State News

NC's February unemployment rate drops slightly

Posted April 19, 2013
Updated May 1, 2013

— North Carolina's February unemployment rate decreased to 9.2 percent from January's revised rate of 9.4 percent. The national rate fell to 7.6 percent from January's 7.7 percent.

The state's February 2013 unemployment rate was 0.2 of a percentage point lower than a year ago.

The number of people employed decreased 10,954 over the month to 4,307,071, and increased 42,669 over the year. The number of people unemployed fell 11,619 over the month to 435,209, and declined 7,127 over the year.

This year has seen the unemployment rate bob up in down in part because thousands of people are deciding to join the competition for jobs or give up.

In January, more than 11,000 workers were suddenly no longer working or looking for work, a big factor in the slight jobless rate drop.

52 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • ratracehwy64 Apr 19, 6:04 p.m.

    long term high unemployment is here to stay...middle class has been in downsize/outsource mode since 1970's.......the rich get richer the poor poorer...and the middle class gets to keep borrowing money to support their lifestyles...problem is most people are tapped out...unemployment is going down due to people dropping off rolls...wait until our new Governor gets his July revenge on the unemployed......sieg heil!
    We have one party with two denominations and neither gives a ..... about the people.

  • junkmail5 Apr 19, 4:21 p.m.

    You're the one who argued (even being condescending) about we are in a recovery.- BPractical

    No, I didn't do that AT ALL. Now you're just making stuff up.

    I'm the one who pointed out we are NOT in a depression or recession.

    Because we aren't by the actual definition of either term.

  • BPractical Apr 19, 4:05 p.m.

    I'm done discussing this with you, post what you want.

    "You seem to have some weird MUST BLAME OBAMA obsession that causes you to ignore that this has been going on since not long after Bush took office." junkmail5

    Actually, I said Bush owns his part and Obama owns his. And the fact is that it was nearly doubled in 2 yrs, much faster rate than over 8. I don't like ANY of it.

    "But again if you wanna know why increasingly even the WORKING poor need food stamps, it's because their wages have gone mostly nowhere in decades while inflation continues to exist."junkmail5

    You're the one who argued (even being condescending) about we are in a recovery. I simply said that you were technically correct about the recession ending, but I wouldn't call what is happening a recovery.

    Obama has continued to do what Bush did, just on a larger scale. I voted for him to stop that. He hasn't.

  • junkmail5 Apr 19, 3:46 p.m.

    "The largest sustained uptick lately was 2001-present."

    The largest uptick is 2008 to present.- BPRactical

    Again I'm forced to ask if you even looked at the chart.

    The uptick BEGAN in 2001. And has CONTINUED to present.

    You seem to have some weird MUST BLAME OBAMA obsession that causes you to ignore that this has been going on since not long after Bush took office.

    But again if you wanna know why increasingly even the WORKING poor need food stamps, it's because their wages have gone mostly nowhere in decades while inflation continues to exist.

    Most economic gain in recent decades has gone almost entirely to the wealthy. I know, I'm one of em. It's awesome for us, but not so great for everyone else.

  • BPractical Apr 19, 3:35 p.m.

    "The largest sustained uptick lately was 2001-present."

    The largest uptick is 2008 to present. By the way, I voted for him in 2008. I really wanted to vote for "none of the above" in 2012. Bush owns his part, and Obama owns his now and the rate is much faster. It is still increasing in this so-called recovery.

  • junkmail5 Apr 19, 3:18 p.m.

    Now, the other upticks were during recession years, these are occurring during recovery years- BPractical

    did you actually LOOK at the graph?

    The largest sustained uptick lately was 2001-present.

    Those were ALL recession years?

    No, of course they weren't. In fact most of them under Bush weren't. Yet enrollment kept skyrocketing.

    In fact, the ONLY place you can blame the upsurge on a recession really is the 2008-2009 period you're upset with Obama about.

  • Terkel Apr 19, 3:10 p.m.

    Here's a conundrum. If you apply for SSDI citing stress, you will have a diagnosis of mental illness.

    Two consequences: you must disclose it on job applications if asked, which means you will likely be passed over for another candidate. And it means or will mean in the near future that you're not allowed to own a gun.

  • Terkel Apr 19, 3:06 p.m.

    The only echo is between your ears.

  • BPractical Apr 19, 3:01 p.m.

    great suggestion!

    Exactly, it's doubled in short order. Now, the other upticks were during recession years, these are occurring during recovery years (your words remember?). It isn't a matter of "turning it around".

  • junkmail5 Apr 19, 2:48 p.m.

    . Now draw a line and see what that looks like. Then you will see...- BPractical

    great suggestion!

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-newt-gingrich-obama-food-stamp-president

    There is such a chart.

    "The chart also tells us that the explosion of participation in the food stamp program began with President Bush's first budget and continued all through his tenure. More Americans signed up for food assistance under Bush than have signed up under Obama—so far, anyway. And if you really want to blame presidents for soaring food stamp use, you should probably also point out that Bush had eight years to turn the trend around—including four years with backup from a solidly GOP Congress—yet failed to do so."

    Also worth noting-
    " A large and growing share of food stamp households (48 percent) are working households."

    Mostly the issue is the majority of economic gain going back more than a decade has gone to the rich- the poor, even the working poor, are increasingly worse

More...