For the second month in a row, Ohio’s unemployment rate in July increased .2% to 9%.  This was the first full month of the new FY 2012 since Governor Kasich signed his “Jobs Budget” into law.

The number of unemployed Ohioans increased for the second month in a row.  In July, the number of unemployed Ohio grew 12,000 from June.  In June, the number of unemployed Ohioans grew 11,000.  In other words, the growth in the number of unemployed Ohioans stayed relatively flat, with some slight growth.

But job creation can’t keep up with the changes in the labor population.  In June, Ohio added nearly 12,000 new jobs.  In July, job creation slowed down to 6,500.  Nearly half the jobs created the month before.

As we pointed out in June, Governor Kasich’s budgets and the severe job losses in the public sector is an enormous drag on Ohio’s employment recovery.  In July, government was one of the top leaders in job losses again (-400) with the major sector for job losses being summer-tourism related industries followed by educational and health services (-2,900.)

I predicted last month that thanks to the Tea Party debt ceiling game of political chicken being done right when June’s report indicated a softening market could lead to Ohio seeing three straight months of increasing unemployment.  So far, we’re already two for three.

While the nation’s unemployment rate has stayed relatively flat (it actually went down .1% from June to July), Ohio’s has been consistently going UP as Kasich implements his job-killing budget.  So, naturally, in light of this news, Speaker John Boehner has invited Governor Kasich to deliver the Republican weekly radio address billed as Kasich telling Washington how it should do things.  Because Obama should listen to a guy with a 35% approval rating, and increasing unemployment, a deficit in his own budget, and a massive labor political fight of his own choosing.

Before Kasich started messing up this State, we had 14 straight months of DROPPING unemployment.  We hadn’t seen that kind of consistent streak since Democratic Governor Dick Celeste took office in 1983.  Kasich blew it.  Last month, several of Kasich’s defenders suggested that you really couldn’t judge Kasich on the economy until July since that’s when the budget actually would be in effect.  Well, we now how economic data for July in Ohio.   Congratulations, Governor Kasich.  You aren’t getting the jobs done.

Maybe instead of dealing with guns in bars, restricting abortion, and picking an unwilling and unnecessary fight with Ohio’s unions, Kasich, Batchelder and Niehaus do what they said they’d do and focus on jobs!


Tagged with:
  • Amen

  • Annekarina

    Blowing in the wind…they are blowing in the wind.

  • Anonymous

    Kasich will spend millions of dollars to improve the bottom line of corporations (in Findley and Dublin) but not one cent to save or create jobs.  As soon as he gets Ohio to a complete welfare state, I expect he and the pirates will say that further cuts are needed to unemployment insurance and push the rest of us into Lake Erie.  This must be his idea of tough love:  get tough on the middle class and make love to the rich.  Sell the prisons, the turnpike and the government to private for profit corporations.  What can you expect from a redneck 6-martini politician like Kasich?

  • Buckeyesfan1

    Amazing. 4 years and 400k jobs lost under Ted, and this guy has to fix it within 30 days or he’s somehow failed.

    Be careful the standards we set, because honest, fair analysis will require uniform application to “your guy”. I mean, you wouldn’t apply a double standard, would you?

  • very intteresting psot! thnaks alot!

  • very intteresting psot! thnaks alot!

  • EP

    With all due respect, this post & actually all of the posts on PlunderBund about the unemployment question are fundamentally wrongheaded. I say this as a frequent and sympathetic reader of your blog. Why are they wrongheaded? The reason is that you have no cogent analysis of unemployment determination at the state level; indeed, the ‘theory’ of unemployment peddled on your blog is a ‘reverse Rick Perry.’ Basically all economists with any good sense have ridiculed the idea of the so-called Texan economic miracle under Perry. You people seem to believe only D-policy leads to manageable levels of unemployment.

  • Anonymous

    The Labor Dept. is reporting that 28 states had increasing levels of unemployment, and at least 16 of those states are led by Republican governors.

  • Jason M Sullivan

    With all due respect to you, as well, I think you’ve picked the wrong opportunity to make an otherwise reasonable point, for the following reasons:

    1) The cuts in this budget lead directly to public sector layoffs. There may be a murky link between governmental policy and private sector jobs, but in this instance much of the job loss comes from Kasich actually taking away people’s jobs. Conservative economists would argue that we’re trading short term losses for long term gains. I don’t buy it, but nobody would seriously argue that laying people off doesn’t increase unemployment.

    2) Most conservative economists would argue that government cannot create jobs, at least not on net. Liberal economists would disagree. I think both would agree that governments can kill jobs. It might not be fair to give Strickland too much credit for keeping more jobs than would have been predicted (Ohio actually did outperform neighboring states during the recession, meaning that we did poorly, they did worse), but the reverse-Rick Perry is more defensible than the actual Rick Perry.

    3) In general, there is quite a lively debate amongst economists much more knowledgeable than myself as to whether the national economy would be best served by increased spending or increased austerity in the face of our stalled recovery. The hypothesis that aggressive budget cuts as a sole method of balancing the budget will increase unemployment is certainly one you can disagree with, but it isn’t exactly ‘no theory.’

    4) Kasich, by campaigning on the one-plank platform of “Strickland didn’t get the jobs done,” asked to be judged on the basis of job creation. The theory that the executive branch is responsible for jobs in Ohio is Kasich’s theory. To a certain extent, as long as he is failing, it doesn’t really matter whether he’s failing because his policies are bad or because his theory is wrong-headed. If he wants to counter the argument that his policies are bad by saying that he is stupid or dishonest, I could certainly accept that as a valid counter-argument.

    The problem with engaging in the argument on those terms is that, when the economy eventually does turn around, it will seem unfair not to give him credit commensurate with the current blame. I don’t think that’s true, for the reasons stated above, but we’ll just have to go back and look at benchmarks again to see if the turnaround is stronger or weaker in Ohio.

  • Anonymous

    That’s our King Johnnie – creating jobs at the speed of business!

  • Anonymous

    I also have a degree in Economics, and I disagree with you – I think that Jason did a sterling job of assessing your arguments, and to add my own observation:  you, sir, are a right leaning conservative economist, and I am a left leaning liberal economist.  Your arguments do not persuade me of anything, and I doubt that many who read and post on this blog are moved by your rhetoric any more than I.
    And by the way, Kasich belongs in a cage, not in public office.

  • Jason M Sullivan

    I repeat, I think that you were making a reasonable point (the party id of the governor is not “the only factor, or even the most significant factor in the determination of unemployment at the state level”), just in response to the wrong post. Even at the most partisan of times, Plunderbund hasn’t made the strong version of that argument (both because the strong argument is ridiculous – you don’t need much data to show that party id of the governor does not account for huge amounts of variance in unemployment between states, either across time or at any specific point, and if it did then making arguments about differences of less than half a percentage point would really make the argument for no real difference in policy by party – and because the strong version of the argument would obviously justify the idiots who keep harping on the ‘four years, 400,000 jobs’ as if it was an actual argument against Ted Strickland).

    I’m assuming you found my assertion that unemployment under Strickland was relatively good to be the hackish bit. You seem to have ignored where I said that (regardless of one’s assessment of the validity of that statement) giving Strickland credit for that accomplishment was probably not fair – for the same reasons that you seem to think I’m arguing against.

    So, I was saying that you make a good point. I repeatedly referred to the assertion that the governor is the major factor in unemployment levels wrong-headed. But I disagreed that this post was a good example of that type of thinking. I referred before to the ridiculous strong-version argument, but this was an example of the weak version: Governors have a detectable effect on unemployment, which is most detectable when comparing governors with broad policy-making differences. Modern made the argument that specific policies, championed by this governor, could be expected to cause ticks downward in the employment numbers. That these changes, though small, went against trends both in the near history of Ohio and across the country, making it less likely that they were due solely to broader influences, and that the argument in favor of these policies was that they would have the opposite effect. That is a much smaller and more nuanced claim than the straw man you described. And a claim, once again, that is certainly debatable, but not quite as dismissible as you implied.

    In case I have distracted you again, even broad differences between executive office holders result at most in small differences in unemployment numbers. Yep. You’re right. I have no doubt you could find examples on this blog (and most political blogs), of partisans trying to argue differently, and I sympathize with how frustrating it can be to find the same wrong-headed argument used over and over again. I just happen to think you took out your frustration on Modern when he actually seems to have written this with a mind towards avoiding making that simplistic of an argument.

    And, btw, we wouldn’t have such revenue problems right now if taxes hadn’t been cut so much under Strickland, and people like Cheney (in)famously argued that “deficits don’t matter.” Balanced budgets are even less about party ID than they are about actually balancing budgets. We’ll have to find a different argument for me to lose, but I’m open to suggestions. Losing arguments is one of the quickest ways to become more knowledgeable, so I don’t mind all that much when I do.

  • Anonymous

    First, find where I’ve said only D-policy leads to manageable levels of unemployment.  Nowhere.

    What I’ve said is that the budget is really the one area where the Governor has the most impact on the economy.  Given the losses in the public sector caused by the Kasich “Jobs Budget”, it’s no surprise that Ohio’s unemployment has gone up, and the job sector data for the past months shows that causative link. 

    What I’ve said is that Ohio was actually doing much better recovering from the recession than the media and Kasich acknowledge in 2010 and Kasich’s policies, from causing labor-management unrest, to ridiculous fiscal policies that have led to job losses, to investing limited economic development dollars to fund new corporate HQs, all of which has not helped, or worse, hurt, Ohio’s economy.

    You’re attacking a straw man argument that nobody, myself especially, has raised.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!