Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Saturday
Jul 31, 2010
Mostly Cloudy
Mostly Cloudy 101° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News


Nevada's jobless rate remains at 13 percent

Men, minorities hit particularly hard, reflecting construction slowdown

As if Nevada's unemployment rate wasn't high enough, fresh statistics show even bigger job woes for specific demographic groups.

The Silver State's jobless rate remained unchanged from December to January, staying at 13 percent, the state Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation reported Monday.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Poll: Reid, Angle neck and neck
  2. Attorney, arrested while jogging, has lawsuit pending against police
  3. Warrant seeks unlicensed process server
  4. Poll: Nevadans angry, pessimistic
  5. 'King James' feels heat of spotlight
  6. High court suspends Las Vegas lawyer
  7. Power lines endangered
  8. Pacquiao-Margarito fight will happen outside of Nevada
  9. Immigration raid's timing 'bizarre,' Las Vegas activist says
  10. Poll: Voters support higher taxes on gambling, mining industries




But the agency's latest numbers show that men and minorities have experienced especially tough times during the recession.

Joblessness among Nevada's male population averaged 13.4 percent in 2009, while female unemployment averaged 9.4 percent in the same period. A year ago, men and women in Nevada shared roughly the same unemployment rates.

Blame the unemployment discrepancy on job distribution.

The male-dominated construction sector ranks among the hardest-hit industries in the downturn, said Bill Anderson, chief economist for the employment department. Health care and educational services, which skew more toward a female labor base, have actually added jobs in the recession, both nationwide and in Nevada.

The jobs picture looks even worse for some ethnic groups. Blacks in Nevada faced a jobless average of 18.2 percent in 2009, while Hispanics here saw unemployment average 17 percent in the year. Joblessness among white Nevadans averaged 11.4 percent in 2009.

The employment department also substantially boosted earlier job-loss estimates. Instead of losing 76,100 jobs from 2008 to 2009, Nevada actually dropped 115,100 jobs, or 9.1 percent of its jobs base.

Officials said the difference came from a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology that uses limited feedback from local analysts, weak sample responses to employment surveys and the application of inflated business birth-and-death factors.

Based on the revised numbers, Nevada's jobs base has dwindled to 2004 levels, said Brian Gordon, a principal in local research firm Applied Analysis. The losses probably won't reverse and turn into growth anytime soon, he said.

"We're looking at a period of correction that will likely result in continued job loss through the balance of 2010," Gordon said. "While those losses will be fewer, it's unlikely the economy will start to report any material expansion during this year."

Anderson agreed, adding that he expects Nevada's jobless rate to bounce around in the next half a year, with some months showing declines in the jobless rate and others bringing increases.

"We're kind of treading water right now, and I think it will stay that way in the near term," Anderson said. "We certainly aren't seeing any return to growth and improvement, but at the same time, we are seeing some signs that the rate of decline is beginning to ease."

For hints at those smaller dropoffs, consider seasonal hiring trends.

Nevada's employers pared 25,300 jobs from December to January, well below the 40,300 positions they slashed in the same period a year ago and just 450 more than the average December-to-January decline of the past decade. Retail employment fell by 4,600 jobs from December to January, as stores eliminated temporary holiday positions. That was the shallowest rollback in the last 10 years, though the smaller cuts came at least partly because retailers hired fewer seasonal workers in the first place.

State government fell by 5,100 jobs due to a break between university semesters. The construction sector, which usually dwindles during January because of winter weather, was off by 3,200 jobs.

Officials with the employment department said in a statement that the job losses didn't exceed pre-recession patterns, but the cuts were significant nonetheless "in light of an already struggling workforce."

The Las Vegas market lost 17,100 jobs from December to January.

Unlike the state's jobless level, the local market's unemployment rate jumped noticeably, rising from 13.1 percent in December to 13.8 percent in January. That January total nearly matches the market's jobless record of 13.9 percent, set in September.

An estimated 187,700 Nevadans are unemployed and actively seeking positions. The vast majority -- 135,900 -- live in the Las Vegas area.

Randy Garcia, chief executive officer of Las Vegas wealth-management firm Investment Counsel Co., said the newest employment figures point to a protracted economic rebound.

"We believe that the recovery is going to be more prolonged and more moderate than we would like to see," Garcia said. "The longer it takes for recovery, the more these (jobs) numbers are going to disappoint."

Garcia added that the state's hotel-casinos have lost their pricing power in the recession, and economic revival will require not only gains in the numbers of tourists who visit, but also a new resort-operating business model that can restore profitability based on the way consumers spend today.

Nor should Nevadans expect the housing market to rebound and generate growth soon, Garcia said.

Previous real estate downturns resulted from high interest rates, he said. This time around, the bubble burst because values jumped too much. And overpricing issues turn around more slowly than interest rates.

Anderson also predicted a relatively sluggish recovery.

Visitor volumes have risen for four straight months, and sales of existing homes have jumped. But the recession hit Nevada so hard that it's going to take some time for the state to get back on its feet, Anderson said. Plus, consumers will likely continue to spend cautiously, and that could mean a sustained slump for the state's spending-reliant economy.

Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4512.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Comments (190)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

X

Register to comment

* Indicates fields that are required
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Male Female

Already registered? Log in now

X

Already registered to comment?

Log in below
E-mail
Password

Forgot your password? | Register
X

Forgot your password?

Enter your e-mail address below and a password will be resent to you.

Email
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Report abuse

cas127 wrote on March 13, 2010 10:27 AM: "Health care and educational services, which skew more toward a female labor base, have actually added jobs in the recession, both nationwide and in Nevada."

Sell your vote to the tax-eating Political Class if you want a job.

At least until the upcoming civil war.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on March 10, 2010 06:12 PM: Green:

Namecalling? I thought you were better than that, and rather than respond here, I will catch up with you later.


Report abuse

Green Dragon Regular wrote on March 09, 2010 09:09 PM: @li'l "p"-

Obvioulsy the parallels of voting and working went right over your pointy little Kool-Aid stained head. If one wishes to work, they must provide the identification that proves they are United States citizens or legal aliens and that they are, indeed, entitled to be employed and paid. This is also true of voting. No one says someone MUST vote, only that they have the right to do so. In order to exercise this right to vote, like a right to work, they must provide identification verifying their status as citizens with a right to vote. Which is more tyrannical- a system where the votes of the legal citizens are diluted by the votes of illegal occupants, or one where a very few people who wish to be "off the grid" are denied the ability to exercise a right due to their own choice?

The very act of being "off the grid" expresses a desire to be left alone, one which people are perfectly entitled to, but the wish to have a say in the lives of others AND be left alone is itself a hypocritical tyranny.


Report abuse

Ha Ha wrote on March 09, 2010 08:15 PM: patrick loves 8====D


Report abuse

CYT wrote on March 09, 2010 06:27 PM: The real problem is that the tourist trade alone is not able to sustain any economy. Unless the state and city do something to bring in business other than those fleecing the tourist there will be little improvement job wise. In this or any one horse town/state, when the horse gets lame it can't pull the heavy cart.


Report abuse

Judge Narrangesette wrote on March 09, 2010 06:25 PM: @ Tom

Thank you Tom. You are spot on. It is how the money is used that matters. I really appreciate your ability to communicate with reason. It is a lost art.

To be clear, I do not deny that taxes cannot be used to facilitate growth. Government needs revenue from the governed, and we need government to foster an environment by which economic growth can be maximized. I am no anarchist.

All I ask is that the government be honest about its intentions with my money and justify the extraction of it. I put the burden on government every time.

Have a wonderful evening.


Report abuse

Tom.Reynolds wrote on March 09, 2010 06:07 PM: @ Patrick and Judge N.

It sounds to me like the issue is not whether higher taxes can ever help a struggling economy at all. Instead, it sounds like higher taxes can help, but only if they are used in the right way. If, as you say, Judge, the increased revenues are actually used to build something as opposed to simply shoring up an existing bureaucracy.

You and other conservative thinkers are right, in the sense that there is simply not enough money on earth to completely eliminate human suffering once and for all. There is a reason why the original meaning of the word Utopia is "nowhere."

But the fact that perfect, universal compassion is not possible does not mean there should be no need for compassion AT ALL. I have to agree with Patrick here. I for one do not support the kind of social darwinist, "every man for himself" jungle that so many people earnestly advocate these days.

I may not be "my brother's keeper" perfectly, but that doesn't excuse me from ANY responsibility for him.

Thanks to you both for an interesting and informative and CIVIL debate!


Report abuse

Judge Narrangesette wrote on March 09, 2010 05:29 PM: @ patrick

Before I address all of your points, I want to bring you back to my initial question. I was not addressing general economic theory. I want to know how higher taxes would have decreased the unemployment rate in Nevada in 2010.

Most of what you address involves spending. Spending policy is not the same as taxing policy, although they can work together. Keynes discussed deficit spending. With deficit spending, you get whatever claimed benefits come by way of increased spending (the legitimacy of those benefits we can argue another day) without the burdens of immediate taxation.

As for you question about where the money goes, I think you said it best; it disappears. To be sure, it does not vanish. But from a jobs-creation standpoint it just might. If the money is simply used to sustain wages and benefits of government employees while it zaps actual jobs in the private sector, there is no job creation. I would submit that in 2010, the vast majority of new revenues would go to shore up the benefits of those with government jobs rather than create new jobs. That is what happened with the bulk of the stimulus funds.

I certainly agree that a highway project can have an impact on jobs; however, assuming that the project actually gets built (could a project like Hoover Dam even get built in today’s regulatory environment?), you still have to determine whether the money spent on the project created the maximum number of jobs per dollar spent. That is not a given. Even one of President Obama’s financial advisors, Christine Romer, has recognized that the empirical evidence shows that tax breaks lead to more economic growth than taxing and spending. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.html


Report abuse

Texas Taxes wrote on March 09, 2010 04:54 PM: @patrick

Great response, I could not have said it better. CONGRATS


Report abuse

no reason to work wrote on March 09, 2010 04:53 PM: I'm not going back to work until I can get a job as a public servant, if I cant make like at least 50 to 60k a year, why work, the government just taxes the crap out of me and gives it to the firethugs, so I'll just keep my free government money and hang out at the fitness center until I can get a public servant job that pays more so I can hang out at the fitness center and take home more money,
no problemo here, viva government , lmao.
Lo siento, no puedo hablar mucho espanol


Read All Comments