Minnesota adds 8,500 jobs in June; unemployment rate drops to 4.5%

Minnesota employers added 8,500 jobs in June, a strong showing that dropped the state’s unemployment rate to 4.5 percent.

The U.S. unemployment rate is 6.1 percent.

For the calendar year, Minnesota has a net job gain of 10,700, today’s report said.

Katie Clark Sieben, commissioner of the state Department of Employment and Economic Development, said:

“The unemployment rate hasn’t been this low since February 2007, while new claims for unemployment benefits dropped to their lowest level in nearly 14 years.”

A breakdown of the job increases shows that 3,900 new jobs were created by government. Other gainers:

  • Education and health services (up 3,500)
  • Trade, transportation and utilities (up 2,200)
  • Financial activities (up 600)
  • Information (up 500)
  • Professional and business services (up 300)
  • Logging and mining (up 200)

Sectors losing jobs last month:

  • Other services (down 1,400)
  • Manufacturing (down 900)
  • Leisure and hospitality (down 300)
  • Construction (down 100)

Comments (28)

  1. Submitted by John Appelen on 07/17/2014 - 12:47 pm.

    Tax Dollars Hard at Work

    I assume all those new government jobs are being funded by the money I would have preferred to have spent on my family…

    • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/17/2014 - 02:09 pm.

      I am sure those 3900 people who got those jobs are happy to have money to spend on their families. They pay taxes too. Now go back to complaining about paying taxes on an internet developed with taxpayer money, potentially on a smart-phone made manifest by a satellite system that wouldn’t exist without taxpayer investment, though hopefully not while driving to or from work on a road built by taxpayer money. Thanks for paying that extra gas tax with your Suburban’s sub-par fuel economy, but please realize that your gallon of gas at the pump is heavily subsidized by, you guessed it, taxpayer dollars.

    • Submitted by Logan Foreman on 07/17/2014 - 03:54 pm.

      Such an

      Expected comment. Why don’t we hear from you when the Target CEO is fired for a pathetic job and yet receives millions of dollars for the “effort”. Prices at Target could be cheaper for your family without this ridiculous payment.

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/18/2014 - 03:37 pm.

        Paradigm

        Prices are market based, not cost based.

        Only thing hurt was corporate profits and I don’t own much Target stock. Therefore that is their business.

        Where the effective expenditure of revenues collected in part from me do concern me.

        • Submitted by jason myron on 07/18/2014 - 05:01 pm.

          Uhhh, no…

          all prices are NOT market based. Perhaps in your industry, but there are many businesses that operate on a straight percentage markup from cost. Once again….completely devoid of any experience other than your own personal strata.

          • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/18/2014 - 06:37 pm.

            Question

            Do you think Target is one of these?

            Please share some of these cost plus examples.

            In my experience they only occur where the customer has a lot of power. My previous employer was a huge manufacturer, therefore they could make suppliers open their books and go cost plus.

            Even in that case the “plus” side was market based. Otherwise one of them would have walked away from the deal.

            • Submitted by jason myron on 07/18/2014 - 08:11 pm.

              As a national account manager

              I can absolutely tell you it’s a fact that nearly all national retailers work off a bump in cost. Vendors have virtually no power when fighting to get shelf space in an increasingly saturated market with buy dollars stretched thin. There’s too much competition for brick and mortar space. You pay to play, whether it be selling near cost, or ponying up huge MDF dollars…and I’m not about to discuss my account base or any specific account metric. My point is that your assertion that price is solely determined by market forces is patently false.

              • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/19/2014 - 08:34 am.

                Confirmation

                As I explained… Cost plus occurs when the customer has a strong negotiating advantage.

                This is not the case of Target with regard to their customers. Target prices relative to it’s competition, not relative to it’s costs.

                • Submitted by jason myron on 07/19/2014 - 04:34 pm.

                  You’re wrong

                  and I know a helluva a lot more about the internals at Target than you do.

                  • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/20/2014 - 09:58 am.

                    The problem is

                    that Target’ and Walmart have similar economics on both the cost and market sides — they compete for both suppliers and customers.
                    Therefore it’s hard to separate the two factors and say which is the more important in driving prices — the answer is probably both of the above.

                  • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/20/2014 - 07:09 pm.

                    Blinders

                    So from your perspective, Target just marks up the product and uses that as the price?

                    They have blinders on and are indifferent to the prices that Walmart, Amazon, Best Buy, Cub, etc are charging…

                    I don’t think so.

                    • Submitted by jason myron on 07/22/2014 - 12:39 pm.

                      It doesn’t matter what you think…

                      it’s obvious you have no experience in brick & mortar retail if you feign ignorance to the fact that stores operate on a revenue per square foot basis. You made the claim that prices are determined solely by market forces, and that’s clearly not the case. Competitive pricing between chains is evident in certain products backed by marketing dollars advertised in weekly circulars and displayed within endcaps or signed shelf space, but if you think that extends to notions, electronics. clothing, groceries and other everyday items that fill shelf space, you couldn’t be more wrong.

                    • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/23/2014 - 07:58 am.

                      Double

                      So you are saying that Target will double its price on a particular skin care product to hit its $/ft revenue goal? Who would then buy that product if they can get it at Walmart, Walgreens, etc for half the price?

                    • Submitted by jason myron on 07/23/2014 - 12:43 pm.

                      You really don’t shop much, do you?

                      People don’t automatically leave a store to shop elsewhere when they have a cart full of products. Just off the top of my head, you can walk into a Walmart and get candles a lot cheaper than Target, but they’re an impulse item and for 99% of consumers, they’re going to toss it in their cart because they’re already there. The same name brand roll of breakfast sausage is 1.50 more at Cub than at Walmart, but a person doing their grocery run is going to pay that because of sheer convenience. You continue to confuse impulse purchasing with destination purchasing. For the last time, retail pricing is not solely based on market forces…period.

        • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 07/23/2014 - 03:20 pm.

          Incorrect

          Prices are both market and cost based. If the market can handle the cost plus profit, a product is sold at the cost plus the market-accepted profit. If not, the product simply isn’t sold or doesn’t exist. No one sells at or below cost unless they can gouge the market elsewhere to make up for it. No one.

          To the original comment: this is why the GOP will collapse. It feeds off this sort of antisocial attitude. And antisocialism isn’t the opposite of socialism, it’s actually anticapitalism. Capitalism can’t operate in the absence of a stable social contract. No amount of rabid capitalism will feed your family in the absence of a stable society.

          Of course, the original comment might just have been trolling. You don’t really have to believe it if you are just looking for a cheap thrill on the internet, do you?

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/23/2014 - 08:46 am.

      Once again…

      “I assume all those new government jobs are being funded by the money I would have preferred to have spent on my family…”

      John, you and you alone are responsible for your own bad assumptions.

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/26/2014 - 01:25 am.

        Logic

        I pay taxes to fund the government.
        The government pays these employees.
        If the government did not spend so much on employees, my taxes could be lower.
        I would have more money to spend on my family.

        Seems to make sense.

  2. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/17/2014 - 01:35 pm.

    Wages

    So I assume that the median worker’s yearly income has increased by 4.5% after inflation.
    I thought not.
    The job categories are too broad to say whether most of the jobs are at IBM or Mickey D.

  3. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/19/2014 - 12:05 pm.

    Someone took the time and effort to check DEED’s numbers, and found voodoo accounting.

    “Adding together the number of jobs created each month in 2014, as reported by DEED, produces a total of 17,700 jobs for the year so far. So that means that sometime during the last few months, 7,000 jobs have vanished from the official state rolls.”

    “Here’s a prediction: that 8,500 number for June will be quietly revised downward.”

    http://billglahn.blogspot.com/2014/07/deeds-job-numbers-dont-add-up.html?m=1

    His math is irrefutable.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/20/2014 - 10:04 am.

      His arithmatic

      (I’d hardly call it math) is OK as far as it goes,
      but a few cherries have been picked.
      Specifically, he does not account for temporary jobs.
      It’s quite possible that the ‘vanished’ jobs are simply the temp jobs that companies are increasingly relying on.
      No voudun here; accounting is no better than the numbers that it’s based on.

    • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 07/20/2014 - 06:58 pm.

      Mr. Glahn is indulging in a bit of chicanery

      From Mr. Swift’s link:

      “DEED actually revised the January gain of 600 upward by 200 the following month. For those keeping score at home, we’ve had four consecutive months of downward revisions, with the average monthly downgrade being 1,500 jobs. That’s where 6,000 of the 7,000 missing jobs have vanished, but 1,000 are still not accounted for.”

      So if Mr. Glahn had inserted the actual – REVISED – numbers in his spreadsheet then the discrepancy is almost satisfied. He admits this himself in the link. Given the dancing numbers involved, being “off” by a thousand does not surprise me.

      “His math is irrefutable.” This reminds me of the old saying about computers, garbage in garbage out. GIGO Use the right numbers and the discrepancy goes away. Pretty pathetic.

      Do revisions happen often? Yes they do, and almost every month at the federal and state level. No one with even a slight knowledge of how these things are done is shocked or surprised.

      Don’t we want good and accurate information?

      Finally, it is amusing to see some on the right try to brush off the good economic news or else try to claim it for their own. People will have an opportunity to decide this fall whether they want to go back to the policies of Pawlenty and crew or continue going forward with adults in charge.

  4. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/23/2014 - 09:09 am.

    Pradigms?

    “Prices are market based, not cost based.”

    First, that’s not a paradigm, it’s an assumption. A lot of business people are walking around with really jumbled notions of what a “paradigm” is.

    Second, the assumption that prices are market based can be true depending on your definition of “markets”. Any model of “markets” that’s all inclusive can be said to determine prices, i.e. a market definition that includes monopolies, price fixing, costs, bubbles, stock manipulation, regional control, volume sales, etc.can be said to determine prices. The problem with defining markets in such a way is that it becomes mere tautology, it doesn’t and can’t actually tell you why the price of any one thing is what it is. You have to break it down to specific examples anyways. Saying something is “market” based is usually an incoherent declaration because you have to go back and look at the market factors that are influencing price anyways.

    The problem with John’s assumption is that his “market” is a “free” market, and no such thing actually exists. Jon’s market is a contrived oversimplification. He assumes that the economics for a family owned corner store are the same as they are for a multi-billion corporation, because they both participate in the same “market”. In theory, in John’s universe, the family store can charge the same price for tooth paste as Walmart because they’re both in the same “market”. Clearly it doesn’t work that way for soooooo many reasons.

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/23/2014 - 12:12 pm.

      Renfinement

      “In theory, in John’s universe, the family store can charge the same price for tooth paste as Walmart because they’re both in the same “market”. ”

      My point is that the stores will need to charge the same price if they want to sell the product and generate the revenue. (ie margins are different, see below) Unless they can use product, service, location or some other differentiator to sway the consumer.

      Example… USA car brands used to be able to use strong “Buy American” and “Support American Workers” sentiment to get people to pay more for their vehicles. (ie a premium) Now that Americans are more self focused and even biased against buying product from the American firms, they have to price even or less.

      Thus like the Mom and Pop store that tries to sell head to head against Walmart, their margins are so small that they become a questionable business venture unless they change something.

      It seems to me you are confusing markets, and what it takes to be a viable business in that market space.

      • Submitted by jason myron on 07/23/2014 - 12:56 pm.

        John

        you keep obfuscating the issue…we’re not talking cars here. You made the statement that brick and mortar retail determines price solely by market. The only one confused here is you with your inability to step away from your narrow metric. Walking in and selling a design or system to a company is much different than repping a line of clothing, electronics, grocery items, sporting goods or any number of other products that line shelves at retail. It’s all about turn and margin per sq foot.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/23/2014 - 06:08 pm.

        Even if were talking about cars your not making any sense

        “My point is that the stores will need to charge the same price if they want to sell the product and generate the revenue. (ie margins are different, see below) Unless they can use product, service, location or some other differentiator to sway the consumer.

        Example… USA car brands used to be able to use strong “Buy American” and “Support American Workers” sentiment to get people to pay more for their vehicles. (ie a premium) Now that Americans are more self focused and even biased against buying product from the American firms, they have to price even or less.”

        This is mumbo jumbo. You’re saying that unless Americans want to pay more for American cars GM and Ford can’t charge enough to be profitable, presumably because they can’t compete with foreign car makers on costs? Yet, the only way they can generate revenue is to sell the car at whatever rate the market dictates regardless of cost? And the only way they can get Americans to buy their cars is to appeal to patriotism? Meanwhile, US car manufacturers are actually having a really good year. Listen, you can’t sell a product or service at a loss, and you need generate enough revenue to pay the bills. So we pay more for paint at the local hardware store than we do a big box retailer, those “differentials” your talking about are called “reality”.

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/24/2014 - 10:40 pm.

          Adjusting to Reality

          You are correct, one can not sell at a loss for too long.

          GM and Ford keep moving more of their jobs over seas to ensure they do remain profitable. Remember that the Chevy Spark, Sonic and Captiva are actually products from GM Korea. (previously named Daewoo)

          Again… Price is usually market based, therefore to keep an adequate margin one has to control cost. Without an adequate margin, R&D is cut and the product falls behind. Then you have to lower your price further to sell your inferior product.

          So as Americans insist on buying product from low cost countries, our jobs continue to flow to those countries. The choices we make.
          http://kogodnow.com/autoindex/

  5. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/23/2014 - 12:30 pm.

    Where’s Hiram when you need him?

    Actually Hiram Foster put it best regarding markets and pricing: he’s pointed out that it’s not inaccurate to claim that markets determine prices, but you can’t claim that markets produce the best, lowest, or fairest price.

    Maybe you have to have an MBA to believe that costs aren’t a factor in the markets.

  6. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 07/23/2014 - 09:08 pm.

    We certainly need government employees

    To do all the things that government does. I prefer to see more private sector jobs created as the gain is much greater to the State’s revenue. If a State government worker is paid $50,000 and that person pays 10% in State tax, it cost the State $45,000 to get the $5000. A private sector job paying $50,000 (from someone else’s pocket) and taxed at 10% gets the State $5000 without cost. Once again, we NEED government jobs but I’d like to see private sector jobs make up more of the total.

Leave a Reply