IBJNews

Indiana's unemployment rate rises slightly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s unemployment rate ticked up in June to 10.1 percent—the third consecutive month the rate has been in double digits, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development announced Tuesday morning.

The rate had been 10 percent in both April and May.

Before April, Indiana’s revised seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate had teetered between 9.7 percent and 9.9 percent for six months, after topping 10 percent from March through September of 2009.

The number of permanent jobs in Indiana actually rose by 3,600 in June. But the loss of temporary professional and business-services jobs resulted in total private-sector employment dropping by 1,100.

“Indiana’s economy added thousands of jobs in retail, manufacturing and finance, but those gains did not overcome a drop in hiring by temporary-staffing companies,” DWD Commissioner Mark W. Everson said in a prepared statement.

Sectors reporting job growth included trade, transportation and utilities; manufacturing; and financial activities. Sectors reporting declines included leisure and hospitality, construction, and government, largely due to the loss of temporary U.S. census workers.

For months, Indiana’s jobless rate had been the lowest in the Midwest. But the slight increase to 10.1 percent enabled Kentucky, at 10 percent, to overtake the Hoosier state. Kentucky’s jobless rate fell by 0.4 percentage points from May.

Michigan’s 13.2-percent unemployment rate was tops in the Midwest in June, followed by Ohio at 10.5 percent and Illinois at 10.4 percent.

Every state in the Midwest except Indiana registered a drop in its unemployment rate in June.

The national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent.

The number of unemployed Hoosiers increased, to 320,741 in June, from a revised 306,503 in May.

In the Indianapolis metro area, the non-seasonally adjusted jobless rate was 9.3 percent in June, up from 8.9 percent in June 2009.

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. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

  5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.

ADVERTISEMENT