Before you decide to relocate to another state because you read somewhere that it’s the “best state to find a job,” it’s best to do your homework. This means, find out what types of jobs are actually available and why. You might be surprised by what you discover.

The Huffington Post published an article today titled “The Top 11 States To find a Job,” but it turns out that many of the jobs are low-paying and mostly available in three main industries: agriculture, natural resource extraction, and federal government work.

Gallup has published its latest Job Creation Index, providing a state-by-state comparison of which states predominately hired, fired, and stood pat in 2010. As the U.S. job market struggled, the highest-ranking states relied on one of three industries: agriculture, natural resource extraction, or federal government work.

But not all jobs — or state economies — are created equal, and many of the states on Gallup’s list often create low-paying jobs. Arkansas, for example, ranks fifth best on Gallup’s Job Creation Index, but its median household income is a $39,392, good for second-worst in the country. Maryland, on the other hand, might rank lower on the index, but it has the third-highest median household income in the country.

Gallup based its rankings on nearly 200,000 interviews conducted only with employed adults. Interviewees said whether their company was hiring, not changing in size or laying off workers. The Job Creation Index number represents that difference between “the percentage reporting an expansion and the percentage reporting a reduction in their workforces.”

If you’re still interested in finding out what the states on the Gallup list have to offer, the 11 states below made the cut:

11. Pennsylvania
2010 Job Creation Index: 13
Percent Hiring: 31.2
Percent Letting Go: 18.8
Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $39,578 (19/51)
Median Household Income: $49,829 (26/51)

10. Iowa
2010 Job Creation Index: 13
Percent Hiring: 29.9
Percent Letting Go: 17.1
Unemployment Rate: 6.1% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $36,751 (28/51)
Median Household Income: $50,422 (23/51)

9. Oklahoma
2010 Job Creation Index: 14
Percent Hiring: 31.7
Percent Letting Go: 18.0
Unemployment Rate: 6.8% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $35,268 (34/51)
Median Household Income: $45,507 (40/51)

8. Texas
2010 Job Creation Index: 14
Percent Hiring: 32.1
Percent Letting Go: 18.1
Unemployment Rate: 8.3% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $36,484 (29/51)
Median Household Income: $47,143 (35/51)

7. Maryland
2010 Job Creation Index: 15
Percent Hiring: 34.3
Percent Letting Go: 19.1
Unemployment Rate: 7.4% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $48,285 (5/51)
Median Household Income: $65,183 (3/51)

6. West Virginia
2010 Job Creation Index: 15
Percent Hiring: 32.5
Percent Letting Go: 17.1
Unemployment Rate: 9.7% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $32,219 (45/51)
Median Household Income: $40,627 (49/51)

5. Arkansas
2010 Job Creation Index: 17
Percent Hiring: 32.5
Percent Letting Go: 16.0
Unemployment Rate: 7.9% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $31,946 (46/51)
Median Household Income: $39,392 (50/51)

4. Alaska
2010 Job Creation Index: 19
Percent Hiring: 35.1
Percent Letting Go: 15.8
Unemployment Rate: 7.9% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $42,603 (10/51)
Median Household Income: $63,505 (5/51)

3. South Dakota
2010 Job Creation Index: 21
Percent Hiring: 29.9
Percent Letting Go: 8.9
Unemployment Rate: 4.7% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $36,935 (26/51)
Median Household Income: $48,416 (29/51)

2. Washington D.C.
2010 Job Creation Index: 21
Percent Hiring: 29.9
Percent Letting Go: 8.9
Unemployment Rate: 4.7% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $36,935 (26/51)
Median Household Income: $48,416 (29/51)

1. South Dakota
2010 Job Creation Index: 29
Percent Hiring: 37.6
Percent Letting Go: 8.2
Unemployment Rate: 3.8% (Dec. 2010)
GDP Per Capita: $39,530 (20/51)
Median Household Income: $49,450 (27/51)

Although economists predicted that the unemployment rate would increase to 9.5 percent, the unemployment rate went in the other direction, dropping 9 percent last month from 9.4 percent in December. Many would consider this good news, but a number of skeptical analysts don’t see it this way. The government reported that 36,000 new jobs were created last month—the fewest in four months. And analysts say this might not be a sign that that economic recovery is picking up pace.

Jim O’Sullivan, chief economist at MF Global, said that the market is discounting the big drop in the unemployment rate. “The information value of this report is limited because it was obviously affected by the weather,” he said.

The unemployment rate fell despite the small number of new jobs because some people who are out of work gave up looking for a new job, Mr. O’Sullivan said.

Andrew Wilkinson, senior market analyst at Interactive Brokers, said: “It’s extremely difficult to see beyond the snow to understand today’s data.”

Fortunately, during a recent speech the National Press Club, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed expects the economy to improve this year and inflation to remain low.

Although the healthcare career field is experiencing explosive growth as well as other career fields such as engineering, accounting, and customer service, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President, Charles Evans, says:

The central bank is falling short of its mandate for full employment and he hasn’t decided whether its $600 billion Treasury-purchase program should be expanded. We’re monitoring the economy and inflationary pressures, and so I’m keeping an open mind about the $600 billion and beyond that, the hurdle is pretty high for adjusting the program.

On a positive note, Evans says inflation probably won’t rise for a few years and “long-term interest rates appear to reflect improving financial and economic conditions.”

If you take a look at Census Bureau data on why any given industry may experience job growth over a period of 10 years, retirement is usually listed as one of the reasons why certain fields will have an impressive percentage of job openings for the decade. But according to a new analysis by a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, “the median length of time on the job rose markedly during the recession, as fearful workers—particularly baby boomers—clung to their existing positions and a few new employees were hired on.”

The analysis, by Craig Copeland, is based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, which asks Americans about their job tenure every two years.

As of January 2010, workers reported they had been on the job a median of 5.2 years, up from 4.9 years in 2006. In 2010, 29.8% of all workers said they had been on the job for 10 years or more, up from 26.7% in 2006.

Among men aged 60 to 64 still working full time, 56.8% had held their current job for 10 years or more, up from 48.1% in January 2006 and 52.4% in January 2008. Such numbers indicate that aging boomers understand that finding a new job is tough for older folks. Indeed, according to a new analysis by the AARP of Department of Labor Statistics’ average duration of unemployment for older laid-off job seekers rose to 44.9 weeks in October.

Even in 2008, “people were switching careers,’’ says Copeland. “We even had a program where we were looking at how large employers were trying to retain their employees. But once the recession hit, that wasn’t a problem. Workers weren’t retiring.”

Other scary news for older Gen Y’ers and graduating seniors is: baby boomers are not the only workers holding on to their jobs. All workers are holding on to their jobs to avoid competing with, well, college graduates, older Gen Y’ers, and the more than 4.2 million unemployed workers currently looking for jobs.

Although the recession is officially over, Copeland is quick to remind Americans that, “the unemployment rate has barely budged; it stood at 9.8% in November compared to 10% the year before.”

For more information about the job outlook for all careers for the 2008-2018 decade, visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook at  http://www.bls.gov/oco/.

The high unemployment rate continues to have an adverse affect even on those who still have jobs.

The furloughs that popped up during the recession are being replaced by a highly unusual tactic: actual cuts in pay.

Local and state governments, as well as some companies, are squeezing their employees to work the same amount for less money in cost-saving measures that are often described as a last-ditch effort to avoid layoffs.

A new report on Tuesday showed a slight dip in overall wages and salaries in June, caused partly by employees working fewer hours.

Though average hourly pay is still higher than when the recession began, the new wage rollbacks feed worries that the economy has weakened and could even be at risk of deflation. That is when the prices of goods and assets fall and people withhold spending as they wait for prices to drop further, a familiar idea to those following the recent housing market.

When it comes to public jobs, many of these cuts may be justified, as we’ve seen many examples of inefficiencies in the public sector. In that sense some of these adjustments are good for the overall economy in the long run.

That said, many of these cuts are painful, and this won’t help get the economy moving in the short term.