Large cuts to the public sector went hand-in-hand with slower private-sector job growth: Change in private-sector employment relative to change in state and local government employment, June 2009–June 2015
| State and local govt. change (%) | Private employment change (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| LA | -11.60% | 8.80% |
| MI | -8.80% | 14.30% |
| PA | -8.40% | 6.20% |
| NH | -8.20% | 6.90% |
| NJ | -6.00% | 4.80% |
| NM | -5.00% | 4.10% |
| ME | -5.00% | 4.40% |
| CT | -4.90% | 4.90% |
| GA | -4.80% | 12.40% |
| RI | -4.60% | 7.10% |
| AZ | -4.20% | 10.80% |
| FL | -3.60% | 14.80% |
| MO | -3.20% | 5.80% |
| OH | -3.10% | 9.20% |
| IL | -2.90% | 7.60% |
| NY | -2.80% | 11.70% |
| MS | -2.60% | 5.10% |
| NV | -2.50% | 11.60% |
| WI | -2.40% | 7.20% |
| KS | -2.10% | 5.90% |
| AR | -1.90% | 5.90% |
| AL | -1.90% | 5.00% |
| NC | -1.70% | 10.90% |
| CA | -1.40% | 13.40% |
| ID | -1.10% | 12.90% |
| WV | -0.90% | 1.70% |
| IN | -0.80% | 11.80% |
| VA | -0.50% | 6.50% |
| MD | -0.40% | 6.10% |
| HI | -0.20% | 9.70% |
| IA | 0.40% | 7.10% |
| AK | 0.60% | 8.90% |
| SC | 0.70% | 13.10% |
| MN | 0.70% | 9.70% |
| OK | 0.80% | 8.00% |
| TN | 0.90% | 12.90% |
| NE | 1.20% | 7.10% |
| MT | 1.70% | 9.20% |
| SD | 1.80% | 7.60% |
| TX | 2.00% | 17.80% |
| WY | 2.10% | 4.30% |
| VT | 2.10% | 6.20% |
| WA | 2.80% | 11.90% |
| OR | 3.50% | 12.90% |
| DC | 3.50% | 13.90% |
| KY | 4.00% | 8.60% |
| MA | 4.30% | 10.20% |
| DE | 5.10% | 8.40% |
| CO | 7.80% | 14.80% |
| UT | 12.00% | 17.50% |
Notes: Excludes values for North Dakota, where the oil and gas boom caused abnormally large job growth. North Dakota grew its state and local public sector workforce during this period. Including it would skew the trend line even more positive.
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics