Connecticut Unemployment Rate Hits 9 Percent

The unemployment rises five months in a row, but state officials doubt the numbers.

Another month, another rise in Connecticut's unemployment rate. The August jobless rate from the Connecticut Department of Labor shows 9 percent unemployment for the first time since April 2011.   

The unemployment rate rose from 8.5 percent in July. State officials, including Governor Dannel P. Malloy, remain skeptical about the results.

“To date we can find no corroborating evidence that the record losses in employment and increases in unemployment, indicated by the household survey, are occurring at this magnitude,” said Andy Condon, director of the Office of Research at the Connecticut Department of Labor. “Other indicators, such as unemployment insurance claims, layoff events and reports of business expansions and contractions, do not support the sudden and steep decline in these indicators." 

Malloy issued a statement for the second month in a row about his doubt on the accuracyof the results.

“We haven’t seen an increase in the initial number of people filing for unemployment benefits — in July, average weekly filings were 4,802 and in August they were 4,779.  In fact, claims are down from this time last year.  And tax withholdings are up 3.6 percent after adjustment,” Malloy said. “Those two trends are the opposite of what you would expect to see if the state was losing jobs at the rate suggested in this report."

Daria Novak September 20, 2012 at 07:42 PM
When a government overtaxes its workers as does CT, the result is higher unemployment and a contraction in the local economy. We are the most in debt state in the country, byt we continue to see extremely high spending not only by Congress, but by the Democrat-controlled legislature in Hartford. It has gone on for for years and the failure is blatant! The legislature rejects Republican calls for common sense reductions and continues to vote for big government spending. Businesses can't afford to hire. Businesses can't afford the over regulation forced on them. If we continue at this rate, by the end of the year, CT unemployment will be at 11%. That's some "recovery" folks! If fewer are working then CT is collecting less revenue and must further increase oure tax rates since the Hartford Democrats refuse to reduce spending. I can only imagine what CT will look like by the end of next year. Some don't like the truth and try to say the facts are incorrect. If you doubt our employment situation look at the Help Wanted ads. I bet every one of us knows people who are unemployed, under-employed or took early retirement because they couldn't find work. I bet we all know people who are working two jobs to make ends meet. Too often we vote for legislators who are not doing a good job. It's time to change teams for a while. At least we won't have to watch our CT legislators playing solitaire on their computers while in session on the budget!
Will Wilkin September 20, 2012 at 08:10 PM
The problem is not Connecticut, the problem is national and it is a direct and predictable result of the Free Trade Agreements and free trade policies that have exported one third of our nation's mfg just in the first decade of this century --and continuing today. The high official unemployment rate is less than half what a REAL count would be. For the nation as a whole, it is more like 22% See the shadowstats link: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts Looking at the 96,000 jobs created in August (according to the BLS), the first thing we should note is the population increase in the country requires more like 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up. And of those jobs created, most of them were low wage jobs, over half of them waitresses, bartenders, home-health aides and practical nurses and hospital orderlies. Meanwhile the nation lost 15,000 more manufacturing jobs last month, and of the few higher-paying jobs created (computer systems design and services) many went to foreigners on H-1B work visas. There is zero "common sense" coming from Republicans or Democrats, both parties clinging to the free trade policies that are enriching the wealthy and liquidating the American middle class.
Will Wilkin September 20, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Here's the BLS website where you can read which sectors are producing jobs and which aren't: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
Tanya Carver September 22, 2012 at 03:12 PM
Daria Novak. I agree with you. I also believe our unemployment rate is higher than what is being reported here. If this number only represents those individuals who are currently collecting unemployment then how many more have exceeded their unemployment benefits and are out there without a job? Back a couple of months Forbes put out an article stating that the reported unemployment rates are understated because it did not include everyone unemployed.
Will Wilkin September 22, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Hello Tanya Carver, It was you, here on Patch, who first alerted me to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I'm curious if you think trade policy has anything to do with unemployment?
Will Wilkin September 22, 2012 at 06:43 PM
By the way, I thank you for alerting me to the TPP when you did, and I am genuinely curious what you make of it, and of trade policy's effect on employment.
Tanya Carver September 24, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Hi Will: The Most Important Trade Agreement That We Know Nothing About The Trans-Pacific Partnership could completely change intellectual property law. But the details are being kept secret. By David S. Levine|Posted Monday, July 30, 2012, at 6:16 AM ET Will, I brought this for two reasons: 1. There are four major players worldwide that provide the type of service that Oxford Science does to the Animal Healthcare Market. Oxford Science is the only one that manufacturer's it's product in the USA (right here in Oxford). We just launched our newest product earlier this year in the UK. I find it disturbing that I can import anything from anywhere in the world without much paperwork or hassle (sometimes none at all); however when I export our USA made product there's a long list of paperwork that is required you can spend an entire day just getting one shipment ready. It is bad enough that shipping to our Canadian neighbor at times impossible. Right now I don't do business with Canada. Even the Canadians know that shipping US Made products to them is very costly.
Tanya Carver September 24, 2012 at 02:34 PM
2. President Obama's run his campaign on making his presidency transparent. What has he done this past 4 years that was transparent. This trade agreement is a situation that no one knew about and he would not give priority to USA made products.
Tanya Carver September 24, 2012 at 02:44 PM
In regards to employment, I feel it will be directly related to this year's election. A fellow CT resident said it best on USA Today 4/17/2012: "In a speech last week, President Obama said the nation faces a stark economic choice: Continue giving tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens, or fund programs that help grow the middle class ("Obama: Choose an economic path," News, Wednesday). Really? Does Obama have a problem with math, or does his ideology get in the way of rational thinking? America has a monumental debt and deficit problem, and the president spends a disproportionate amount of his time pushing the "Buffett rule" to increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Most estimates project that adopting this policy would bring in, at best, $5 billion more in revenue per year (not even one day's worth of government spending). His one playing card is a "solution" that represents less than half of 1% of America's annual budget deficit. Obama's main crime is in what he has failed to do. He has not pushed solutions based on spending less of our tax dollars. We need a president who gets real in terms of developing businesslike solutions to our dire budget and jobs problems. Perhaps we need a president who has worked successfully in the business world. " Tom Fryman, Fairfield. CT.
Tanya Carver September 24, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Will, CT business owners are already being taxed heavily. If you are a Ct business owner, you also received an extra unemployment tax this year to help pay for that extended 3 months of unemployment benefits. A question to my fellow CT business owners: have your taxes increase this year?
Will Wilkin September 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM
I agree completely but don't be surprised when Romney sigs it if he happens to be the one in the White House at the time. The reason transparency is so important is precisely because the actual terms of the treaty are so destructive of American economy and sovereignty itself, giving over judgement on our economic and environmental laws and regulations to 3 WTO lawyers to decide if they are "unfair." This is just an extension of the same principle that has been in operation since the founding of the WTO and has been part of the series of FTAs negotiated and signed by BOTH parties. Please show me any serious Republican opposition to the actual terms of the agreements, I haven't noticed it. The "free trade" regime has been Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama....and will include Romney if he gets in. Do you deny it?
Will Wilkin September 25, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Surely you understand the unemployment picture in America would only be worse if you get more cuts. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/ EXCERPT: One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought. END EXCERPT It is not "business-like" solutions we need but rather country-like solutions, that is, a real industrial policy, but that is anathema to both parties.
Will Wilkin September 25, 2012 at 01:17 PM
The solution is not to decry extended unemployment benefits but rather the trade policy that makes it necessary by causing soi much unemployment to begin with. Revive our country's manufacturing and we will again have the jobs and prosperity that require much much less unemployment insurance in the first place. Of course taxes are harder and harder to pay as American prosperity whittles away. But again, to cry for deeper cuts in public sector spending at this time will only accelerate our trends towards widening unemployment and deepening poverty. Which brings us back to the need for industrial policy. The free market ideology of non-intervention in the economy is certainly a myth when compared to how any country ever got rich. Look at where manufacturing is thriving and you'll find multifaceted govt encouragement of the private sector --yes, corporate welfare-- in terms of everything from tax breaks and free land to wage subsidies and infrastructure projects and cheap public finance and support for R&D labs and special education initiatives around those private sector industries being attracted to a country.
Will Wilkin September 25, 2012 at 01:17 PM
The USA has by comparison had such a hands-off approach or piecemeal-aimlessness, when what we really need is a deliberate strategic industrial policy to coordinate all our laws and policies around strategic national economic goals: --taxes, trade policy, regulation of environment and labor and consumer protection, public investment and infrastructure and education-- all should be coordinated to incentivize the ONshoring of those industries that will bring prosperity in the 21st century. And the challenge is to rework all these policies so they are not exclusively corporate welfare but to manage that new prosperity in a way that democratizes the opportunities and rewards produced by a national economic revitalization.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »