IBJNews

State unemployment rate dips to 9.8 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s unemployment rate has declined for the second straight month, dropping to 9.8 percent in November, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development said Friday morning.

The state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate previously fell to 9.9 percent in October, from 10.1 percent the prior month. Indiana’s jobless rate topped out at 10.2 percent this year in both July and August.

“Indiana’s unemployment rate has decreased by four-tenths of a [percentage point] since the summer,” DWD Commissioner Mark W. Everson said in prepared statement. “This decline is noteworthy because the U.S. rate has been going up during the same period.”

The national unemployment rate in November was 9.8 percent, up from 9.6 percent the previous month.

Indiana has gained 46,200 private-sector jobs this year, an increase of 2 percent over the same time last year, the report said. In November, however, the state lost 2,600 private-sector jobs after gaining 7,600 in October.

Sectors with job growth included professional and business services, leisure and hospitality and financial activities.

Sectors with declines included trade, transportation and utilities, manufacturing and construction.

In the Midwest, only Kentucky reported an increase in unemployment in November. Illinois’ rate is 9.6 percent, followed by Ohio at 9.8 percent, Kentucky at 10.2 percent and Michigan at 12.4 percent.

The number of unemployed Hoosiers rose to 294,993 in November, from a revised 288,025 in October.

In the Indianapolis metro area, the non-seasonally adjusted jobless rate was 8.7 percent in November, up from 8.5 percent in October and from 8.2 percent in November 2009.

Comparisons of metro areas are most accurately made using the same months in prior years, because the government does not adjust the figures for factory furloughs and other seasonal fluctuations.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT