Map shows states with the highest increase in unemployment
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Some states saw higher increases in unemployment levels from February to April, according to new data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Massachusetts and Connecticut saw the highest jumps in unemployment percentage of all the states, with states like Ohio, Mississippi and Virginia not far behind.
Why It Matters
A substantial number of states saw their unemployment numbers tick up in April, signaling many states' economies might show trouble ahead.
Nationwide, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.2 percent last month, with more jobs noted in healthcare and warehousing. Meanwhile, federal government employment declined this month.
What To Know
Massachusetts and Connecticut experienced the highest unemployment percentage increase, both up 0.3 percentage points to 4.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively.
However, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona and Oregon also had substantial upticks of 0.2 percent.
Michigan also had a 0.1 percent increase, reflecting the state's manufacturing job losses.
"Michigan's pain is automation's gain," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek. "The state that built America's middle class is watching robots replace assembly line workers. When 20 percent of your jobs depend on an auto industry that's slashing human workers for silicon chips... Well, you're not just facing unemployment, it's more like extinction."
Many rural states also saw an uptick due to the lack of industry remaining in these regions, Ryan added.
"Mississippi's surge tells a different story of rural America getting left behind. Limited industry growth, persistent poverty, and a brain drain that's bleeding talent. When your biggest employers are struggling with funding cuts, you're losing jobs and hope," Ryan said.
Former U.S. President and current Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks about the economy, inflation, and manufacturing during a campaign event at Alro Steel on August 29, 2024 in Potterville, Michigan.
Former U.S. President and current Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks about the economy, inflation, and manufacturing during a campaign event at Alro Steel on August 29, 2024 in Potterville, Michigan.What People Are Saying
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek: "The job market has shifted from feast to famine. Hiring has slowed to a crawl, with companies taking longer to fill positions and job postings plummeting from post-pandemic peaks. I expect this to be the new normal."
"We're transitioning from an employer's nightmare to a job seeker's hellscape. Companies have regained leverage, and they're using it ruthlessly."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "The driving force continues to be the economics of the manufacturing base, specifically automotive. As these jobs continue to be outsourced and automated, people in these regions will need to be retrained so they can enter the job market in different capacities, which will reduce the unemployment rate."
HR consultant Bryan Driscoll told Newsweek: "These increases reflect deeper cracks in a labor market that's been running on fumes for months. We're coming up on six months into Trump's second term, and the impact is starting to show. Corporate deregulation, budget slashing, and worker-hostile policies hit individuals and communities hard. The job market is cooling fast, and the safety nets - such that there were any to begin with - are being further slashed or ignored."
What Happens Next
Ryan said the labor market could change substantially in the next few months across all regions.
"Time for the great labor market reality check. All 4 Census regions will see unemployment rise as we enter below-trend growth," Ryan said. "In my opinion, the West will get hammered hardest. With California, Nevada, and Washington leading the charge as professional services and tech hiring freezes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
28 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Cory Booker Responds To Ridiculous MAGA Republicans Accusations of Doing A 'Nazi Salute'
Source: Getty Images / Cory Booker / Elon Musk Cory Booker is shutting down claims he was out here throwing up a Nazi salute. MAGA Republicans and Elon Musk are losing their sh*t and doing their best to compare a moment where Cory Booker put his hand on his heart and waved goodbye to the crowd at the Democratic National Convention in California to when Musk clearly did a Nazi salute. Through a spokesperson, Booker shut down those ridiculous claims. 'Cory Booker was obviously just waving to the crowd. Anyone who claims his wave is the same as Elon Musk's gesture is operating in bad faith,' Maya Krishna-Rogers, spokesperson for Booker, said to Newsweek in a statement sent via email on Sunday. 'The differences between the two are obvious to anyone without an agenda.' Musk also doubled down on his acceptance of th use of the word 'retard' as an insult. 🤨 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 1, 2025 MAGA Republicans going hard trying to make something out of nothing about Cory Booker waving goodbye to the crowd, comes after Musk and Steve Bannon both were both accused doing nazi salutes during events. Musk was accused of doing a Nazi salute during Trump rally during his second inauguration following his unfortunate election win. Elon Musk has gone full mask off Nazi. He is actively promoting Nazism. Tesla is now a hate symbol. — James Jansson (@jamesjansson) January 20, 2025 Still despite Booker's statement and the video evidence, you can't tell these MAGA fools a damn thing as continue to take photos of other elected officials clearly waving bye, and using them as evidence of them doing Nazi salutes in order to vindicate the alleged ketamine abuser Elon Musk. 🤨 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 1, 2025 SMH. You can see more stupid reactions in the gallery below. Cory Booker Responds To Ridiculous MAGA Republicans Accusations of Doing A 'Nazi Salute' was originally published on Here's a list of all the news networks who have not covered Cory Booker's salute:- NYTimes- CNN- Washington Post- MSNBC- NPR- USA Today- Reuters- Axios- ABC NewsEvery single one of them wrote stories on Elon Musk's salute. do you get it yet? — kekius tees (@kekmaximusk) June 1, 2025 I'm literally shaking right now. Cory Booker is literally Hitler. I can't wait for fake news to cover this as extensively as they did Elon when gave his heart out to everyone! — Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) May 31, 2025 Hello, @NewsHour — will you be making a post comparing Cory Booker's apparent 'fascist salute' to the 'Sieg Heil?"Your post about Elon Musk making a very similar gesture amassed over 36M views. Since you assure US taxpayers that PBS is a non-partisan organization, and all. — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 1, 2025 It's most amusing to watch all the people who branded @elonmusk a Nazi now tying themselves in tortured knots trying to explain why Cory Booker isn't… for doing the EXACT SAME THING. Of course, neither is.. but the hypocrisy stinks. — Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 1, 2025 Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tim Walz Said We Need To "Bully The Sh—t Out" Of Donald Trump And It's REALLY Making MAGA Mad
We've long discussed left-leaners repeatedly expressing fatigue with the Democratic Party over what they perceive to be a lack of effort displayed by its leaders. Well, it looks like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is starting to agree. During a May speech at the South Carolina Democratic Party's annual convention, Walz referred to President Donald Trump as a "wannabe dictator" before suggesting, "Maybe it's time for us to be a little meaner. Maybe it's time for us to be a little more fierce." Twitter: @mmpadellan Speaking from his experience as a former teacher, Walz continued, "The thing that bothers a teacher more than anything is to watch a bully... And when it's a child, you talk to them and you tell them why bullying is wrong." Related: A Republican's Response To A "Tax The Rich" Chant At His Town Hall Is Going Viral "But when it's an adult like Donald Trump," he said, "you bully the shit out of him back." "Because at heart, this is a weak, cruel man that takes it out and punches down at people. What they don't want to do is stand toe to toe and punch back with someone who's calling them out for what they do." Related: "I Am So Torn With What You Are Doing" — 11 Posts From MAGA Business Owners Who Are So Close To Getting It And this isn't the first time Walz has expressed a need for Dems to "fight back." Just two months ago, the former vice presidential hopeful shared a video of Americans expressing grievances under the Trump Administration with the title "Tim Walz: It's time to fight back." "I think elected officials have been too damn timid to not stand up for these things. Bullshit," he says in the video. "It's good stuff that makes a difference." Well! One peek at the comment section under Walz's South Carolina speech will show you how deeply MAGA is rallying against his words. But what are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: People Can't Believe This "Disgusting" Donald Trump Jr. Post About Joe Biden's Cancer Diagnosis Is Real Also in In the News: Miss USA's 2024 "National Costume" Has Been Revealed, And It's Obviously An Interesting Choice Also in In the News: One Body Language Expert Spotted Something Very Telling When Donald Trump "Held His Own Hand" At His Recent Press Conference
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's New Medicaid Denialism
Congressional Republicans claim to have achieved something truly miraculous. Their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they argue, would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid spending over 10 years without causing any Americans to lose health care—or, at least, without making anyone who loses health care worse off. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by imposing Medicaid work requirements, the bill would eventually increase the uninsured population by at least 8.6 million. At first, Republican officials tried to defend this outcome on the grounds that it would affect only lazy people who refuse to work. This is clearly untrue, however. As voluminous research literature shows, work requirements achieve savings by implementing burdensome paperwork obligations that mostly take Medicaid from eligible beneficiaries, not 25-year-old guys who prefer playing video games to getting a job. Perhaps for that reason, some Republicans in Washington are now making even more audacious claims. On CNN over the weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought insisted that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' Likewise, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, recently told voters at a town hall, 'Everyone says that Medicaid is being cut, people are going to see their benefits cut; that's not true.' After one attendee shouted, 'People will die,' Ernst replied, 'We all are going to die,' and later doubled down on her comment on social media, attempting to equate concern that Medicaid cuts could harm people with believing in the tooth fairy. Officials such as Vought and Ernst have not provided a detailed explanation of their blithe assurances. But there is one center of conservative thought that has attempted to defend these claims: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Last week, it published an editorial headlined 'The Medicaid Scare Campaign.' The thesis is that the Medicaid cuts would 'improve healthcare by expanding private insurance options, which provide better access and health outcomes than Medicaid.' This would be, as they say, huge if true: The GOP has found a way to give low-income Americans better health care while saving hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. The timing is even more remarkable, given that this wondrous solution has come along at precisely the moment when congressional Republicans are desperate for budget savings to partially offset the costs of a regressive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Sadly, a close reading of The Wall Street Journal's editorial reveals that no such miracle is in the offing. Instead, the argument relies on a series of misunderstandings and non sequiturs to obscure the obvious fact that cutting Medicaid would make poor people sicker and more likely to die. [Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid] The editorial begins by acknowledging a recent study's conclusion that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act reduced mortality by 2.5 percent among low-income American adults. This would imply that taking Medicaid away from people would cause many of them to die. Not so fast, the editorial insists: 'The 2.5% difference in mortality for low-income adults between the expansion and non-expansion states wasn't statistically significant when disabled adults were included.' The implication is that the lifesaving effect of the Medicaid expansion disappears if you include disabled adults. In fact, Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economist and a co-author of the study, told me that the reason the study excluded disabled adults is that they were already eligible for public health insurance before the expansion. The way to measure the effect of a change is to focus on the population that was treated to the change. So either the Wall Street Journal editorial board is misleading its audience intentionally or it does not understand statistics. (Decades of Journal editorials provide ample grounds for both explanations.) The editorial then suggests that Obamacare has not overcome other social factors that are causing people to die: 'What's clear is that the ObamaCare expansion hasn't reduced deaths among lower-income, able-bodied adults. U.S. life expectancy remains about the same as it was in 2014 owing largely to increased deaths among such adults from drug overdoses and chronic diseases.' This passage, like the previous one, is intended to sound like a claim that giving people access to medical care does not reduce their likelihood of suffering a premature death. But that is not really what it's saying. The editorial is merely noting that the drug epidemic and other factors worked against the effects of the Medicaid expansion. Presumably, if the government had started throwing people off their health insurance at the same time that the drug-overdose epidemic was surging, then life expectancy would have gotten even worse. The article goes on to explain that Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private insurance does. That is absolutely correct: In the United States, Medicaid is the cheapest existing way to give people access to medical care. The editorial laments that Medicaid recipients have worse outcomes than people on private insurance do. But the Republican plan isn't to put Medicaid recipients on private insurance, which would cost money. The plan is to take away even their extremely cheap insurance and leave them with nothing. (Well, not nothing: The editorial notes that the bill would double 'the health-savings account contribution limit to $17,100 from $8,550 for families earning up to $150,000.' For reference, in most states, a four-person household must earn less than $45,000 a year to be eligible for Medicaid.) Finally, the editorial asserts, 'The GOP bill is unlikely to cause many Americans to lose Medicaid coverage.' Here is where I would analyze the editorial's support for this remarkable claim, but there is none. The sentence just floats by itself in a sea of text that bears no relationship to it. Indeed, the editorial doesn't even attempt to explain why the official Congressional Budget Office estimate is dramatically wrong. Nor does it engage with the mountain of evidence showing that people who obtain Medicaid coverage tend, naturally enough, to be better off as a result. The near-universal belief that being able to see a doctor and buy medicine makes you healthier is the kind of presumption that would take extraordinary evidence to refute. The Wall Street Journal editorial offers none at all. Advocates of the House bill have cultivated an aura of condescension toward anybody who states its plain implications. But even the most detailed attempt to substantiate their position consists entirely of deflections and half-truths. If this is the best case that can be made for worrying about the GOP's plan for Medicaid, then Americans should be worried indeed. Article originally published at The Atlantic
