Do you have middling or poor credit and need help rebuilding it? Sow the seeds of good credit by understanding the credit cycle and use your knowledge to improve your own credit score.

When you begin building a credit score, you have zero credit. But by opening a savings account, you can begin building your credit from scratch. With this newfound credit, you will find it easier to get a job, get an apartment, or get loans and credit cards.

What are the numbers that divide the good credit scores from the bad?

• 620 is the magic number–the dividing line between good and bad credit.
• 723 is the average national credit score.
• 740 is the magic FICO number for good credit.
• 760 is the dividing line for excellent credit.
• 675-719 is merely a mediocre credit score.
• 620-674 is a below average credit score.
• Below 500 is simply awful credit.

Usually you can begin to build your credit by obtaining a credit card. Keep your credit use to around 30% of your credit limit to get the best score. It’s not a good idea to max out your credit card, and it’s always best to pay in full at the end of each month. It’s tempting to pay only the minimum payment, but this may leave a mark on your credit report and can increase your bill with interest.

When you take out your first loan, having someone co-sign for your loan is helpful, and may qualify you for loans you may otherwise not be approved for. Pay attention to interest rates; those with lower or less established credit scores are more likely to get stuck with a higher one. Having a co-signer can prevent this.

Once you are ready to sign for a mortgage, pay attention to your overall credit score. To obtain the best credit scores, you need a mix of different types of credit, including revolving accounts (credit cards, lines of credit) and installment accounts (auto loans, personal loans, mortgages).

To continue building good credit, it’s essential that you pay all your bills on time, all the time. All it takes is a single missed payment to trash your credit scores. Every late payment hurts your score, and it can take seven years for one black mark to disappear. Making an installment payment is better than making none at all.

Falling behind can really take its toll on your credit score. Timeliness of payment makes up about 15%of your credit score. It’s never good to max out your card, especially if you can’t pay it in full at the end of each month. Under US law, prospective employers are allowed to look at your credit report in order to decide whether or not to hire you for a position.

If you do fall behind, tell your creditors if you need to make a late payment and request for it not to be reported as late. If you give advance notice, most creditors will be willing to extend up to 30 days and not consider it as late payment. Never ignore or run away from your creditors–it will only hurt your score.

If you do hit bottom, know that bad credit can prevent you from being granted further credit; interest rates on credit cards, loans, and mortgages will all be much higher for someone with poor credit. Additionally, second-rate credit cards with high interest rates or which require a deposit sometimes fail to report payments made on time–hindering credit improvement.

To start the recovery, paying bills on time is the first essential step. There are a number of ways to help improve bad credit. High yield savings are another great place to start–these accounts have higher interest rates than others and help improve credit. Secured credit cards also help–they require you to deposit money as a security measure, but watch out for those with monumental fees or interest rates.

When your credit is awful, beware–scammers will come calling. Watch out for credit repair scams! Never pay a large fee to a credit repair agency–it usually doesn’t work. YOU are the only one who can improve your credit. Instead of these programs, seek credit counseling and work to build a budgeted bill-paying routine.

You might think one way to ease the strain of rebuilding credit is through settlements and paybacks. Settlements are a lender’s way of cutting their losses when they think payments are doubtful. They let you pay off the loan easier by accepting an amount less than you owe. Although this may seem like a win and may stop further deterioration of credit score by allowing unpaid bills to pile up, it is not a positive action and will appear as a negative mark on your credit report.

Once you begin building back good credit, it will take seven years for the negative marks on your credit score to disappear but keeping up with your payments in a timely manner will show improvements after only 6-12 months. Then, loans and credit cards can be obtained at normal credit rates without having to pay monumental fees or make large deposits to earn them.

The average American household has $16,007 in credit card debt, spread over 3.5 credit cards. The approximate number of cardholders in the United States is 164 million, or 54 million households, with a total of 576 million cards in circulation. The total consumer debt in the United States is $2.46 trillion. With these sobering statistics, it’s easy to tell that credit cards are big business in America.

The credit card industry is booming, and the following credit card issuers are the top 10 in America as of 2010:

• Chase, with $165 billion in credit cards in America;
• Bank of America with $150 billion in credit cards in America;
• Citi with $102 billion in credit cards in America;
• American Express with $78 billion in credit cards in America;
• Capital One with $55 billion in credit cards in America;
• Discover with $48 billion in credit cards in America;
• Wells Fargo with $30 billion in credit cards in America;
• HSBC with $26 billion in credit cards in America;
• US Bank with $20 billion in credit cards in America; and
• USAA Savings with $12 billion in credit cards in America.

Most of these issuers reported profits for 2008, with Citi being the notable exception, with a loss of $530 million. Capital One and US Bank reported the largest profits in 2008, at $1000 and $1070 million, respectively.

Despite the boom in credit card business, the number of credit card transactions in 2009 declined across the board: Discover reported a 0.3% decline; MasterCard transactions declined by 6%; Visa transactions declined by 2%; and American Express transactions declined most steeply at 7.4%.

Given the popularity of credit cards with most Americans, it’s safe to assume most Americans carry a sizable consumer debt. It’s helpful, then to have a credit card glossary of terms to know when you are in debt, which follows below.­

Collection–in the credit world, collection is an effort by a collections department or agency to get a past-due debt repaid.

Default–to default is to fail to make a payment on a debt by the due date.

Default APR–if you are late in making payments, your standard APR may increase to a default APR. Also called a penalty rate. The average APR for credit cards is 14.5%.

Finance charge–a finance charge is the total cost of borrowing, including interest and fees, expressed in a dollar amount.

Nondischargeable debt–a nondischargeable debt is a debt that cannot be cleared away–in legal terms, “discharged”–after filing for bankruptcy.

Time-barred debt–time-barred debt is a particular type of old, unpaid debt. Every state has a statute of limitations that limits how long a creditor can get a court judgment forcing payment.

Universal default–universal default is a common practice among credit card issuers that allows them to increase cardholders’ interest rates for any change in risk profile with any lender.

Wage garnishment–wage garnishment is a court-ordered technique of debt collection in which a debtor’s paycheck is deducted a set amount which is paid to a creditor or court until the debt is paid in full.

Zombie debt–Zombie debt is old credit card and other debts that are beyond the statute of limitations, so a debt collector cannot successfully use the courts to collect them.

Which form of plastic is more popular with American consumers? There are currently 576,400,000 credit cards in the United States versus 507,000,000 debit cards, so credit cards clearly have the upper hand. Among 2010 credit cards, 270.1 million are Visa (down 11% from 2008), 203 million are MasterCard (down 22% from 2008), 48.9 million are American Express (down 9% from 2008) and 54.4 million are Discovery (down 6% from 2008). Among 2010 debit cards, 382 million are Visa (up 18% from 2008) and 125 million are MasterCard (up 1% from 2008).

In a 2009 credit card satisfaction survey, the following credit cards ranked highest in customer satisfaction and popularity:

• American Express, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 762 out of 1000;
• Discover Card, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 751 out of 1000;
• National City, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 740 out of 1000;
• Wells Fargo, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 724 out of 1000;
• Barclaycard, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 717 out of 1000;
• US Bank, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 715 out of 1000;
• Chase, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 708 out of 1000;
• Citi, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 699 out of 1000;
• First National Bank of Omaha, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 689 out of 1000;
• Bank of America, with a credit card satisfaction rank of 687 out of 1000.

The birth of the credit card industry occurred in 1958, when the first widely accepted form of plastic was issued by American Express. This was followed by the first general-use credit card that allowed balances to be paid out over time, BankAmericard (later changed to Visa in 1977) in 1959. MasterCard began in 1966, when a number of banks formed the Interbank Card Association. This association bought the rights to use the name “Master Charge” from the California Bank Association in 1969; then renamed it MasterCard in 1977.

Though credit cards remain the dominant form of plastic in America, debit cards have gained popularity, especially as a form of online payment. However, that growth is expected to stagnate at around 27%. Here is a forecast for the volume of dollars expected to be traded through debit cards, and the percent of online shopping it constitutes:

• In 2008, $47 billion dollars was traded through debit cards, which is 26% of online shopping;
• In 2009, $57 billion dollars was traded through debit cards, which is 28% of online shopping;
• In 2010, $67 billion dollars will be traded through debit cards, which is 28% of online shopping;
• In 2011, $81 billion dollars will be traded through debit cards, which is 28% of online shopping;
• In 2012, $47 billion dollars will be traded through debit cards, which is 27% of online shopping;
• In 2013, $98 billion dollars will be traded through debit cards, which is 26% of online shopping;
• In 2014, $105 billion dollars will be traded through debit cards, which is 26% of online shopping.

The US isn’t the only country in significant debt. While it may be in the most debt, there are a handful of countries around the world that have their books off balance too. The following twelve countries lead the world in external debt. The amount of their debts has been figured as the total private and public debt owed to nonresidents payable in foreign currency, goods, or services:

• The United States, which has a debt of $13,450 billion; but, as has been noted, “The US is such a rich country that the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has scarcely touched its spend-as-usual assumptions.”
• The United Kingdom, which follows, has a debt of $9,088 billion as of 2009;
• Germany has a debt of $5,208 billion as of 2009;
• France has a debt of $5,021 billion as of 2009;
• Netherlands has a debt of $3,733 billion as of 2009;
• Spain has a debt of $2,410 billion as of 2009;
• Ireland has a debt of $2,287 billion as of 2009;
• Japan has a debt of $2,132 billion as of 2009;
• Luxembourg has a debt of $1,994 billion as of 2009;
• Switzerland has a debt of $1,339 billion as of 2009;
• Canada has a debt of $833 billion as of 2009;
• Austria has a debt of $808 billion as of 2009.

At the end of the year 2009, the real GDP per person in the United States stood at $42, 189, a 4 percent decline from the historic high ($43,926) in 2007–but still 5 percent higher than at year’s end in 2000 ($39,750). At the end of 2009, the average American’s disposable income stood at $32,599, a mere $80 from the historic high ($32,679) in 2007. In 2009, average American net wealth (per household) stood at $455,420, down 10 percent from the bubble-boosted historic high ($500,019) in 2000, but still high by any international standard. Also in 2009, the US Poverty Rate had increased only marginally, from 12.5% of families to 13.2 percent.

If you look at the US economy just in terms of the national debt as a percentage of the GDP, then the highest peak was during the presidency of Harry Truman, with a peak of 100% during the year 1950.  It then began a sharp descent during the Eisenhower years, reaching a low of around 50% in 1960. A steady decline in the debt as a percentage of the GDP characterized the Kennedy, Johnson, and even part of the Nixon era, hovering below 45% in 1970. The percentage declined even further during the Ford and Carter administrations, reaching a record low of around 40% in 1979. The percentage of the GDP then began a steady ascent during the Reagan era, capping of the 1980s at around 50%, and continued to climb through the George Bush Sr. administration, hovering around 55%-60%. The percentage of the GDP remained fairly steady during the Clinton administration, remaining around the 55%-60% rate. The percentage of the national debt as a GDP then began to rise during the George W. Bush administration, capping off at around 65% in 2004.

The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an advisor to President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. It is simply the unemployment rate added to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation together create economic and social costs for a country. A combination of rising inflation and more people out of work implies a deterioration in economic performance and a rise in the misery index.

The misery index is organized by both decade and by presidential term. It begins in 1948 with the Truman Administration, which was in office from 1948 through 1953. During Truman’s term was the lowest recorded misery index, at 2.97% in July of 1953.

The Eisenhower administration encompassed the late 1950s, from 1953-1960. During that period of relative peace and prosperity, the misery index never crept above 10%, in fact, it stayed around 7% to 8% for most of President Eisenhower’s term.

The short-lived Kennedy administration, from 1960-1963, was also a relatively peaceful and prosperous time, and the misery index hovered between 6% and 7% during those three years as well.

The Lyndon Johnson administration followed John Kennedy’s assassination and one subsequent reelection, lasting from 1963 until 1968. During this time, which saw increasing political and social unrest due to the escalation of the Vietnam War, the misery index remained surprisingly low, hovering around the 6%-7% that characterized the Kennedy administration.

The Nixon administration lasted until 1974, when President Nixon resigned, and was followed by the Ford administration, which lasted through 1978. This period saw the end of the Vietnam War and the oil embargoes of 1973-1974, which caused the misery index to shoot up between 16% and 17% during those two years, a record high at that point in time. For the rest of the Ford administration, the misery index hovered around 13%.

The Carter administration, which lasted from 1978-1981, experienced a surge in the misery index, hitting a record peak of 21.98% in June of 1980, but then fell to nearly 18% by the next year.

The Reagan presidency, which lasted most of the decade of the 1980s, witnessed a gradual tapering of the misery index. The index hovered above the 10% mark except in 1986, when it dipped to around 9%. The George Bush Sr. presidency followed the Reagan era, and both administrations saw the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1987-1992. This financial crisis did not drastically alter the misery index, which hovered between 9% and 11% through most of George Bush Sr.’s administration.

The Clinton administration lasted through most of the 1990s through the turn of the new century. The misery index experienced a steady decline, reaching a low of 6% in 1997, a return to the prosperity of the Kennedy and Johnson eras. However, the rate did increase again, peaking to nearly 8% in 1999.

The George W. Bush administration lasted most of the 2000s, encompassing the Great Recession which began in 2007 and seems to be continuing through 2010. During the first part of his presidency, the misery rate hovered around 7% to 8%. The misery rate peaked at between 9% and 10% in 2008. It remains to be seen what the misery rate will be during the Obama administration.

According to data compiled during the 3^rd and 4^th financial quarters of 2009, China outranks every other country in the world in terms of a positive international trade balance. Close on China’s heels, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Japan also showed healthy positive international trade balances. The figures were smaller for Norway, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Sweden, but they also showed positive international trade balances. Rounding out the list, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Denmark, Argentina, Austria, Israel, and Chile also showed positive international trade balances.

According to the 3^rd and 4^th quarter 2009 financial data, the United States led all other countries in the world with a negative international trade imbalance. Next in line were Spain, Italy, France, and Greece, with large negative international trade imbalances. Canada, Australia, India, the UK and Brazil also showed negative international trade imbalances. Rounding out the list, Turkey, South Africa, Mexico, Columbia, Poland, Pakistan, Egypt, Belgium, Hungary, and the Czech Republic showed negative international trade imbalances as well.

The negative international trade imbalances only tell part of the story; it’s also important to consider the percentage of the trade balance that is also part of the GDP. In that case, Greece leads the list with a negative trade balance of 36.8 billion, or 12.4% of the GDP. Spain is next at a negative trade balance of 82.1 billion, or 5.7% of the GDP; followed by South Africa at 12.0 billion, or 5.3% of the GDP. Among the rest of countries with negative trade imbalances, the numbers are as follows:

• Australia at a negative trade balance of 32.7 billion, or 3.7% of the GDP;
• US at a negative trade balance of 465.3 billion, or 3.0% of the GDP;
• Italy at a negative trade balance of 74.1 billion, or 2.9% of the GDP;
• Canada at a negative trade balance of 34.8 billion, or 2.7% of the GDP;
• Hungary at a negative trade balance of 2.1 billion, or 2.6% of the GDP;
• Columbia at a negative trade balance of 6.1 billion, or 2.6% of the GDP; and
• France at a negative trade balance of 56.7 billion, or 2.0% of the GDP.

It’s also important to consider the percentage of the GDP when looking at countries with a positive international trade balance. In that case, Norway leads the pack, with a positive international trade balance of 58.4 billion, or 15.8% of the GDP. This is followed by Malaysia, with a positive international trade balance of 32.3 billion, or 15.5% of the GDP; and Hong Kong, with a positive international trade balance of 26.2 billion, or 13.7% of the GDP. Among other countries with a positive international trade balance, the breakdown is as follows:

• Singapore at a positive international trade balance of 20.9 billion, or 12.7% of the GDP;
• Switzerland at a positive international trade balance of 42.4 billion, or 7.7% of the GDP;
• Taiwan at a positive international trade balance of 38.6 billion, or 7.6% of the GDP;
• Sweden at a positive international trade balance of 33.0 billion, or 7.4% of the GDP;
• Thailand at a positive international trade balance of 19.9 billion, or 6.6% of the GDP;
• China at a positive international trade balance of 364.4 billion, or 6.3% of the GDP; and
• Netherlands at a positive international trade balance of 34.8 billion, or 5.4% of the GDP.

What does the unemployment situation look like now? This article examines the U.S. unemployment rate change by state, from February 2009 to February 2010.

Between February 2009 and February 2010, there was an increase of unemployment rates in almost every state in America. The exceptions were Oregon, North Dakota and Vermont, where unemployment decreased by 0.1% from February 2009 to 2010.

In every other state of the Union, unemployment rates increased between February 2009 and February 2010. States reporting the largest increases included the following:

• In California, unemployment rates increased by 2.3% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Nevada, unemployment rates increased 3.1% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Idaho, unemployment rates went up 2.6% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Wyoming, unemployment rates increased 2.7% between 2009 and 2010;
• Unemployment rates in New Mexico increased by 2.6% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Illinois, the unemployment rate increased 2.7% between 2009 and 2010;
• Mississippi unemployment rates increased 2.8% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Alabama, unemployment rates increased 2.4% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Florida, unemployment rates shot up 3% between 2009 and 2010;
• Michigan’s unemployment rate went up 2.1% between 2009 and 2010;
• West Virginia’s unemployment rates went up 3.1% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Maryland, unemployment rates went up 3.1% between 2009 and 2010;
• Rhode Island’s unemployment rates went up 2.8% between 2009 and 2010; and
• Massachusetts’ unemployment rates rose 2.1% between 2009 and 2010.

Average rises in unemployment rates occurred in the following states:

• In Washington, unemployment rates rose 1.2% between 2009 and 2010;
• Alaska’s unemployment rate rose 1.2% between 2009 and 2010;
• Arizona’s unemployment rate increased by 1.2% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Utah, unemployment rates rose 1% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Montana, the rate of unemployment rose 1.2% between 2009 and 2010;
• Oklahoma’s unemployment rate rose 1.2% between 2009 and 2010;
• The unemployment rate in Texas rose 1.4% between 2009 and 2010;
• Louisiana’s unemployment rate rose 1.4% between 2009 and 2010;
• The unemployment rate in Iowa rose 1.4% between 2009 and 2010;
• Wisconsin’s unemployment rate increased 1% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Kentucky, the unemployment rate increased by 1.3% between 2009 and 2010;
• Tennessee’s unemployment rate rose by 1.1% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Georgia, the unemployment rate rose by 1.8% between 2009 and 2010;
• In South Carolina, unemployment rates increased by 1.8% between 2009 and 2010;
• Ohio’s unemployment rate rose by 1.8% between 2009 and 2010;
• In North Carolina, unemployment rates increased 1.4% between 2009 and 2010;
• Virginia’s unemployment rate increased 1.1% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Pennsylvania, the unemployment rate rose 1.7% between 2009 and 2010;
• New York’s unemployment rate increased 1.3% between 2009 and 2010;
• New Hampshire’s unemployment rate rose 1.6% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Connecticut, unemployment rates increased 1.7% between 2009 and 2010;
• New Jersey’s unemployment rate rose 1.8% between 2009 and 2010; and
• The District of Columbia experienced a 1.3% rise in unemployment between 2009 and 2010.

The following states in America experienced a rise in unemployment rates of less than 1% between 2009 and 2010:

• Hawaii’s unemployment rate increased 0.6% between 2009 and 2010;
• Colorado’s unemployment rate rose 0.4% between 2009 and 2010;
• South Dakota experienced a rise in unemployment rates of 0.2% between 2009 and 2010;
• Nebraska’s unemployment rate increased 0.5% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Kansas, unemployment rates rose 0.5% between 2009 and 2010;
• Arkansas’s unemployment rate went up 0.9% between 2009 and 2010;
• In Missouri, the unemployment rate rose 0.9% between 2009 and 2010;
• Indiana’s unemployment rate went up 0.3% between 2009 and 2010; and
• In Maine, the unemployment rate rose 0.6% between 2009 and 2010.

In 2009 and 2010, the US unemployment rate by state was as follows:

• Michigan had an overall unemployment rate of 12% in 2009 and 14.1% in 2010;
• South Carolina had an overall unemployment rate of 10.7% in 2009 and 12.5% in 2010;
• Oregon had an overall unemployment rate of 10.6% in 2009 and 10.5% in 2010;
• California had an overall unemployment rate of 10.2% in 2009 and 12.5% in 2010;
• Nevada had an overall unemployment rate of 10.1% in 2009 and 13.2% in 2010;
• Rhode Island had an overall unemployment rate of 9.9% in 2009 and 12.7% in 2010;
• North Carolina had an overall unemployment rate of 9.8% in 2009 and 11.2% in 2010;
• Tennessee had an overall unemployment rate of 9.6% in 2009 and 10.7% in 2010;
• Kentucky had an overall unemployment rate of 9.6% in 2009 and 10.9% in 2010;
• Indiana had an overall unemployment rate of 9.5% in 2009 and 9.8% in 2010;
• Florida had an overall unemployment rate of 9.2% in 2009 and 12% in 2010;
• Ohio had an overall unemployment rate of 9.1% in 2009 and 10.9% in 2010;
• The District of Columbia had an overall unemployment rate of 12% in 2009;
• Georgia had an overall unemployment rate of 8.7% in 2009 and 10.5% in 2010;
• Alabama had an overall unemployment rate of 8.7% in 2009 and 11.1% in 2010;
• Illinois had an overall unemployment rate of 8.7% in 2009 and 11.4% in 2010;
• Mississippi had an overall unemployment rate of 8.6% in 2009 and 11.4% in 2010;
• Missouri had an overall unemployment rate of 8.5% in 2009 and 9.4% in 2010;
• Arizona had an overall unemployment rate of 8.3% in 2009 and 9.5% in 2010;
• Washington had an overall unemployment rate of 8.1% in 2009 and 9.5% in 2010;
• New Jersey had an overall unemployment rate of 8% in 2009 and 9.8% in 2010;
• Minnesota had an overall unemployment rate of 7.7% in 2009 and 7.3% in 2010;
• Maine had an overall unemployment rate of 7.7% in 2009 and 8.3% in 2010;
• Wisconsin had an overall unemployment rate of 7.7% in 2009 and 8.7% in 2010;
• New York had an overall unemployment rate of 7.5% in 2009 and 8.8% in 2010;
• Connecticut had an overall unemployment rate of 8.1% in 2009 and 9.5% in 2010;
• Delaware had an overall unemployment rate of 7.4% in 2009 and 9.2% in 2010;
• Massachusetts had an overall unemployment rate of 12% in 2009 in 2010;
• Colorado had an overall unemployment rate of 7.3% in 2009 and 7.7% in 2010;
• Alaska had an overall unemployment rate of 7.3% in 2009 and 8.5% in 2010;
• Pennsylvania had an overall unemployment rate of 7.2% in 2009 and 8.9% in 2010;
• Idaho had an overall unemployment rate of 6.9% in 2009 and 9.5% in 2010;
• Arkansas had an overall unemployment rate of 6.8% in 2009 and 7.7% in 2010;
• Texas had an overall unemployment rate of 6.8% in 2009 and 8.2% in 2010;
• Vermont had an overall unemployment rate of 6.7% in 2009 and 6.6% in 2010;
• Maryland had an overall unemployment rate of 6.4% in 2009 and 7.7% in 2010;
• West Virginia had an overall unemployment rate of 6.4% in 2009 and 9.5% in 2010;
• Hawaii had an overall unemployment rate of 6.3% in 2009 and 6.9% in 2010;
• Utah had an overall unemployment rate of 6.1% in 2009 and 7.1% in 2010;
• Virginia had an overall unemployment rate of 6.1% in 2009 and 7.2% in 2010;
• New Mexico had an overall unemployment rate of 6.1% in 2009 and 8.7% in 2010;
• Kansas had an overall unemployment rate of 6% in 2009 and 6.5% in 2010;
• Louisiana had an overall unemployment rate of 5.9% in 2009 and 7.7% in 2010;
• Montana had an overall unemployment rate of 5.7% in 2009 and 6.9% in 2010;
• Oklahoma had an overall unemployment rate of 5.5% in 2009 and 6.7% in 2010;
• New Hampshire had an overall unemployment rate of 5.5% in 2009 and 7.1% in 2010;
• Iowa had an overall unemployment rate of 5.3% in 2009 and 6.7% in 2010;
• Wyoming had an overall unemployment rate of 4.8% in 2009 and 7.5% in 2010;
• South Dakota had an overall unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2009 and 4.6% in 2010;
• Nebraska had an overall unemployment rate of 4.3% in 2009 and 4.8% in 2010; and
• North Dakota had an overall unemployment rate of 4.2% in 2009 and 4.1% in 2010.