Unemployment drops in state's 14 metropolitan areas

Posted October 28, 2011


— Unemployment across North Carolina’s major metropolitan areas and in 92 of 100 counties declined in September, the state’s Employment Security Commission reported Friday.

In the Triangle, the jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent from 8.8 percent in August. The number of people listed as unemployed declined by some 3,000 in September to 73,402 while the size of the labor force increased by some 5,500. People counted in the job market are those employed, receiving jobless benefits and those actively seeking employment.

Separately, the Raleigh-Cary metro area rate declined to 8.4 percent from 8.8 percent. In Durham-Chapel Hill, joblessness fell to 7.7 percent from 8.2 percent.

The number of jobs in the Raleigh-Cary market actually declined by 200, led by a drop of 2,700 leisure and hospitality workers and a 1,200 drop in the financial activities sector. Government payrolls increased by 2,300.

However, compared to a year ago, Raleigh-Cary has 5,400 more jobs, an increase of 1.1 percent. That’s the largest increase in the state, the ESC said.

In Durham-Chapel Hill, 2,700 jobs were added with 2,200 in government and 1,300 in education and health services. The metro area did lose 400 trade, transportation and utilities jobs and another 300 in professional and business services.

Net employment compared to a year ago is down 400, the ESC said.

The ESC also said the state’s jobless rate based on figures that were not seasonally adjusted was 10 percent. Last week, the ESC said the rate was 10.5 percent using numbers that had been seasonally adjusted.

Economists consider the seasonally adjusted numbers, which are based on factors such as weather and seasons, to be a more accurate barometer of the economy.

The jobless rates by metro areas with August jobless rate in parenthesis:

  • Asheville, 8.1 (8.4)
  • Burlington, 10.2 (10.9)
  • Charlotte, 10.7 (11.1)
  • Durham-Chapel Hill, 7.7 (8.2)
  • Fayetteville, 9.9 (10.4)
  • Goldsboro, 9.0 (9.3)
  • Greensboro-High Point, 10.4 (11.0)
  • Greenville, 10.3 (10.9)
  • Hickory, 12.0 (12.5)
  • Jacksonville, 9.5 (9.7)
  • Raleigh-Cary, 8.4 (8.8)
  • Rocky Mount, 13.4 (13.6)
  • Wilmington, 10.2 (10.5)
  • Winston-Salem, 9.4 (9.9) 

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Ripcord Oct 28, 2011

    Some of you seem to believe that under Marxism we can have a society free of oligarchies and privileged elites and perhaps even classes.

    Talk to someone who spent their life living under Communist rule. You'll be told that you're wrong.

  • Ripcord Oct 28, 2011

    "There are potential problems to be aware of:"

    Understatement of the century.

  • WooHoo2You Oct 28, 2011

    However oligarchies and privileged elites are the way to aristocracy, generational wealth (ala lords and ladies) and feudalism-fehanline

    Talk radio forgets to tell their following that. Maybe because the hosts will be part of that new 'government.' (or lack thereof)

  • Ripcord Oct 28, 2011

    "Socialism is not the road to Communism." - fehanline

    You're wrong. It doesn't always develop into Communism, but it is a necessary precondition. But don't take my word for it, read Marx.

  • godnessgracious2 Oct 28, 2011

    Principles of Communism (written 1847):

    I think we all know corporations are not held responsible:

    Things that tend to cause socialist uprisings:

    There are potential problems to be aware of:

  • fehanline Oct 28, 2011

    We are in no danger of falling into Communism. Even saying that there are limits to how much someone can make (when they are not the owner but some corporate suit) is not Socialism and please note I said nothing about someone who owns something right out as when they have the title "Sole proprietor" and not "CEO" who can hide behind legalese and "corporate tricks", the one who owns it actually has their neck on the line and can be held accountable for the actions of their company, Corporate suits don't take responsibility but they take the cash.

    Right now the biggest threat to our democracy is unbridled greed, counting corporations as "people" (tell me, if a corporation is responsibility for death of others, does the entire corporation go to jail?)

    Greed and inequality is far more a threat than to lead to oligarchies and aristocracies than anything else we have to this country

  • godnessgracious2 Oct 28, 2011

    Communists such as council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communist oppose the idea of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all. Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist movements themselves. Others have no concrete set of post-revolutionary blueprints at all, claiming instead that they simply trust that the world's workers will figure it out

  • godnessgracious2 Oct 28, 2011

    From wikipedia/communism: The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninists revised this theory by introducing the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to hold all political power after the revolution, "in the name of the workers" and supposedly with worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism.

  • fehanline Oct 28, 2011


    Socialism is not the road to Communism. Please show your logic because it just doesn't stack.

    Another thing is while making more by working harder should be appreciated, why should a CEO make millions of $ and get $10s if not $100s of millions more than say Firefighters or EMTs who go into buildings and rescue people?

    However oligarchies and privileged elites are the way to aristocracy, generational wealth (ala lords and ladies) and feudalism

  • godnessgracious2 Oct 28, 2011

    Yes, Socialism can only arise naturally, from workers realizing the condition of their wage slavery.

    Communism can only arise from a Socialist state.

    The difference being the "to each"
    Socialism = to each according to contribution.
    Communism = to each according to need.

    Only if the Socialist state is stable enough and can provide for those in need that cannot provide for themselves can communism arise.

    That's not to say that Communist china has implemented Communism in this textbook sense. They are a Communist state, or a government controlled by one party, the Communist party. True Communism they are not.