Bob Marshall’s BLS Analysis; 4/6/12
March BLS 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!
And finally, always keep in mind 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.
Job Growth Concentrated In Mid-Wage and Lower-Wage Industries
For those of you who are worried that the current new job creation is affecting our recruitment potential, keep this in mind: On Friday, April 6th, it was reported that this new job growth is concentrated not where we place, but in mid and lower wage jobs. Here is what the article said:
“There has been a lot of optimistic commendation over the jobs created in the US markets over the past six months. However, while there has been growth, it is mostly in low wage paying jobs.
Joseph Brusuelas, senior economist at Bloomberg LP, said on Thursday that more than half of all the jobs created during the past six months have been in low-paying industries such as retail and temporary help. The jobs are lousy, and there aren’t enough of them.”
This is the reason why in spite of 1.2 million new jobs being created over the last six months, it does not reflect on the economy’s growth. Brusuelas said that the low paying jobs were not translating into better spending and the low wages have not been able to keep up with rise in prices.
According to the Labor department wage growth has not been able to keep pace with consumer price inflation. The Labor Department says that the latter rose 2.9 percent over the year in February. This means that even though the spending capacity increases, earnings are in reality shrinking – for they have to pay more for everything.
Annette Bernhardt, policy co-director for the National Employment Law Project said, “Growth has been concentrated in mid-wage and lower-wage industries. By contrast, higher-wage industries showed weak growth and even net losses.”
Bernhardt clarified that in the first seven months of 2010, 76% of the jobs did not go to high wage industries, but were concentrated amongst low to mid-wage industries. Compared to the national hourly wage of $22.60 they earned a substantially low between $8.92 and $15 an hour.
Bernhardt’s study has revealed that, “High-wage sectors — made up of jobs that pay between $17.43 and $31 an hour — accounted for nearly half the jobs lost during the recession, but have produced only 5% of the new jobs since hiring resumed.” One reason advocated was that there are not too many skilled people to hire.
Briefing.com reports that economist believe that nonfarm payrolls grew by 200,000 jobs, slightly lower than the 227,000 jobs added in February. Payroll processing firm reported that in March 209,000 will be the jobs created by the private sector. The unemployment rate will remain steady at 8.3 percent.
What is a worrying concern is whether the trend toward low-wage jobs will continue or whether the low-wage sectors will lead the way for employment in high wage sectors. Experts say it’s too soon to tell.”
Pareto’s Principle
Our client companies continue to be unrealistic in who they hire. They want the ‘perfect’ match. Now is the time to remind them of ‘Pareto’s Principle’, sometime called ‘The 80/20 Rule’.
Ron Allen, my favorite CFO, once reminded me that we are in an 80/20 business—that indeed life was an 80/20 proposition. He said that every recruiter should use the following verbiage with their Hiring Manager (HM): “If the candidate I present to you is 80% right for the position, jump all over him or her and consider yourself the luckiest HM on the face of the planet because no match will ever be a 100% match.” And he recommended we use the following verbiage for the candidate: “If the position you are interviewing for is 80% right, jump all over it, because no position is ever going to be perfect. If it is 80% of what you are after, accept immediately and run to tell all of your family and friends just how lucky you have become.”
So remember, in recruiting as in life, 100% matches—the so-called ‘perfect matches’ or ‘perfect marriages’—do not exist. If you look for them in your JOs and candidates, you will constantly be frustrated and if you look for them in life, your life will be a tortuous and unfulfilling journey.
Adding Value
According to the ‘Multiple of Compensation Method’ of valuing an employee (Google it), an employee’s value to their company is often computed at five times their salary. So, for instance, if your Job Order calls for a salary of $100K, then the value that person should bring to your client company is $500K per year. Your service charge, on the other hand, is only 25% of their realistic first year’s earnings, which, in this case, is only $25K. Or, to look at it another way, your fee is only 5% of this position’s value to the client company and that’s only for the first year! The client company benefits from the $500K value each year the candidate remains employed. You get your fee only once. When you look at your fee structure in this way, you are definitely a bargain.
Conversely, taking the value of this position at $500K per year and realizing that there are 2080 work hours in a year, the client company is hemorrhaging $240 per hour for each hour that this position remains vacant. Think about it! That’s about $2,000 per workday, $10,000 per workweek, etc. Two and a half weeks with this position open will basically equal your fee, and the client company will still have that vacancy.
So, keep in mind as you read these analyses that you are in the hottest recruitment marketplace ever, if you conduct your business correctly. And that you are worth every penny you charge!
Small & Mid-sized Companies
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 March 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 April 4th, ADP reported that employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 209,000 from February to March on a seasonally adjusted basis. This was down by 21,000 from the previous month and up from the month before that by 27,000. Estimated gains for previous months were revised higher; the gain from December to January was revised up by 9,000 to 182,000, and the gain from January to February was revised up by 14,000 to 230,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector increased 164,000 in March after rising a revised 183,000 in February. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector rose 45,000 in March. Manufacturing employment added 23,000 jobs.
Employment in the construction industry grew by 13,000 in March, marking the sixth consecutive monthly gain in this sector. Employment in the financial services sector increased 8,000, marking the eighth consecutive monthly gain.
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 March…
Small business (those with up to 49 employees) payrolls rose +100,000, down from the 108,000 jobs created among small businesses last month.
Medium business (50-499 employees) payrolls rose +87,000. This is a decrease from +88,000 in February. Of the 87,000 jobs created by medium-sized businesses, 21,000 jobs were created by the goods-producing sector and 66,000 jobs were created by the service-producing sector.
Large business (500+ employees) payrolls increased by +22,000. This is an increase from +20,000 in February. This follows an increases of +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 187,000 (down from 196,000 in February) accounted for 89.5% (down from 90.7% in February and down from 98.2% in January, but up from 88.6% in December) of the total 209,000 (down from 216,000 in February) job growth in March, 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 March 13th, the BLS reported that there were 3,500,000 job openings on the last business day of January—up from 3,400,000 job openings announced for December. (The next job openings update will be released on April 10th.) The 3,500,000 reflects published openings comprised of jobs that are advertised either online or in print format. (The Conference Board, on April 2nd, released a report that approximately 4,669,600 jobs are advertised online in the US alone). As we recruiters know, that 3,500,000 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 3,500,000 published job openings now become a total of 17,500,000 published and hidden job orders.
In March there were 12,806,000 unemployed workers. Why were those job openings open? Two Words: Structural Unemployment. If we can’t figure out how to educate and/or reeducate those 12,806,000 unemployed, then they will keep reappearing each month as a BLS unemployment statistic—as they have. In the meantime, our recruitment marketplace flourishes!
Unseasonal adjustment
There are many theories swirling around that attempt to explain why the unemployment rate seems to be falling, while the economy still seems to be stumbling along. Indeed, the four quarterly GDP numbers for 2011 (0.4%; 1.3%; 1.8% and 3.0%) are nothing to write home about. (The first quarter 2012 GDP estimate is due to be released on April 27th.) Keep in mind, the economy needs to expand at about 3% just to keep the unemployment rate from rising. So, if that didn’t happen in 2011, why is the unemployment rate falling?
Here is an excerpt from a recent article that might help explain our conflicted numbers:
“Like many economic statistics, the government’s employment data is adjusted to try to factor out recurring seasonal trends, such as the surge in temporary hiring by retailers and the postal service during the holiday season. The purpose is to get a better idea of underlying, longer-lasting trends.
Some economists suspect that a statistical quirk in seasonal adjustments may have overstated the rebound in the job market. Because the 2007-09 recession was unusually deep, and the depth of it came in the winter months, the seasonal comparisons may now be skewed, according to Wells Fargo economist Joe Seydl.
The sharp drop in the employment rate also comes as many would-be job seekers have given up looking for work, which tends to lower the total percentage of those who are officially defined as unemployed. The labor participation rate has been falling steadily since the recession began in 2007 and has continued to fall since the economy began recovering in 2009.
Some of those who have given up are older workers who have been forced to retire earlier than they’d like. The biggest drop, though, has come from younger workers who have gone back to school, moved back home or cashed in their savings to travel the world before settling into a life of mortgage payments and retirement planning.
“Those two forces were pointing to lower labor force participation over the last few years, but now they’re pointing in opposite directions,” said Goldman Sachs economist Andrew Tilton. “That would mean that the number of people looking for jobs would be rising more quickly.”
As more people return to the labor force, the pace of job creation will have to pick up even further to keep the unemployment rate falling.
Some economists – including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke – don’t think that will happen unless the economy picks up a substantial head of steam from its current growth pace. The more likely outcome is that the jobless rate levels off or falls much more slowly than it has over the past 12 months.
“Further significant improvements in the unemployment rate will likely require a more-rapid expansion of production and demand from consumers and businesses,” Bernanke said.
Private economists concur. NABE’s (National Association for Business Economics) latest forecast of 45 leading business economists calls for the jobless rate this year to average 8.3 percent, its current level, and drop only slightly to 7.8 percent next year, based on expected slow economic growth.”
The March 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 April 6, 2012, the BLS published the most recent unemployment rate for March, 2012 of 8.2% (actually it is 8.192, down .077% from 8.269 in February, 2012). The unemployment rate was determined by dividing the unemployed of 12,673,000 (down from the month before by 133,000—since March, 2011 (one year ago), this number has decreased by 955,000) by the total civilian labor force of 154,707,000 (down by 164,000 from February, 2012). Since March 2011, our total civilian labor force has increased by 1,315,000 people.
(The continuing ‘Strange BLS Math’ saga): It seems the BLS continues to increase the total Civilian Working Population—this time to 242,604,000; up from February by 169,000; up from January by 335,000; and up from December by 2,020,000. And, they have decreased the Civilian Labor Force to 154,707,000 (down from February by 164,000). Subtract the second number from the first number and you get 87,897,000 ‘Not in Labor Force’. That is an increase of 1,200,000 since December 2011. Where did those 1,200,000 potential workers disappear to? 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%, which, other than in January 2012, is at its lowest level since January 1984—28 years ago! 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 now rests at 3.0%, which is precisely the number it 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. A recent survey by the National Association for Business Economics, a group of private economists, predicted gross domestic product would drop from its 3.0 percent pace in the fourth quarter of last year to 2.0 percent in the first quarter of 2012, gradually picking up to 2.4 percent in the second quarter, so stay tuned. The first quarter 2012 GDP numbers should tell us a lot.
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 March remained fixed at 4.2% (this rate is the same as last month’s 4.2%). Or, you can look at it another way. We usually place people who have college degrees. That unemployment rate in March also remained at 4.2% (this rate is the same as the last two month’s 4.2%).
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 March “management, professional and related” types of worker category, you will find the following rates
March 2011 4.3%
March 2010 4.7%
March 2009 4.2%
March 2008 2.1%
March 2007 1.8%
March 2006 2.1%
March 2005 2.3%
March 2004 2.7%
March 2003 2.9%
March 2002 2.8%
Here are the rates, during those same time periods, for “college-degreed” workers:
March 2011 4.4%
March 2010 4.9%
March 2009 4.3%
March 2008 2.1%
March 2007 1.8%
March 2006 2.2%
March 2005 2.4%
March 2004 2.9%
March 2003 3.1%
March 2002 2.8%
So, while March’s 2012’s rates for these two categories, both at 4.2%, 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 |
|
13.1% |
12.9% |
12.6% |
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 |
|
8.4% |
8.3% |
8.0% |
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 |
|
7.2% |
7.3% |
7.5% |
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 |
|
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
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 |
|
4.3% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
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 |
|
53,152 |
53,208 |
53,771 |
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 |
|
2,410 |
2,336 |
2,330 |
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 |
|
55,562 |
55,544 |
56,101 |
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 |
|
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
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 |
|
4.2% |
4.1% |
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 |
|
8.2% |
7.9% |
8.1% |