Racine, Wisconsin Unemployment
The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Racine fell 0.3 percentage points in March 2012 to 8.1%. For the same month, the metro unemployment rate was 1.3 percentage points higher than the Wisconsin rate. The unemployment rate in Racine peaked in December 2009 at 11.0% and is now 2.9 percentage points lower. You can also compare Racine unemployment with unemployment in other cities.
| Unemployment Rate | March 2012 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 8.2% | -0.1 | -0.7 |
| Wisconsin | 6.8% | -0.1 | -0.8 |
| Racine | 8.1% | -0.3 | -0.7 |
Unemployment Rate: Racine, Wisconsin, National
Note: Recessions shown in gray.
Racine, Wisconsin Unemployed
The number of people unemployed in Racine peaked in July 2009 at 10,851. There are now 2,914 fewer people unemployed in the metropolitan area. Racine employment and jobs data (including jobs lost/gained in Racine, Wisconsin) is also available.
| Unemployed Persons | March 2012 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Racine | 7,937 | -218 | -616 |
Number of Unemployed Persons
Racine, Wisconsin Unemployment History
| Date |
National Unemployment Rate |
Wisconsin Unemployment Rate |
Racine Unemployment Rate |
Racine Unemployed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 2012 |
8.1% | 6.7% | — | — |
|
March 2012 |
8.2% | 6.8% | 8.1% | 7,937 |
|
February 2012 |
8.3% | 6.9% | 8.4% | 8,155 |
|
January 2012 |
8.3% | 6.9% | 8.6% | 8,344 |
|
December 2011 |
8.5% | 7.0% | 8.9% | 8,583 |
|
November 2011 |
8.7% | 7.1% | 9.2% | 8,927 |
|
October 2011 |
8.9% | 7.3% | 9.5% | 9,216 |
|
September 2011 |
9.0% | 7.4% | 9.5% | 9,256 |
|
August 2011 |
9.1% | 7.6% | 9.5% | 9,237 |
|
July 2011 |
9.1% | 7.6% | 9.4% | 9,204 |
|
June 2011 |
9.1% | 7.6% | 9.3% | 9,093 |
|
May 2011 |
9.0% | 7.6% | 8.9% | 8,675 |
|
April 2011 |
9.0% | 7.5% | 8.7% | 8,475 |
1. Metro area unemployment rates are now seasonally adjusted. The BLS has started publishing smoothed seasonally adjusted metropolitan area data which makes comparisons to state and national data more relevant than the unadjusted numbers. ↩
