Economies Improve in Three States - How Can We Copy Them?

The BLS released metropolitan area unemployment rates yesterday for October 2008, and the report shows that the economies of three states (Arkansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia) actually improved from October 2007 to October 2008, despite the recession that started in December of 2007 (see chart above). Moreover, five out of six cities in Arkansas had lower unemployment rates in October 2008 than October 2007, the jobless rates in two out of three cities in Oklahoma dropped, as did two cities in W. Viriginia.

I don't know what these three states have in common, but as the National Governors' Association meets today in Philadelphia, maybe the governors in the other states should figure out how AR, OK and WV have been able to prosper and improve during a serious national slowdown, and copy whatever they're doing.

Comments

[john s. gordon:]

people leaving AR & OK to be unemployed in other states that have higher benefits?

WV economy hasn't improved, how could it, lack of transportation availability has always held WV back.
> jack

2008 Dec 03 08:09 AM

[CLH:]

Is it right to work laws?

2008 Dec 03 10:18 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

If you look at the states still doing reasonably well, they are virtually all net ENERGY EXPORTERS. Of course, agriculture and right-to-work doesn't hurt some of them, either. (Arkansas, by the way, is home to the largest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart.)

As the new Prez and Congress are very likely going to revive the OCS moratorium and have pledged to kill the use of coal domestically, some of these states are going to be missing from such future listings.

Incidentally, longer term one of our most prosperous states will be South Carolina, whose offshore is home to one of the largest concentrations of gas hydrates in the world. This resource will help power our nation's economy for the foreseeable future one day.

2008 Dec 03 10:48 AM

[Industrial ...:]

A good way to do well in these states is most likely the fact that their taxes are low. I am familiar with Arkansas having very low property taxes, whereas Illinois is high.

A $100,000 house in Peoria, Illinois will pay around $2,000/yr in property taxes whereas the same tax bill in Tacoma, Washington will be on a $225-250,000 house! In Arkansas, its more like $200 for the $100,000 house!

A $450,000 house in Naperville, IL will pay $8,000/yr in property taxes!

So, how come property taxes are so high in Illinois? Because politicians have far too many pet projects. In Seattle, the Kingdom was not quite paid for, and was demolished -- only to be replaced by TWO stadiums. One for Seattle Mariners baseball and Seattle Seahawks football. The Mariners insisted on a retractable roof, while it actually rains less in Seattle than Chicago during the baseball season. Voters, voted AGAINST the new stadium, but the governor and his cronies had an "Emergency Session" to OVERTURN the vote, the voice of the people. So, Seattle has just received $1 billion in sports arena projects and the UW had a little rehab work done as part of this figure.

All the while, the city of Tacoma, WA did not have a hospital with an ER. A police officer was shot, and had to be flown to Seattle for treatment. I believe he died as a result of the time it took to pick him up and fly him a good 20-30 miles. So, this shows you where the priorities are for politicians. They are not worried or interested in the "boring" things that they should manage and take care of, like snow removal, fixing pot holes, etc. Instead, its sports stadiums, museums, etc. All of these pet projects are funded by tax dollars. So, perhaps Arkansas does not have several large sports stadiums, etc, they also do not have to pay for them. On the flip-side, its the "Natural State" so there is plenty of recreational activities, especially fishing and water sports. You can drink plenty of beer doing that and its much less expensive that drinking, parking, tickets at a sports arena that taxpayers usually don't visit, but pay for.

2008 Dec 03 11:36 AM

[regeya:]

"A $100,000 house in Peoria, Illinois will pay around $2,000/yr in property taxes whereas the same tax bill in Tacoma, Washington will be on a $225-250,000 house! In Arkansas, its more like $200 for the $100,000 house!"

There are parts of downstate Illinois where your property tax will be on par with what you pay in Arkansas. Sadly, my county is not one of them. However, on the plus side, where I live you won't lose a subcompact in a pothole, which I can't say for the lower property tax counties/townships ;-)

2008 Dec 03 04:45 PM

[axelrod608:]

Low taxes, small, cheap government. Try that in NY.

Also, you could ALWAYS buy a house for under $100k. Far less home equity destruction.

2008 Dec 03 06:22 PM

[Mowog:]

Lots of good quaity homes mainly in the non-DNC-majority counties of the Midwest for much less than $100K and built to last, unlike the shoddy housing boom stock with its vinyl siding already peeling off and turning into Section 8 and HUD. There are good jobs in some of these Midwestern places you've flown over, too. But the residents are, you know, veritable zoo specimens that Mr. Obama explained to as clinging to religion, clutching guns, and turning to xenophobia in ignorant primal rage. They're gauche, think differently (even from their neighbors sometimes), have children, like low taxes (but will happily take gov't handouts paid for by others), and produce tangibles (and are likely latte-intolerant, so stay on the costly statist Left Coast, thank you).

2008 Dec 03 10:42 PM

[SA Editor M...:]

Are these not among the lowest GDP states? Salaries tending toward minimum wage and low levels of high school graduation? I'd be curious to see if companies are moving into those states for cheap labor; I doubt those are trends other states would care to emulate.

2008 Dec 04 10:04 PM

[Robert Nabloid:]

Umm, just a question... Are the unemployment improvements due to NEW jobs or due to people being taken off the unemployed list?

I was under the impression that the government takes people off the unemployed list after a while regardless if they found a job or not.

2008 Dec 05 04:17 PM

[marswind:]

Honestly, I don't see significant differences in your data. Are these numbers a within a margin of error? I would like to see ten years and then maybe you would have something indicating a trend (with attributions).

2008 Dec 08 05:26 PM