BOSTON (CBS) – Even though the state’s unemployment rate is still above 8 percent, the Bay State is turning into one of the biggest job producers in the nation. A study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that Boston has become the second largest job generator in the country, just behind Washington, D.C.
Economist Barry Bluestone from Northeastern University says since January Massachusetts has generated about 5 percent of all of the new jobs in the country, although we represent only 2.5 percent of the nation’s workforce.
The link includes an interesting interview (audio) with Bluestone: “We're doing significantly better than the rest of the country.” Good news, regardless of politics.
Please share widely!
I was sure that we were suffering historic job losses here in MA?
<
p>Oh wait, maybe I was looking at a single month of data rather than a more extended period that would give a more accurate sense of what the real picture was here with respect to employment, and that didn’t unfairly weight the impact of seasonal jobs ending and the like. My bad.
Fairly indicative of the kind of campaign Baker ran. People didn’t believe him, while it wasn’t great news it still wasn’t this epic job loss catastrophe.
<
p>It does look like MA is primed for another good month, we should have good job numbers coming out for October.
All I see is
<
p>”Over the past year, Greater Boston generated more than 21-thousand new jobs while 56 of the top 100 metro areas in the country continue to lose jobs including San Francisco, Detroit and Chicago.”
<
p>I’m glad we are doing better than Detroit.
Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area
<
p>and
<
p>Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area
Given the differences in population I would say NH is doing better.
<
p>Labor participation rates
<
p>MA 65.6
NH 70.0
<
p>http://www.bls.gov/lau/lalfprd…
On whether or no those are New Hampshire people working Massachusetts jobs…
<
p>But, go ahead, keep on looking for that cloud amidst all the silver linings… it’s there somewhere.
I don’t want MA to become NH (unemployment rate 5.1%) or CA (unemployment rate 12%). I worried that the coalition that that got Governor Patrick re-elected could turn MA into CA. Higher local taxes do effect job growth. Just on the horizon there is going to be a large increase in employer’s unemployment contributions, this is really going to hurt and will effect employee count.
<
p>Also don’t forget Massachusetts has the highest per capita debt of any state.
<
p>It’s going to be an interesting 4 years.
<
p>
<
p>You’re in the particularly odd position of arguing against your previous post which A) praised NH and B) acknowledged job growth. Does turning on that dime make you at all dizzy? (or, mayhap, dizzier…?)
<
p>
<
p>Yes, and do you know why…?
<
p>First, because the Big Dig was so mismanaged (thanks Charlie…) and second because Celluci and Romney didn’t want to face the facts of this mismanagement and tried to sweep a lot of it under the various rugs (MBTA and MTA primarily). Then the lege went and cut the MBTA loose from sane funding. As a result of these actions, the rubes running the MBTA and the Mass Pike got themselves into a whole heap of trouble with debt instruments they didn’t understand and couldn’t manage properly. So, caught between the Big Dig and rampant innumeracy the economic collapse caught us in a particularly poor position. The adroitness and acumen with which Governor Patrick has saved our bacon is something he gets little credit for but remains one of the primary reasons our debt ratings, despite the load, remains high.
<
p>
<
p>Particularly for you… Faced, as you are, with the choice of continued ideological purity or believing what your lying eyes are telling you…
<
p>Not at all – I’m saying a state government that overpowers the private sector hinders employment growth. Wouldn’t it be great to have the 5.1% unemployment rate that NH has? Shouldn’t we understand that a large state sector such as CA can overwhelm the private sector and result in high unemployment.
<
p>and doesn’t:
<
p>NH-5.1% (small state government)< MA-8.1% (large state government)< CA-12.1% (huge state government)
<
p>Provide some sort of correlation between the size of state government and employment growth.
<
p>I think the state government can break the local economy, it’s happened in NY, NJ and CA and it can happen here.
<
p>
<
p>From my understanding we are now bonding MBTA operating costs, that is not adroitness it’s innumeracy. I do know we had to finish the Big Dig – we weren’t going to leave a large hole in the ground and the Democratic party had a veto proof majority during this period,so who’s to blame? Now the Governor of NJ is being pilloried because he just canceled a big dig project (tunnel) because he is worried about the accumulation of debt. BTW – any historical chart of MA debt – I can’t find one?
<
p>
<
p>No it means you can’t blame Bush, Romney or Weld – the State of Massachusetts is 100% run by the Democrats, they own it and they seem to be able to elect just about anyone.
<
p>Who is the next to be indicted, three house speakers in a row must be some sort of record. Could you explain why is it always the Fed’s who investigate, because?
<
p>
One out of every six NH workers is employed out-of-state, second only to Maryland.
When Washington, DC is a leader in job creation
We still have a long way to go.
but honestly, what does the Gov have to do with this?
<
p>We’ve been brainwashed by the Globe and others that whoever is in the corner office is some kind of economic Great Helmsman of the great sovereign economy of Massachusetts. It’s all a lot of bunk.
<
p>If I had said this during the campaign, I’m sure someone would have thought I was just carrying water for the party line, e.g. Don’t Blame Patrick that the economy is stupid.
<
p>But now that our guy won and all that is behind us, I’d like to put this whole dumbass thing to rest.
<
p>I do think that there are some very-long-term things that a state as small as Massachusetts can do to make it economically resilient over time.
<
p>These chiefly have to do with strengthening local school systems and other institutions, and with progressive land-use policies that make Massachusetts a desirable place to live and work 20 years hence.
<
p>But the idea that a clever bold manager can lead Mass., alone, out of a near depression of global dimensions, using savvy and maybe the right tax policy, is laughable.
<
p>It’s a narrative that frustrates a realistic appraisal of those things we can do here in the Bay State.
<
p>So, scuse me for venting, and yeah, I’m glad things aren’t worse.
Which, by the way, makes the Baker team’s obsession with a single month’s job numbers all the more absurd.
<
p>But I do think there are choices to be made in terms of managing your way through a difficult economic period, and by and large I think Patrick made pretty good choices (or, at least, less bad choices than some others that were available).
Voters judged Patrick on his performance in really tough times. And, well done.
<
p>But he is still, inexorably, one of what Paul Krugman calls fifty Herbert Hoovers, deepening the economic hole because he has no power to do otherwise.
<
p>Nothing he can do about that, really.
Decisions he partook in have helped us whether the economic storm better than most states.
which can influence where businesses choose to expand. Is our state developing 21st century infrastructure and 21st century commerce? Are we continuing to push our quality of life even higher? There are data to back up answers to these questions, but the governor is the chief spokesman for explaining the story about why things are going to be even better next year — and his executive branch regulators and his agencies’ budgetary decisions reaffirm or undermine that story.
<
p>In the case of Governor Patrick, I believe that he has helped MA relative to other states because he’s written a great story for the future of MA, and has put resources behind making that future a reality.
<
p>Massachusetts, by law, can’t run a straight-up budget deficit but there is nothing preventing them from bonding the debt over time. In this respect Gov Patrick has, quite adroitly, managed with all the powers at his command. He has re-organized the the agencies (transportation) that were some of the largest drags on our ability to borrow and kept our debt ratings high. Given the economic circumstances this is, actually, a phenomenally good outcome.
<
p>I don’t particularly think this is the optimal method of running a deficit, particularly as it becomes lotsa little deficits here and there, and thus more difficult to manage, but it is, passive-aggressively (so to speak) Keynsian.