Bob Marshall’s BLS Analysis; 6/11/12
May BLS Preface
*Special Note: I apologize for the lateness in getting this May BLS Analysis to you. I just returned from speaking at last week’s Fordyce Forum in Dallas, Texas. I also had the opportunity to enjoy the Texas hospitality accorded me during a day’s visit with Jeff Kaye at Kaye-Bassman (KBIC) where I also made a presentation and filmed two segments for their Next Level Exchange program (keep your eyes peeled for those future release dates). In any event, now is the time to take a look at May’s BLS numbers and their significance.
Preface
Over the past months, some of you have corresponded with me about these monthly BLS analyses and asked if it is OK to use them in your presentations. The answer is, of course, yes! That is why I spend the time to write down this information. I would encourage any of you who have that desire to weave any of the information I have printed below into your presentations. I write these analyses for the benefit of our recruitment industry in general and for the members of my email list in particular. So use this info as you deem appropriate.
I also write these monthly BLS analyses to not only counterbalance the negative/incorrect press reporting of our general economic state but, more than that, to remind all of my recruitment readers that, at the level we work, there is no unemployment and so we must recruit to find the candidates our client companies so desperately need!
So to my recruiter colleagues, get out there and do what your name implies…RECRUIT. When your client companies have unique and difficult positions to fill, they need you. When they are being picky, they need you. When they are longing for more production from fewer employees, they need you. Go fill those needs. These should be the halcyon days in the recruitment arena!
Finally, always remember that we are not in an HR business, but in a ‘circumventing the time factor in the hiring sequence’ business—and adding value to our client companies
Americans Cling to Jobs as U.S. Workforce Dynamism Fades
Below, I have parceled out some significant segments from a Bloomberg article written by Rich Miller on June 7th:
Spooked by the severity of the recession and stuck with underwater home mortgages, Americans are less inclined to leave their jobs and less willing to strike out on their own to build businesses, government data show. Even with swelling profits, companies are holding back on hiring, complaining that they can’t find skilled workers for positions they do have open.
As a result, the labor market is losing some of the dynamism for which it’s long been known. And the trend predates the recession: An aging population and the growth of two-income households have reduced Americans’ mobility to about half of what it once was, while technological gains and globalization have led to a loss of middle-income jobs. The economic slump only exacerbated the loss of vigor.
–Bouncing Back
Many industries — from leisure and hospitality to professional and business services — have increased their payrolls since the recession ended in June 2009, according to Labor Department figures. Three of the areas most affected by the slump — construction, financial services and government — still lag behind.
Manufacturing has added almost a half-million jobs since the start of 2010 after shedding more than six million in the two decades before. Lower energy costs in the U.S. — courtesy of a surge in natural gas production — and rising wages overseas, particularly in China, are contributing to what James Paulsen, chief investment strategist in Minneapolis at Wells Capital Management, calls a “manufacturing renaissance.”
–In Middle
Americans at the top and bottom of the income scale have benefited the most from the improvement in the labor market. Those in the middle have stayed behind. Employees making above- average wages, including doctors and energy-industry workers, and those at the other extreme, including home-health aides and restaurant staff, have seen outsized gains in hiring since the jobs upturn began in 2010, according to economists at Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
That continues a decades-long trend that picked up speed during the recession. Academic economists Nir Jaimovich and Henry Siu found that 95 percent of the jobs lost during the slump were among workers who carried out routine assignments that could be easily automated. These jobs, which include office and administrative roles, bank tellers and machine operators, disappeared during the contraction and show “no recovery to date,” Jaimovich, a professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Siu of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said in a paper published on March 31.
–More With Less
“Companies have been driving, and continue to drive, for increased productivity, to do more with less, and the tool to do that is technology improvement,” said Jonas Prising, president of the Americas for Milwaukee-based ManpowerGroup, the world’s second-largest provider of temporary workers. “What are getting squeezed are the well-paying jobs with lower skill levels that used to give a middle-class income.”
Technological change has been a boon for those with the skills to exploit it. Job openings in the computer and mathematical fields outnumbered job seekers by almost four to one in April, according to the New York-based Conference Board.
–Uneven Recovery
The jobs recovery also has been uneven geographically. Only four states — Alaska, North Dakota, Texas and Louisiana, all beneficiaries of the energy boom — have reached or surpassed their previous peaks in employment, according to an analysis by economist Steven Frable of consultants IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. Some others, including New York and West Virginia, are close.
Sixteen states still have fewer than 95 percent of their prerecession job levels, Frable said in a report on May 21. Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Nevada are behind previous peaks by 7 percent or more.
Unemployment rates also vary widely — from 11.7 percent in Nevada, one of the regions most hurt by the real estate bust, to 3 percent in North Dakota, the center of the shale gas expansion and the state whose economic health improved the most last year, according to the Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States.
–Staying Put
In the past, such geographic disparities would have been ironed out as Americans flocked to where the jobs were. Labor mobility has long been a major source of strength for the U.S. jobs market when compared with Europe.
That is less the case today. About one in 10 Americans currently move each year, according to James Manyika, director of the McKinsey Global Institute, the research unit of consultants McKinsey & Co. That’s well below the roughly one in five average that prevailed from 1945 through about 1990, he said.
The percentage of Americans who changed residences between 2010 and 2011 fell to a record low of 11.6 percent, from 12.5 percent the previous year, according to Census Bureau figures. That compares with 17 percent in the recession of 1990-91.
The image “of the highly mobile American worker is not as true as it used to be,” Manyika said.
–Dual-Incomes
The rise of the dual-income family is one reason, he said: When both partners are working it’s harder to coordinate a move. More recently, the collapse in house prices has played a role in damping mobility, he added, although Davis said that research suggests the impact of that is small. More than 11 million households owed more on their mortgages than their homes were worth in the fourth quarter of last year, according to data provider CoreLogic, and would face losses if they opted to sell to move elsewhere for work.
While Americans are more willing to leave their jobs for other opportunities than they were at the depth of the recession, they still have a way to go before they regain the confidence they exhibited prior to the downturn.
The so-called QUIT RATIO — which measures the number of people voluntarily leaving their jobs as a proportion of total employment — stood at 1.6 percent in March. That’s up from a low of 1.2 percent almost three years ago, yet still well below the 2.3 percent peak seen in late 2006.
–Not Changing
“We just haven’t had people changing jobs enough,” said Betsey Stevenson, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School in Philadelphia and a former chief economist at the Labor Department. “We need to see people have the confidence to quit their job and find a better one and create an opening for someone else.”
The jobs recovery hasn’t been strong enough to convince many Americans to re-enter the labor force and start looking for work again. The labor participation rate — the share of working-age people holding a job or seeking one — stood at 63.8 percent in May, just above a three-decade low of 63.6 percent the previous month.
A portion of those who have dropped out of the labor force have gone on disability. The number of workers receiving Social Security Disability Insurance from the government jumped more than 20 percent to 8.7 million in May from 7.1 million in December 2007, Social Security data show.
–Fewer Startups
The dwindling dynamism of the U.S. labor market also shows up in the willingness of Americans to strike out on their own. The nation’s business start-up rate — the number of new firms as a proportion of all companies — fell to a record low of around 8 percent in 2010, according to the latest data available from the Census Bureau. That’s down from about 11 percent in 2006, before the economic slump, and a high of 13 percent in the 1980s.
The longer-run decline is partly due to the aging of the population, according to the University of Chicago’s Davis. More recently, tighter credit in the aftermath of the financial crisis also may be discouraging start-ups, he said.
That’s got big implications for the labor market. Research by University of Maryland Professor John Haltiwanger found that start-ups and young firms account for a disproportionate share of job creation, exhibiting what he calls an “up or out” dynamic — they either grow fast or they fail.
It’s that kind of vibrancy that has helped make the U.S. economy great, said Stevenson.
“What makes the U.S. different is that we are mobile,” she said. “We find where we are going to be the most productive and we get there.” Signs that such dynamism is on the wane are “very concerning.”
Small & Mid-sized Companies account for 93.2% of the job growth in May!
Every month, when I read the new ADP National Employment Report*, I am reminded of the job creation impact that small and mid-sized companies have on our economy. This month’s report, covering May 2012 employment, was no exception.
*Re: BLS and ADP; trying to reconcile government reports with private industry reports is a bit of a challenge—especially when Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, processes it’s info in a different time frame (12th of the month) and pulls from roughly 344,000 business clients representing more than 21,000,000 US employees. So, it’s a little bit like comparing apples with oranges. At the best, the ADP report has a mixed track record at presaging the government’s monthly report. That being said…
On May 31st, ADP reported that employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 133,000 from April to May on a seasonally adjusted basis. This was up by 20,000 from the previous month. The estimated gain from March to February was revised down modestly, from the initial estimate of 119,000 to a revised estimate of 113,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector increased 132,000 in May, after rising a revised 119,000 in April. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector increased 1,000 in May. Manufacturing employment dropped 2,000 jobs, the second consecutive monthly decline.
Construction employment fell by1,000 in May, its second consecutive decline following six monthly advances that likely were driven in part by unusually warm weather during the winter months
Employment in the financial services sector increased 8,000 in May, extending this sector’s consecutive advances to ten months.
But here is the real good news for those of you who include small and mid-sized companies in your specialty niches (as I strongly recommend):
In May…
Small business (those with up to 49 employees) payrolls rose +67,000, up from the 58,000 jobs created among small businesses last month.
Medium business (50-499 employees) payrolls rose +57,000. This is identical to the +57,000 in April. Of the 57,000 jobs created by medium-sized businesses, 2,000 jobs were created by the goods-producing sector and 55,000 jobs were created by the service-producing sector.
Large business (500+ employees) payrolls increased by +9,000. This is an increase from +4,000 in April. This follows increases of +22,000 in March, +20,000 in February, +20,000 in January, +37,000 in December and +12,000 in November and follows declines in October of and in September of .
So, the combined small and medium-sized company employment growth of 124,000 (up from 115,000 in April) accounted for a noteworthy 93.2% (down from 96.6% in April, but up from 89.5% in March and from 90.7% in February and down from 98.2% in January, but up from 88.6% in December) of the total 133,000 (up from 119,000 in April, but down from 209,000 in March and from 216,000 in February) job growth in May, 2012.
Bottom-line: To my audience of recruiters, always remember this: Our ‘bread and butter’, especially on the contingency side of the house, has historically been, and continues to be, small and medium-sized client companies. Along with the large companies, these companies need to be in your marketing mix!
Job Openings and Structural Unemployment
On May 8th, the BLS reported that there were 3,700,000 job openings on the last business day of March—an increase from the 3,500,000 job openings announced for January and February. (The next BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey results for April 2012 are scheduled to be released on June 19th). The 3,700,000 reflects published openings comprised of jobs that are advertised either online or in print format. (The Conference Board, on May 30th, released a report that online advertised vacancies, in the US alone, dipped 45,700 in May to 4,714,800—the Supply/Demand rate stands at 2.6 unemployed for every vacancy, and the number of unemployed was 7.7 million above the number of advertised vacancies – compared to 10 million above in the fall of 2011). As we recruiters know, that 3,700,000 number only represents 20% of the jobs currently available in the marketplace. The other 80% of job openings are unpublished and are filled through networking or word of mouth or by using a RECRUITER. So, those 3,700,000 published job openings now become a total of 18,500,000 published and hidden job orders.
In May there were 12,720,000 unemployed workers. What was the main reason why those job openings were open? Two Words: Structural Unemployment. If we can’t figure out how to educate and/or reeducate those 12,720,000 unemployed, then they will keep reappearing each month as a BLS unemployment statistic—as they have. In the meantime, our recruitment marketplace flourishes!
The May BLS Analysis
The unemployment rate is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a division of the US Department of Labor. The rate is found by dividing the number of unemployed by the total civilian labor force. On June 1st, 2012, the BLS published the most recent unemployment rate for May, 2012 of 8.2% (actually it is 8.206, up .108% from 8.098 in April, 2012). The unemployment rate was determined by dividing the unemployed of 12,720,000 (up from the month before by 220,000—since May, 2011 (one year ago), this number has decreased by 1,172,000) by the total civilian labor force of 155,007,000 (down by 642,000 from April, 2012). Since May 2011, our total civilian labor force has increased by 1,307,000 people.
(The continuing ‘Strange BLS Math’ saga): The BLS continues to increase the total Civilian Working Population—this time to 242,966,000; up from April by 182,000; up from March by 180,000; up from February by 169,000; up from January by 335,000; and up from December by 2,020,000. But this month they have slightly increased the Civilian Labor Force to 155,007,000 (up from April by 642,000). Subtract the second number from the first number and you get 87,958,000 ‘Not in Labor Force’. That is an increase of 1,261,000 since December 2011—5 months ago. In one year’s time, since May 2011, 2,345,000 US workers have vanished! Where did those 2,345,000 potential workers disappear to? That’s 7.5% of the entire US population of 312,781,000. I am assuming they still have to eat and pay their rent. They still need money, don’t they? Because of these new numbers, our Employment Participation Rate—the population 16 years and older working or seeking work—is now at 63.8%, just two-tenths higher that last month’s historic lowest level since December 1981!) Final take on these numbers: Fewer people looking for work will always bring down the unemployment rate).
And finally, it is important to note that the final estimate of our GDP number for the final quarter of 2011 rests at 3.0%, which is precisely the number we must maintain in order to keep up with our population growth and prevent the unemployment rate from rising. If we were experiencing strong job growth, our GDP would be higher. Most economists see overall growth in the economy slowing during the first half of this year. On May 31st, our ‘second’ GDP estimate for the first Quarter 2012 came in at 1.9% (down from the initial estimate of 2.2%). . This is in line with a recent survey by the National Association for Business Economics, a group of private economists that predicted gross domestic product would drop from 3.0% in the fourth quarter of last year to around 2.0 percent in the first quarter of 2012, gradually picking up to 2.4 percent in the second quarter.
Anyway, back to the point I am trying to make. On the surface, these new unemployment rates are scary, but let’s look a little deeper and consider some other numbers.
The unemployment rate includes all types of workers—construction workers, government workers, etc. We recruiters, on the other hand, mainly place management, professional and related types of workers. That unemployment rate in May dropped significantly to 4.0% (this rate is up from last month’s 3.7%). Or, you can look at it another way. We usually place people who have college degrees. That unemployment rate in May also dropped strongly to 3.9% (this rate is down from last month’s 4.0% and is the lowest rate in 40 months!).
Now stay with me a little longer. This gets better. It’s important to understand (and none of the pundits mention this) that the unemployment rate, for many reasons, will never be 0%, no matter how good the economy is. Without boring you any more than I have already, let me add here that Milton Friedman (the renowned Nobel Prize-winning economist), is famous for the theory of the “natural rate of unemployment” (or the term he preferred, NAIRU, which is the acronym for Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). Basically, this theory states that full employment presupposes an ‘unavoidable and acceptable’ unemployment rate of somewhere between 4-6% with it. Economists often settle on 5%, although the “New Normal Unemployment Rate” has been suggested to fall at 6.7%.
Nevertheless (if you will allow me to apply a ‘macro’ concept to a ‘micro’ issue), if this rate is applied to our main category of Management, Professional and Related types of potential recruits, and/or our other main category of College-Degreed potential recruits, we find no unemployment! None! Zilch!
THE IMPORTANCE OF GDP
“The economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor…Translated into national terms, this first principle means that our real objective is to maximize production. In doing this, full employment—that is, the absence of involuntary idleness—becomes a necessary by-product. But production is the end, employment merely the means. We cannot continuously have the fullest production without full employment. But we can very easily have full employment without full production.”
—Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt, Chapter X, “The Fetish of Full Employment”
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT EVER TO BE ZERO
‘Unemployment’ is an emotional ‘trigger’ word. It conjures up negative thoughts. But it is important to realize that, while we want everyone who wants a job to have the opportunity to work, unemployment can never be zero and, in fact, can be disruptive to an economy if it gets too close to zero. Very low unemployment can actually hurt the economy by creating an upward pressure on wages which invariably leads to higher production costs and prices. This can lead to inflation. The lowest the unemployment rate has been in the US was 2.5%. That was in May and June 1953 when the economy overheated due to the Korean War. When this bubble burst, it kicked off the Recession of 1953. A healthy economy will always include some percentage of unemployment.
There are five main sources of unemployment:
1. Cyclical (or demand-deficient) unemployment – This type of unemployment fluctuates with the business cycle. It rises during a recession and falls during the subsequent recovery. Workers who are most affected by this type of unemployment are laid off during a recession when production volumes fall and companies use lay-offs as the easiest way to reduce costs. These workers are usually rehired, some months later, when the economy improves.
2. Frictional unemployment – This comes from the normal turnover in the labor force. This is where new workers are entering the workforce and older workers are retiring and leaving vacancies to be filled by the new workers or those re-entering the workforce. This category includes workers who are between jobs.
3. Structural unemployment – This happens when the skills possessed by the unemployed worker don’t match the requirements of the opening—whether those be in characteristics and skills or in location. This can come from new technology or foreign competition (e.g., foreign outsourcing). This type of unemployment usually lasts longer than frictional unemployment because retraining, and sometimes relocation, is involved. Occasionally jobs in this category can just disappear overseas.
4. Seasonal unemployment – This happens when the workforce is affected by the climate or time of year. Construction workers and agricultural workers aren’t needed as much during the winter season because of the inclement weather. On the other hand, retail workers experience an increase in hiring shortly before, and during, the holiday season, but can be laid off shortly thereafter.
5. Surplus unemployment – This is caused by minimum wage laws and unions. When wages are set at a higher level, unemployment can often result. Why? To keep within the same payroll budget, the company must let go of some workers to pay the remaining workers a higher salary.
Other factors influencing the unemployment rate:
1. Length of unemployment – Some studies indicate that an important factor influencing a workers decision to accept a new job is directly related to the length of the unemployment benefit they are receiving. In early 2009, eligibility for unemployment benefits was extended from 26 weeks to as much as 99 weeks. Studies suggest that this reduces the incentive of the unemployed to seek and accept less desirable jobs.
2. Changes in GDP – Since hiring workers takes time, the improvement in the unemployment rate usually lags behind the improvement in the GDP.
WHERE RECRUITERS PLACE
Now back to the issue at hand, namely the recruiting, and placing, of professionals and those with college degrees.
If you take a look at the past few years of unemployment in the May “management, professional and related” types of worker category, you will find the following rates:
May 2011 4.4%
May 2010 4.5%
May 2009 4.6%
May 2008 2.6%
May 2007 1.9%
May 2006 2.0%
May 2005 2.4%
May 2004 2.8%
May 2003 3.0%
May 2002 3.1%
Here are the rates, during those same time periods, for “college-degreed” workers:
May 2011 4.5%
May 2010 4.7%
May 2009 4.8%
May 2008 2.2%
May 2007 2.0%
May 2006 2.1%
May 2005 2.4%
May 2004 2.9%
May 2003 3.1%
May 2002 3.0%
So, while May’s 2012 rates for these two categories, at 4.0% and 3.9% respectively, are not huge when looking at the big picture, it’s not anything to be very happy about either—especially when we see how well we had it during the 2002-2008 time frame. But regardless, these unemployment numbers usually include a good number of job hoppers, job shoppers and rejects. We, on the other hand, are engaged by our client companies to find those candidates who are happy, well-appreciated, making good money and currently working and we entice them to move for even better opportunities—especially where new technologies are expanding. This will never change. And that is why, no matter the unemployment rate, we still need to market to find the best job orders and we still need to recruit to find the best candidates.
Below are the numbers for the over 25 year olds:
Less that H.S. diploma – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
10.9% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
12.0% |
12.6% |
13.3% |
14.8% |
15.5% |
15.5% |
15.4% |
15.6% |
15.0% |
15.5% |
15.0% |
15.3% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
15.2% |
15.6% |
14.5% |
14.7% |
15.0% |
14.1% |
13.8% |
14.0% |
15.4% |
15.3% |
15.7% |
15.3% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
14.2% |
13.9% |
13.7% |
14.6% |
14.7% |
14.3% |
15.0% |
14.3% |
14.0% |
13.8% |
13.2% |
13.8% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
13.1% |
12.9% |
12.6% |
12.5% |
13.0% |
H.S. Grad; no college – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
7.7% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
8.1% |
8.3% |
9.0% |
9.3% |
10.0% |
9.8% |
9.4% |
9.7% |
10.8% |
11.2% |
10.4% |
10.5% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
10.1% |
10.5% |
10.8% |
10.6% |
10.9% |
10.8% |
10.1% |
10.3% |
10.0% |
10.1% |
10.0% |
9.8% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
9.4% |
9.5% |
9.5% |
9.7% |
9.5% |
10.0% |
9.3% |
9.6% |
9.7% |
9.6% |
8.8% |
8.7% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
8.4% |
8.3% |
8.0% |
7.9% |
8.1% |
Some College; or AA/AS – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
5.6% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
6.2% |
7.0% |
7.2% |
7.4% |
7.7% |
8.0% |
7.9% |
8.2% |
8.5% |
9.0% |
9.0% |
9.0% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
8.5% |
8.0% |
8.2% |
8.3% |
8.3% |
8.2% |
8.3% |
8.7% |
9.1% |
8.5% |
8.7% |
8.1% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
8.0% |
7.8% |
7.4% |
7.5% |
8.0% |
8.4% |
8.3% |
8.2% |
8.4% |
8.3% |
7.6% |
7.7% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
7.2% |
7.3% |
7.5% |
7.6% |
7.9% |
BS/BS + – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
3.7% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
3.8% |
4.1% |
4.3% |
4.4% |
4.8% |
4.7% |
4.7% |
4.7% |
4.9% |
4.7% |
4.9% |
5.0% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
4.9% |
5.0% |
4.9% |
4.9% |
4.7% |
4.4% |
4.5% |
4.6% |
4.4% |
4.7% |
5.1% |
4.8% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
4.2% |
4.3% |
4.4% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.3% |
4.3% |
4.2% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
4.1% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.0% |
3.9% |
Management, Professional & Related – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
3.3% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
4.1% |
3.9% |
4.2% |
4.0% |
4.6% |
5.0% |
5.5% |
5.4% |
5.2% |
4.7% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
5.0% |
4.8% |
4.7% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
4.9% |
5.0% |
5.1% |
4.4% |
4.5% |
4.7% |
4.6% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
4.7% |
4.4% |
4.3% |
4.0% |
4.4% |
4.7% |
5.0% |
4.9% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
4.3% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
3.7% |
4.0% |
Or employed…(,000)
|
12/08 |
|
52,548 |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
52,358 |
52,196 |
52,345 |
52,597 |
52,256 |
51,776 |
51,810 |
51,724 |
52,186 |
52,981 |
52,263 |
52,131 |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
52,159 |
52,324 |
52,163 |
52,355 |
51,839 |
51,414 |
50,974 |
50,879 |
51,757 |
51,818 |
52,263 |
51,704 |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
51,866 |
52,557 |
53,243 |
53,216 |
52,778 |
52,120 |
51,662 |
51,997 |
52,665 |
52,864 |
52,787 |
52,808 |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
53,152 |
53,208 |
53,771 |
54,055 |
54,156 |
And unemployed…(,000)
|
12/08 |
|
1,802 |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
2,238 |
2,137 |
2,292 |
2,164 |
2,373 |
2,720 |
3,034 |
2,925 |
2,859 |
2,593 |
2,530 |
2,509 |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
2,762 |
2,637 |
2,600 |
2,464 |
2,450 |
2,644 |
2,687 |
2,762 |
2,381 |
2,417 |
2,525 |
2,468 |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
2,557 |
2,435 |
2,381 |
2,196 |
2,419 |
2,598 |
2,742 |
2,671 |
2,450 |
2,410 |
2,336 |
2,303 |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
2,410 |
2,336 |
2,330 |
2,062 |
2,275 |
For a total Management, Professional & Related workforce of…(,000)
|
12/08 |
|
54,350 |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
54,596 |
54,333 |
54,637 |
54,761 |
54,629 |
54,496 |
54,844 |
54,649 |
55,045 |
55,574 |
54,793 |
54,640 |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
54,921 |
54,961 |
54,763 |
54,819 |
54,289 |
54,058 |
53,661 |
53,641 |
54,138 |
54,235 |
54,788 |
54,172 |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
54,423 |
54,992 |
55,624 |
55,412 |
55,197 |
54,718 |
54,404 |
54,668 |
55,115 |
55,274 |
55,123 |
55,111 |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
55,562 |
55,544 |
56,101 |
56,117 |
56,431 |
Management, Business and Financial Operations – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
3.9% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
4.6% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.6% |
4.8% |
4.9% |
5.0% |
5.2% |
5.4% |
5.4% |
5.2% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
5.2% |
5.1% |
5.4% |
5.1% |
4.9% |
4.8% |
4.7% |
4.9% |
4.3% |
5.0% |
5.5% |
5.7% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
5.3% |
4.9% |
4.8% |
4.6% |
4.9% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
4.7% |
4.6% |
4.4% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
4.0% |
4.1% |
Professional & Related – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
2.9% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
3.7% |
3.5% |
3.9% |
3.6% |
4.2% |
5.1% |
6.0% |
5.6% |
5.2% |
4.2% |
4.1% |
4.2% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
4.9% |
4.6% |
4.3% |
4.1% |
4.3% |
5.0% |
5.2% |
5.3% |
4.4% |
4.1% |
4.1% |
3.8% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
4.3% |
4.1% |
3.9% |
3.5% |
4.0% |
4.9% |
5.3% |
5.1% |
4.4% |
4.1% |
4.0% |
4.0% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
4.2% |
4.1% |
4.0% |
3.5% |
4.0% |
Sales & Related – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
7.0% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
7.7% |
8.4% |
8.9% |
8.6% |
8.9% |
9.1% |
8.3% |
8.7% |
8.9% |
9.5% |
9.1% |
8.9% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
10.1% |
10.2% |
9.7% |
9.2% |
9.6% |
9.4% |
10.1% |
9.0% |
9.4% |
9.1% |
8.8% |
8.3% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
9.3% |
9.0% |
8.5% |
8.5% |
9.4% |
9.7% |
9.4% |
8.6% |
9.4% |
8.2% |
7.8% |
7.7% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
|
8.2% |
7.9% |
8.1% |
7.6% |
7.9% |