State unemployment rate shrinks to 6.9 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's unemployment rate plummeted 0.4 percent in December, to 6.9 percent, its lowest point since October 2008, the Department of Workforce Development announced Tuesday morning.

The improvement came despite a small decline in private-sector employment of 4,800 jobs during the month.

State officials called the decline expected after "a historic month of job growth in November" of 25,100 jobs.

Only one employment sector, professional and business services, showed job gains in December, and that was only by 200 jobs. Manufacturing lost 1,700 jobs, construction lost 13,00 jobs and total non-farm employment decreased by 6,800.

For all of 2013, Indiana saw a total increase of 42,600 jobs. The unemployment rate has fallen from 8.3 percent in December 2012.

The state's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate hasn't been so low since it was 6.8 percent in October 2008. The rate jumped to 7.4 percent the next month.

“There are fewer Hoosiers unemployed (218,100) now than in the past five years,” DWD Commissioner Scott Sanders said in a prepared statement. “Just as important is the fact more than 21,000 folks have returned to the labor force over the past three months, which is unique in the Midwest."

Indiana's jobless rate ranks 31st in the nation and is slightly higher than the national average of 6.7 percent, but is lower than Ohio's (7.2 percent), Kentucky's (8.0), Michigan's (8.4) and Illinois' (8.6).

The non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for the Indianapolis-Carmel area fell to 5.8 percent in December, down from 7.9 in December 2012.  



  • Waiting for Gov Spin
    Well, I wonder how the Governor will spin this.
  • Say what?
    The unemployment rate is the ratio of those looking for work to the total labor force. The latter is those looking plus those working. The unemployment rate can fall if those who were looking become discouraged and quit looking. The participation rate is the ratio of the labor force to the total population. Those not in the labor force are children, the retired and the discouraged.
  • RE: The Real Number
    Correction: Dividing Available Workforce by All FT Employed gives percentage employed, the remaining percentage being unemployed, i.e. 2M available / 3M FT Employed = 67% employment rate, and 33% unemployed / under-employed (rounding applied).
  • RE: The Real Number
    Alright I goofed that up, and can't edit it....argh.
  • The Real Number
    What's the real number, meaning the sum of disabled + children + seniors + half of all part-time employed, subtracted from the current population = available workforce. Divide that by the current population (est.) to get the real unemployment number. Example 1M workers available / 3M population = 33% unemployed.
    • Where's the Credibility?
      Does anyone really believe any of this nonsense? The unemployment rate is under 7% while the "employment rate" is no where near 93%. Remember, "figures don't lie, but liars do figure." This is a great example of just that.

      Post a comment to this story

      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

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

      2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

      3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

      4. If you only knew....

      5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.