Preliminary November labor force data counts for San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties pegs the unemployment rate at 9.6%, 8.2% and 8.7% respectively, up 0.3 percentage points in San Francisco and 0.2 percentage points in both Marin and San Mateo.
On a revised basis, the number of unemployed in San Francisco increased by 1,300 in November (from 42,500 to 43,800) as the number of employed decreased by 1,600 (from 412,700 to 411,100) and the labor force contracted by 300 (from 455,200 to 454,900).
Overall unadjusted California unemployment increased by 0.5 percentage points to 12.4% as the labor force increased by 14,000 workers and the ranks of the unemployed increased by 84,400.
∙ Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties: November 2010 (Preliminary) [EDD]
∙ San Francisco County Unemployment Falls To 9.3% In October [SocketSite]
How much will the numbers drop in January once all the holiday help is disposed of like fir trees.
^ I mean numbers rise
Perhaps this will be a wake-up call to SF politicians that over-regulation and never-ending fees only drive business out of the area resulting in empty storefronts and higher unemployment.
Get rid of the “progressives” in SF politics, repeal some of the useless regulations, and reduce business taxes and fees, then only will folks want to start a small business.
If your accusation that SF unemployment is because of “progressives” then how do you explain that the highest unemployment in the state are in the most conservative areas?
@Live Smart: as a previous business owner that had offices in multiple states (telecom software) I can tell you that CA has some very unfriendly business regulations when compared to other states. Most of these regulations come from our state government, not city. However, SF itself also has many unfriendly business regulations and taxes. These do get offset by the desirability of the city in general, especially when compared to living in the Central Valley or other more typically conservative areas. IMO SF would definitely have lower unemployment with some much needed changes to make the city more business friendly. I’m not big fan of Texas, but they are kicking a$$ with regards to job creation and unemployment and they do have a much friendlier business climate.
I agree with Skirunman. California in general, and SF in particular, are not very business friendly.
Even more, they are not very small business friendly. Large corporations are often able to work out special deals in order to lower the tax burden, but small business is almost never given that privilege.
I don’t know if Texas kicks a– over California economically.
Productivity (GDP/person) is much higher in California than Texas, and the gap has only grown in the past decade:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/the-texas-miracle/
let’s see, SF one of the most business unfriendly with unemployment at 9.6%. Texas always ranked one of the most biz friendly – unemployment at 8.2%. wow – really makes an impact.
Take away the oil and gas industries and where is Texas?
“Regulation = bad” has turned out to be one of the biggest lies in history. Yet it is still being spewed by the same people all so they can game the system once the regulations (ie, laws) are eliminated.
Enron gamed California. Yeah, Texas, “business friendly”, and deregulation are all so much better than SF. Those damn progressives. Let’s all move to TX to show them.
Yes, California has lots to offer, but being business friendly is not one of them. If you have not started or ran a business it may astound you with the cr@p you have to deal with in SF and CA. High tax rates, over regulation, inane “politically correct” motivated laws, etc. We are lucky to have Silicon Valley (where I worked for 15 years) and great universities in the Bay Area, but the progressive politics of the last 10-15 years is not helping businesses and job growth IMO.
No one is talking about the need for fair, clear and concise regulation. I agree many industries need regulation to balance the general public welfare versus that of the company’s. However, look at any of the projected job growth reports put out by the likes of Moody or others and Texas certainly leads California. Here are two I found with a quick search:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-06-new-jobs-growth-graphic_N.htm
http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=D8BB1C4F12AE46EF9B7647E09E3253A6&AudID=F242408EE36A4B18AABCEB1289960A07
Also, California is lately showing up in rankings as one of the worst places to start a business when it used to lead the nation in this area. Here is one such report from Money:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fsb/0711/gallery.Bottom10BestStates.fsb/3.html
I don’t want to live in Texas, but I also don’t want to live in an insular and business unfriendly SF with anemic job growth. CA and the Bay Area should be leading the nation in job growth IMO.
“Regulation = bad” has turned out to be one of the biggest lies in history. Yet it is still being spewed by the same people all so they can game the system once the regulations (ie, laws) are eliminated.
I’m not sure that hangemhi and I see eye to eye on certain things, but I agree with his posts here. It’s abundantly clear that dumb regulation is bad and smart regulation is good. Short-term views are bad and long-term views are good. Unfortunately, in both cases, we have too much of the former and too little of the latter, and we don’t elect the type of people who fix it.
Most people who say universally and without context that less regulation is better are generally ideologues who don’t have much substance to talk about. People interested in a real discussion put it in context.
lyqwyd also has a good point on small businesses vs. large businesses. Too often we hear that policies that are supposedly good for small business must be passed, but generally those policies are much better for large businesses than they are for small businesses. It should be the other way around, but too often we have politicians with an agenda trying to justify that agenda by using the word “small businesses,” even though their agenda has little to do with helping small businesses.