Jobs created as a share of state employment from ending currency manipulation, 2015*
State | Jobs created as share of state employment |
---|---|
Alabama | 4.29% |
Alaska | 2.99% |
Arizona | 3.91% |
Arkansas | 4.56% |
California | 4.18% |
Colorado | 3.84% |
Connecticut | 4.42% |
Delaware | 3.85% |
District of Columbia | 2.64% |
Florida | 3.38% |
Georgia | 4.00% |
Hawaii | 2.89% |
Idaho | 4.77% |
Illinois | 4.49% |
Indiana | 5.20% |
Iowa | 5.17% |
Kansas | 4.82% |
Kentucky | 4.49% |
Louisiana | 3.53% |
Maine | 3.73% |
Maryland | 3.09% |
Massachusetts | 3.91% |
Michigan | 4.94% |
Minnesota | 4.96% |
Mississippi | 4.05% |
Missouri | 4.26% |
Montana | 4.00% |
Nebraska | 4.68% |
Nevada | 3.30% |
New Hampshire | 4.57% |
New Jersey | 3.63% |
New Mexico | 3.54% |
New York | 3.31% |
North Carolina | 4.05% |
North Dakota | 4.58% |
Ohio | 4.88% |
Oklahoma | 4.23% |
Oregon | 4.60% |
Pennsylvania | 4.32% |
Rhode Island | 4.05% |
South Carolina | 4.54% |
South Dakota | 5.08% |
Tennessee | 4.24% |
Texas | 4.02% |
Utah | 4.09% |
Vermont | 4.16% |
Virginia | 3.40% |
Washington | 4.50% |
West Virginia | 3.85% |
Wisconsin | 5.55% |
Wyoming | 3.76% |
**10 least-impacted states, plus D.C.
***10 next-least impacted states
****10 middle-impacted states
*****10 next-most impacted states
******10 most-impacted states
*The map shows estimates of the effects of ending currency manipulation over three years, modeled as having begun in 2013. The map shows the results in the high-impact scenario, which assumes that ending currency manipulation would reduce the trade deficit by $500 billion in 2015 relative to the trade deficit in 2012. The number of jobs gained (or lost) is relative to 2011 employment.
Source: Author's analysis of U.S. International Trade Commission (2013), Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013d), and Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Projections program (BLS-EP 2011a and 2011b). For a more detailed explanation of data sources and computations, see Stop Currency Manipulation and Create Millions of Jobs.
This chart appears in:
Next chart: Unemployment rates of various demographic groups, 2007 and today »