Jump to content

Economic Development in South Carolina


goodbye

Recommended Posts


Here is some good news to report. Two new factories planned for the upstate are expected to generate nearly 250 jobs. Force V Environmental LLC plans to employ 189 people at a new vinyl window and door factory at the former Timken plant in Clinton. In southern Greenville County, Container Design & Solutions LLC plans to hire 55 people at a new packaging factory.The company will occupy about 53,000 square feet in a former Kemet Corp. plant on Old Stage Road in the Simpsonville area.

You can read more information on this here:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20.../903110346/1003

Edited by citylife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crane Co. will consolidate its North American vending operations into its Dixie-Narco facility in Williston in Barnwell County, a move that could create up to 1,000 jobs over the next five years according to state and area development officials. The plant employs about 500. Hiring is expected to begin within the next 14 months, while the company invests about $20 million into the operation.

This is definitely good news for Barnwell County, which has an unemployment rate of 16.7%, the eighth highest in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crane Co. will consolidate its North American vending operations into its Dixie-Narco facility in Williston in Barnwell County, a move that could create up to 1,000 jobs over the next five years according to state and area development officials. The plant employs about 500. Hiring is expected to begin within the next 14 months, while the company invests about $20 million into the operation.

This is definitely good news for Barnwell County, which has an unemployment rate of 16.7%, the eighth highest in the state.

16.7%!!! That's insane...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vought Aircraft Industries has decided to call back more than 100 employees to its North Charleston facility that is assembling rear fuselage sections for the Boeing 787 program according to this article from SCBiznews: http://www.scbizmag.com/content/view/110926/1/ Always good to see laid off employees get their jobs back during a recession. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16.7%!!! That's insane...

At the moment, SC has the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the USA for January. I was talking about someone familiar with Marion county, ~22%, and they said it was quite desperate there. Most of the factories there have closed and the other source of income, providing services to Myrtle Beach, has disappeared as well.

The other interesting effect of this is the population in Myrtle Beach is actually rising because of this economic downturn. People are flocking to the city looking from work. A lot of the these people are coming from the North and Midwest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^It's really higher than that throughout SC. They are using the U3 numbers which does not count lot of people who can't find work or full time work. The govt. started reporting this numbers years ago because it sounds a lot better. They do maintain further statistics on more comprehensive numbers called U4, U5 and U6, but good luck in getting at them. They don't make it easy. In the real world, U6 is probably what most people think of when they think of unemployed. It also makes historical comparisons meaningless because these distinctions did not use to exist.

I would also say they don't really know much about the unemployment rate in Myrtle Beach because they really don't know how many people are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

The state's unemployment rate continues to rise, but Oregon has knocked us out of the #2 spot. Now it's Michigan 12.6, Oregon 12.1 and S.C. 11.4. Here are the S.C. Employment Security Commission's figures for SC's counties and metro areas just released today for March.

http://www.sces.org/lmi/news/March_2009.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Labor force /= unemployment.

You're exactly right. I am totally wrong, as is a recent article by Don Schunk, an economist whose data was released on April 7 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sorry to have said something that conflicted with your ideas, which, as always, are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right. I am totally wrong, as is a recent article by Don Schunk, an economist whose data was released on April 7 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sorry to have said something that conflicted with your ideas, which, as always, are correct.

:rofl: you're exactly right. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right. I am totally wrong, as is a recent article by Don Schunk, an economist whose data was released on April 7 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sorry to have said something that conflicted with your ideas, which, as always, are correct.

Well I have no idea what you are smoking this time, but in regards to the actual numbers posted above, the definition of Labor force is a simple one line sentence provided by the BLS..... "The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons." It's on their website.

Now since the unemployed number went up, but the labor force declined, then one can assume that people moved from the state. If they quit looking, as you suggest, then both numbers go down. :shades:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have no idea what you are smoking this time, but in regards to the actual numbers posted above, the definition of Labor force is a simple one line sentence provided by the BLS..... "The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons." It's on their website.

Now since the unemployed number went up, but the labor force declined, then one can assume that people moved from the state. If they quit looking, as you suggest, then both numbers go down. :shades:

Monsoon, you're right. I was wrong. I concede the point.

My own analysis- which is WRONG- is from the BLS website at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm, which I have misread:

"People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force." (I wrongly thought that such people would include students, retirees, children and people who had given up looking for work.)

Not sure what I was thinking, but again, as always, you're right and I and the BLS are wrong.

Edited by mallguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.