on Santorum. Rove/Bush was in there doing plenty of dirty work too.

As much as I do not like Romney - the newsmedia would not be kissing Romney's arse like they have for Mullah for the past 5+ years.  So based on what the NWO/ Operation Mockingbird media has done - out of our no choice - Romney was the better choice. 

Now go F off.

 

Richardk888's picture

There is always a choice fucktard.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

I will continue to vote Libertarian until the clowns in the GOP put up a real candidate.

foodstampbarry's picture

Plus infinity Freddie. Well done sir.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Hello, how do the working poor fit into this proposal?  What utter garbarge.  I know lots of employed folks in Cali, living in the fucking ghetto.

Wages do matter (that will get me on a list).

secret_sam's picture

Yeah, not even to get into the fact that it's tough to move when ya got no money and noplace to go.

Skateboarder's picture

Kudos to anyone living on minimum wage in California without taking gub benefits and shit. HOW!?

If you spend 20 bucks a week on gas (which means you strictly go to work and back, given your work is less than 10 miles away and traffic is not horrendous), that's already a grand.

Food? Where we're going, we don't need no... food.

Snakeeyes's picture

Why should they move if they get Section 8, food stamps, welfare, disability, cell phones, etc. Oh, the ones that WANT to work?

http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/poverty-in-the-usa-an...

wonderatitall's picture

move to the jersey shore. sandy makes obamanomics look brillant. every asshole in the northeast with a hemi is here...what fun and  better obamabenefits....paradise for the rich democrats that can afford it

 

LawsofPhysics's picture

One of my hands took a week off.  Loaded his truck with almost two tons of fuel and came back with almost 10K in cash.

capitalism, bitches.

walküre's picture

not to mention the effect this has on "new housing start".

Never One Roach's picture

It's easy to boost 'housing starts' when zero down loans are widespread.

My question is how many of these defualt within 5 years? Stats so far show these are the highest defaulters. When the person has no skin in the game (nothing to lose) walking away or not paying your mortgage is pretty easy for people.

Matt's picture

That price gouging criminal! Doesn't he know that making a profit providng people with a good or service at an agreed upon price, rather than the government mandated price, is a crime?

millus's picture

I call that free enterprise!  Wake up and get a clue.

Rapada's picture

I think you missed his /sarc

Miss Expectations's picture

The Jersey shore is going to be relocated westward.  Christie is going to build a sand dune from Sandy Hook to Cape May.  How far west of the high tide mark?  TBD.  I don't think that you'll be able to get flood insurance if you're within 1000 feet of the beach...we'll see.

tickhound's picture

The War on Water should prove to be as effective as the Maginot Line.

I'd be moving my gold out of this floodplain too.

Silver Bully's picture

jersey shore? You could always hitch a ride to Rockaway Beach. It's not far to reach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6siGKxcKol0

NoTTD's picture

Republican Governors: 6

Democrat Governors: 14

docj's picture

Voted for King Putt: 15

Voted for The Mormon: 5

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Voted in favor of the status quo and corporatism/fascism: 20

DarthVaderMentor's picture

Actual Score:   Republican 5

Democratic 15

 

Subtract New Jersey, since he is really a Democratic governor!

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Move to where exactly?

<Just askin' cus.....>

No work

Antifaschistische's picture

This migration of actual workers is exactly why parasitism must go national.

ParasiteNation must be able to redistribute wealth from the healthy states to the parasitic states.  It's descrimination in favor of parasites.  Which of course is also the recipe for the destruction of a society but that's not relevant right now.   Go POTUS.

So the uber-parasites (Wall Street) skim their trillions.  The under-parasitic get free skooters and food stamps.  And everyone in the middle is waking up and starting to hide their wealth from both.   (what? did we run out of silver and bullets!)

Silver Bully's picture

"Move to where exactly?"

Better not be Texas. We shoot zombies on sight.

Manthong's picture

Um, shouldn't that be bail out of those states if you are employed?

After all, who is the target revenue source to support those failing welfare systems and state/local pensions? 

Mike2756's picture

My thought, if you are rich, move!

Dr. Engali's picture

Welcome to the shining city on the hill.