Bob Marshall’s February 2016 BLS Analysis for Recruiters; 3/4/16
February BLS Preface
TBMG Coaching Updates and News
Bob Marshall – Training/Coaching Updates:
Mike Gionta’s free 7th Annual Recruiting Firm Owner Telesummit, March 24, 2016
On Thursday afternoon, March 24th, at 2:15pm, Eastern Time, I will be presenting at Mike Gionta’s free 7th Annual Recruiting Firm Owner Telesummit. The Summit runs from March 22-25, 2016
The title of my presentation will be: Why Quitting a “Dead Horse” Candidate or Client Company is Good for Your Recruiting Business
There’s no travel, no time away from the office and Mike is giving access to all the sessions FREE. Space is limited. For more details, the speaker list and to register click on this link:
https://ysh91858.isrefer.com/go/summit16/bmars
Top Echelon, Free Recruiter Training Webinar, May 10, 2016
My next Top Echelon presentation will be on Tuesday afternoon, May 10, 2016, at 1pm, Eastern Time.
The exact title of my presentation will be determined at a later date.
Training Swing through Indianapolis in mid/late June, 2016
* Special Indiana Note: For those of you in the Indianapolis area, if you are interested in my in-office training (individual and desk-level) and are available for that training during mid/late June, please let me know for a special offer. Since I will be in Indianapolis anyway, I will offer a 50% discount on my usual fees and no charge for my airfare. First come, first served, so contact me for specific details as soon as possible. Thanks!
The Nebraska Association of Personnel Consultants (NAPC) Fall Seminar, Omaha, Nebraska, September 23, 2016
I will be presenting to the NAPC Fall Seminar on Friday, September 23rd, 2016, in Omaha, Nebraska. My presentations will run from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. The titles of the presentations will include: “3 Proven Methods to landing New Clients”; “How to Inject Urgency into the Candidate”; and “How to Inject Urgency into the Hiring Process”.
* Special Nebraska Note: For those of you in the Omaha area, if you are interested in my in-office training (individual and desk-level) and are available for that training during the weeks of September 19th and/or September 26th, please let me know for a special offer. Since I will be in Omaha for my NAPC presentation, I will offer a 50% discount on my usual fees and no charge for my airfare. First come, first served, so contact me for specific details as soon as possible. Thanks!
Taking the first step…
Over 35 years ago I began a career that turned out to be the most dynamic and rewarding professional move I have ever made. With the opportunity to earn an unlimited income at my fingertips, I began my career as a Recruiter.
Soon I became a student of the business and transitioned into Coaching. I traveled extensively and learned and listened and I packaged my material in a unique way. I studied many of the top producers in the recruiting industry and developed a series of training tools based on their proven success—training techniques that work time and time again.
I developed these tools and coaching techniques to help others achieve their goals as top producing professional recruiters. I continue to base all of my coaching and training tools on the same “nuts and bolts” approach I used as a recruiter.
I realize that taking that first step to engage a Coach to help you reach a higher level of production is not as easy as it sounds. After all, your training investment – and your time – are important and deserve every consideration. I share your feelings. I believe that how you approach your recruitment career matters…that you should get what you pay for, and then some…that you should enjoy your time with your Coach as you are benefiting from it…and that you should never settle for the ordinary.
If you are ready to take the first step, you can read descriptions of my coaching plans, and all of my products, on my website @ www.themarshallplan.org. Then, call me directly at 770-898-5550 or email me @ bob@themarshallplan.org.
Preface
Many of you continue to correspond with me about these monthly BLS analyses and have 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 assemble 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 distribution 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.
US adds 200,000 tech jobs in 2015, now almost 12% of private sector workforce
Daily News, March 1, 2016
The US technology industry added 198,156 jobs in 2015 when compared to 2014 for a total of more than 6,700,000 jobs, according to a report released today by CompTIA. The tech industry makes up approximately 7.1% of the overall GDP and 11.6% of the total private sector payroll.
Growth was again led by the IT services sector which added 105,400 jobs between 2014 and 2015, according to CompTIA. Next was the R&D, testing, and engineering services sector, which added 48,100 jobs.
“Much of this growth can be attributed to the current trends in cloud computing, mobility, automation and social technologies that are reshaping businesses large and small,” said Tim Herbert, senior VP, research and market intelligence, CompTIA. “Momentum behind the Internet of Things continues to grow, while the critical importance of cybersecurity shows no signs of abating.”
CompTIA also looked at tech employment by state. The largest jobs gains were recorded in:
• California: +59,500
• New York: +15,500
• Texas: +13,800
• Massachusetts: +11,700
• Florida: +11,400
The states with the highest concentration of tech workers in private sector employment were:
• Massachusetts: 9.8%
• Virginia: 9.5%
• Colorado: 9.0%
• Maryland: 8.6%
• California: 8.2%
The largest states by tech industry employment continued to be California, Texas and New York.
Robert Half index says Seattle is top career location
Daily News, February 25, 2016
Seattle ranks as the top career locations overall in the Robert Half Career City Index released today. The index, commissioned by Robert Half and developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit, based locations on four factors: Career prospects, cost of living, quality of life and cultural diversity.
Seattle delivered a strong performance in the career prospects and cost of living categories, which have the highest weights in the index.
The top 10 overall rankings and scores are:
1. Seattle: 56.7
2. Boston: 53.4
3. San Francisco Bay Area: 51.6
4. Washington, DC: 51.2
5. Raleigh: 50.9
6. Dallas: 50.2
7. Salt Lake City: 49.8
8. Denver: 49.2
9. Houston: 49.0
10. Des Moines: 48.1
A 2nd study, the Robert Half Relocation Survey, found most professionals are open to the idea of accepting a job in a new city. 67% of workers would consider relocating for a job, and 37% believe a move would improve their career prospects.
The workers polled reported the most important factors in deciding to relocate for a job are tied to money: A higher salary at 88% and a lower cost of living at 61% ranked substantially higher in importance than being closer to family and friends at 39%.
The Robert Half Relocation survey was conducted by an independent research firm and includes more than 1,000 US professionals.
Lack of experienced engineers is top hiring concern, survey finds
Daily News, February 22, 2016
As the demand for engineering talent continues to increase, employers struggle to find candidates with the work experience they need, according to the Engineering Talent Supply and Demand survey released today by Experis, a division of ManpowerGroup.
The survey found 82% of engineering employers have difficulty filling engineering roles. While 92% of these plan to hire engineers this year, 20% lack confidence that they will be able to find the engineering talent they need for their businesses. The survey found the top five hiring challenges are:
• Lack of experience
• Lack of applicants
• Lack of hard job skills/technical skills
• Salary demands too high
• Lack of soft skills/workplace competencies
Mechanical engineers ranked highest on the list of the most in-demand engineers, up from No. 5 on the list last year. The survey reports the top 5 hiring needs:
• Mechanical engineers
• Electrical engineers
• Manufacturing engineers
• Chemical engineers
• Control systems engineers
“With the boomer generation rapidly retiring and not enough STEM graduates entering the workforce there are great opportunities out there for people with the right skills to advance,” said Rich Hutchings, Experis’ VP, engineering. “At the moment we see this imbalanced situation where 95% of engineering employers plan to hire this year, but less than a quarter are confident they’ll actually find the people they need.”
From the candidate side, 51% of the engineers surveyed report feeling satisfied or extremely satisfied in their current position. However, 41% of professional engineers will still actively seek new positions in 2016, and 28% may look for new jobs or explore what’s available. Only 12% said they were not likely to change positions, and 19% intend to stay in their current position.
Engineers also shared their top considerations when seeking a new position. Increased salary, bonuses, and/or incentives remain at the top of the list. Notably, access to any or better health benefits rose to No. 2 on the list in 2016 from No. 6 in 2015.
• Salary, bonuses and/or incentives
• Health benefits
• Work/life balance
• Work environment/ culture
• Professional training and career development
The online survey was conducted from Jan. 19 through Jan. 27, 2016. It included 700 engineers and 70 employers who hire engineers within their organizations.
Job search activity up in Fortune 100, mid-market decreases
Daily News, February 22, 2016
Overall Fortune 100 job search activity increased in the 4th quarter while middle-market activity decreased, according to Hudson’s Q4 2015 Job Seeker Pulse report, which analyzes the online job search activity of Fortune 100 and middle market company employees. However, middle market employees remained much more active than their Fortune 100 counterparts; the report attributed the middle market’s slowdown mainly to the slower December holiday season and job search activity still increased from the 1st and 2nd quarters.
Across the generations, the Fortune 100 middle management segment registered the most dramatic increase in job search behaviors in the 4th quarter. Within this segment, the millennial sub-group posted the most activity with a 92% increase over the third quarter, followed by the baby boomers with a 72% increase and the Gen Xers with a 66% increase.
The study is based on data gleaned from the Joberate platform, which monitors an individual’s digital foot¬print to establish job-seeking activity. It tracks as many as 6,000 different data points from publicly available data sources including social media, public job boards and sources licensed by authorized data service providers like Twitter’s GNIP. The “J-Score” represents an individual score and the “J-Index” represents an aggregate score.
Monthly average J-Index:
• October: Fortune 100, 12.20: Middle market, 18.14
• November: Fortune 100, 14.41: Middle market, 20.06
• December: Fortune 100, 7.76: Middle market, 12.35
The Hudson Job Seeker Pulse study tracked fourth-quarter 2015 J-Scores for 14,452 people who were employed by Fortune 100 or middle-market companies. Fortune 100 companies are the 100 largest public and private US companies according to gross revenue figures, as published annually by Fortune magazine. Middle-market companies are companies with between 1,000 and 10,000 employees as stated in their LinkedIn company profiles.
From: The Bloomberg Job Skills Report 2016: What Recruiters Want
By Francesca Levy and Christopher Cannon, February 9, 2016
Bloomberg asked 1,251 job recruiters at 547 companies about the skills they want but can’t find—the so-called ‘Skills Gap’
.
Candidate Skills – The Results (in descending level of importance):
Less Common, More Desired (aka, ‘The Sweet Spot’)
*Leadership skills
*Strategic thinking
*Communication skills
*Creative problem-solving
More Common, More Desired
*Analytical thinking
*Work collaboratively
More Common, Less Desired
*Motivation/drive
*Quantitative skills
*Entrepreneurship
*Global mindset
*Risk-taking
*Decision-making
Less Common, Less Desired
*Work experience
*Adaptability
*Creative problem-solving (shared with the top category)
New Recruiting Platform Uses Anonymous Profiles to Help Tech Companies Find Talent
Lydia Dishman, “Fast Company”, February 9, 2016
Woo is betting anonymity will give highly sought after tech workers the nudge they need to find their dream position.
Most working people aren’t looking for a new job, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t open to the opportunity. For example, according to LinkedIn’s Talent Trends Report, 85% of people—otherwise known in HR parlance as “passive job seekers”—are employed and satisfied with their position. Among them, only 25% are looking for their next role. Nearly half (45%) of the others say they’d be willing to talk to a recruiter about a potential opportunity.
Why so few, especially in a job market that favors the candidate? Liran Kotzer posits that everyone has their own definition of what the “right” opportunity would be that would get them to switch jobs, including better compensation, relocation, or work-life balance. “In reality,” he tells Fast Company, “People don’t like to invest much effort.” They might be afraid that their supervisor or coworkers will find out, or that they wouldn’t actually get an offer, Kotzer says, but they’re basically shutting themselves off to the possibility of landing a dream job. “So we built the technology to eliminate [those] barriers,” he says.
Finding Tech Talent Outside Of Silicon Valley
Launching out of beta, Woo is aimed at luring one of the most in-demand yet passive job-seeking talents: the tech worker. Taking up eight of the top 25 jobs based on the number of open positions and earning potential, these positions range from data scientist to mobile developer, and recruiters are scrambling to fill them—especially if the company isn’t located in Silicon Valley or other tech hotbeds.
Kotzer, Woo’s cofounder, is a veteran of 3 startups, including freelance recruiting site DoNanza (assets acquired by Freelancer.com) and SeeV (also acquired by Matrix, an Israeli public tech company), one of the largest job-placement companies in Israel. But Woo is entering an increasingly crowded market populated by the likes of Jobr or Switch that lets not-so-active job seekers post a resume with an option to remain anonymous until they connect with an employer. Anthology (formerly Poachable) is probably the closest in terms of focus on tech talent.
Making Themselves Poachable
Woo is trying to separate from the pack with its functionality. Users can create a very comprehensive profile on what they want in a job, i.e., promotion, experience in new technologies, working at a big company/working at a startup, flex work schedule, relocation, salary, benefits, and compensation. They can import information from platforms such as LinkedIn, GitHub, Stack Overflow, and others can be added manually. Pulling such information can potentially expose the passive jobseeker, even if their name and company name is changed, so Woo added another layer of privacy by cloaking all aspects of the profile in anonymity.
In a demo, Kotzer shows how recruiters will only be able to see the profile if it’s a match based on the candidate’s terms. “We are the gatekeeper of the candidate,” he points out. Once a match is made, the candidate gets a glimpse inside the company culture, Kotzer says, because of the visuals. Companies can upload photos of their offices and employees as well as videos. No photos? No problem, Kotzer says. Woo can send out a photographer to shoot the workspaces.
Woo has been in beta test mode since last March (when it was called HighR), focusing on companies in Silicon Valley and Kotzer’s native Israel. Both candidates and companies had to be invited. Among some 4,000 users, Kotzer says they were employed by a spectrum of startups, as well as Uber and Google. “We gave them [additional] free invites, and more than 50% shared them with friends,” Kotzer says. The companies that signed on to the test phase included Wework, Adobe, AOL, and Yahoo, says Kotzer, and 200 more are waiting to join.
It’s free for a candidate to post their profile, and a company is only charged if they hire. It’s 10% of the actual compensation. Eventually, Kotzer says there will be an additional business model, similar to a subscription service that will generate revenue.
Kotzer maintains that so far, candidates have been matched to companies within 25 hours, and Woo has generated a 78% candidate response rate to offers, which he believes far exceeds traditional recruitment platforms based on anecdotal evidence from recruiters. InMails on LinkedIn, a strategy used by many recruiters to target passive candidates, have a 6% response rate, according to some HR professionals. Data from Jobvite indicates that employee referrals yield the highest application-to-hire conversion rate and those hires tend to be more satisfied and stick around longer.
Kotzer boasts Woo is “1,000% better and more efficient at engaging with the passive job seeker,” because it contains a new layer of data for both the company and the candidate. “It’s not just about let’s try and see what happens,” he contends. “The recruiting model is broken, and we will be able to make it better.”
Recruiting strategies and blended roles among legal staffing trends
Daily News, February 17, 2016
As law firms and companies expand legal teams to pursue new business opportunities, competition is intensifying for job seekers with in-demand skills and niche backgrounds, according to Robert Half Legal. The firm’s 2016 Salary Guide found applicants with expertise in high-growth practice areas and industry sectors, including commercial law and healthcare, are seeing greater-than-average starting salaries, signing bonuses and multiple offers.
“Employers are placing a premium on associates and paralegals who can assume full caseloads and deliver quality results to clients,” said Charles Volkert, executive director of Robert Half Legal. “The most sought after legal professionals possess 3 to 5-plus years of experience in a hot practice area, technological proficiency and strong interpersonal skills.”
Here are 5 hiring trends in the legal field, according to Robert Half Legal research:
1. Recruiting and retention strategies are more essential. As baby boomers begin to exit the workforce and vacate leadership roles, employers are re-evaluating succession plans and focusing on how to become more attractive to Gen Z workers.
2. Employers are enhancing benefits. Law firms and companies are emphasizing greater flexibility, training, career advancement opportunities and other perks valued by job seekers, such as telecommuting and business casual dress codes.
3. Hybrid or blended paralegal/legal secretary roles are more common. Aside from practice area experience, the most marketable legal support professionals have strong technology skills and are able to perform multiple job functions.
4. Foreign language skills are in demand. In certain markets, bilingual abilities, including Spanish language skills, have become increasingly vital for attorneys and legal support professionals.
5. The market is improving for junior-level attorneys. While hiring has not returned to prerecession levels, many law firms are expanding summer clerkship programs and hiring newly minted associates who can meet client demands for lower bill rates.
Volkert added that employers are more willing to negotiate compensation and benefits to attract and retain top talent. “Offering competitive pay, interesting work and advancement opportunities are highly effective strategies for improving employee engagement and reducing turnover,” he said.
The new ADP/Moody’s National Employment Report: 64% of all new job growth in February, 2016 came from Small and Mid-size Companies!
March 2, 2016
Private sector employment increased by 214,000 jobs from January to February (an increase from January’s 205,000 additions), according to the February ADP National Employment Report®, which is produced by ADP® in collaboration with Moody’s Analytics. The report, which is derived from ADP’s actual payroll data, measures the change in total nonfarm private employment each month on a seasonally-adjusted basis.
By Company Size
Small businesses: 76,000
1-19 employees 37,000
20-49 employees 38,000
Medium businesses: 62,000
50-499 employees 62,000
Large businesses: 76,000
500-999 employees 14,000
1,000+ employees 62,000
By Sector
Goods producing 5,000
Service providing 208,000
Industry Snapshot
Construction 27,000
Manufacturing <-9,000>
Trade/transportation/utilities 20,000
Financial activities 8,000
Professional/business services 59,000
Payrolls for businesses with 49 or fewer employees increased by 76,000 jobs in February, in line with January’s downwardly revised 75,000. Employment among companies with 50-499 employees increased by 62,000 jobs, down from January’s downwardly revised 74,000. Employment at large companies – those with 500 or more employees – came in at 76,000, a big jump from January’s 44,000. Companies with 500-999 added 14,000 jobs, while companies with over 1,000 employees gained 62,000 jobs.
Goods-producing employment rose by 5,000 jobs in February, just over a quarter of January’s upwardly revised 19,000. The construction industry added 27,000 jobs, which was slightly above January’s upwardly revised 26,000. Meanwhile, manufacturing lost 9,000 jobs, the second largest drop in 5 years.
Service-providing employment rose by 208,000 jobs in February, up from a downwardly revised 174,000 in January. The report indicates that professional/business services contributed 59,000 jobs, up sharply from January’s downwardly revised 38,000. Trade/transportation/utilities grew by 20,000, down from a downwardly revised 26,000 the previous month. The 8,000 new jobs added in financial activities were the least in that sector since August 2015.
“Large businesses showed surprisingly strong job gains in February, despite the continuation of economic trends that negatively impact big companies like turmoil in international markets and a strengthening dollar,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, VP and head of the ADP Research Institute. “The gains were mostly driven by the service sector which accounted for almost all the jobs added by large businesses.”
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said, “Despite the turmoil in the global financial markets, the American job machine remains in high gear. Energy and manufacturing remain blemishes on the job market, but other sectors continue to add strongly to payrolls. Full-employment is fast approaching.”
(The March 2016 ADP National Employment Report will be released at 8:15 a.m. ET on March 30, 2016).
Due to the important contribution that small businesses make to economic growth, employment data that is specific to businesses with 49 or fewer employees is reported each month in the ADP Small Business Report®, a subset of the ADP National Employment Report.
February 2016 Small Business Report Highlights
Total Small Business Employment: 76,000
●By Size
►1-19 employees 37,000
►20-49 employees 38,000
●By Sector for 1-49 Employees
►Goods Producing 2,000
►Service Producing 73,000
●By Sector for 1-19 Employees
►Goods Producing 2,000
►Service Producing 35,000
●By Sector for 20-49 Employees
►Goods Producing 0
►Service Producing 38,000
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 included in your niche!
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary – December 2015
On February 9th, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the number of job openings increased to 5,600,000 on the last business day of December. Hires and separations were little changed at 5,400,000 and 5,100,000, respectively. Within separations, the quits rate was 2.1%, and the layoffs and discharges rate was 1.1%. This release includes estimates of the number and rate of job openings, hires, and separations for the nonfarm sector by industry and by four geographic regions.
Job Openings
Job openings rose to 5,600,000 in December. The job openings rate was 3.8%. The number of job openings increased in December for total private and was little changed for government. Job openings increased in construction (+69,000), nondurable goods manufacturing (+60,000), and durable goods manufacturing (+26,000). In the regions, job openings increased in the West over the month.
The number of job openings (not seasonally adjusted) increased over the 12 months ending in December for total nonfarm and total private, and edged up for government. Job openings rose in several industries over the year with the largest changes in health care and social assistance (+172,000) and finance and insurance (+99,000). The number of job openings increased over the year in the Northeast, Midwest, and West regions.
Hires
The number of hires was 5,400,000 in December, little changed from November. The number of hires is now higher than in December 2007 (5,000,000, the first month of the recession. The hires rate was 3.7% in December 2015. The number of hires was little changed for total private and government in December. The number of hires edged up in professional and business services and was little changed in all other industries and in the regions.
Over the 12 months ending in December, the number of hires (not seasonally adjusted) was little changed for total nonfarm and total private and edged up for government. At the industry level, hires increased in accommodation and food services (+93,000); transportation, warehousing, and utilities (+43,000); and federal government (+11,000). Hires edged down in construction. The number of hires was little changed in all four regions over the year.
Net Change in Employment
Large numbers of hires and separations occur every month throughout the business cycle. Net employment change results from the relationship between hires and separations. When the number of hires exceeds the number of separations, employment rises, even if the hires level is steady or declining. Conversely, when the number of hires is less than the number of separations, employment declines, even if the hires level is steady or rising. Over the 12 months ending in December 2015, hires totaled 61,400,000 and separations totaled 58,800,000, yielding a net employment gain of 2,600,000. These totals include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year.
(The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey results for January 2016 are scheduled to be released on Thursday, March 17, 2016.)
As we recruiters know, that 5,600,000 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 5,600,000 published job openings now become a total of 28,000,000 published and hidden job orders.
In February there were 7,815,000 unemployed workers. What was the main reason why those workers were unemployed? Two Words: Structural Unemployment. If we can’t figure out how to educate and/or reeducate those 7,815,000 unemployed, then they will keep reappearing each month as a BLS unemployment statistic—as they have. In the meantime, our recruitment marketplace flourishes!
Online Labor Demand Decreased 162,100 in February
March 2, 2016
• February 2016 shows large drop following a flat January
• Large losses in the Midwest and South regions
• Note: The HWOL annual revision has been postponed
Online advertised vacancies decreased 162,100 to 5,334,300 in February, according to The Conference Board Help Wanted OnLine® (HWOL) Data Series. The January Supply/Demand rate stands at 1.42 unemployed for each advertised vacancy with a total of 2,300,000 more unemployed workers than the number of advertised vacancies. The number of unemployed was around 7,800,000 in January.
“While 2015 showed slow positive growth averaging about 25,000 ads per month, the first 2 months of 2016 have shown weakness in labor demand,” said Gad Levanon, Managing Director of Macroeconomic and Labor Market Research at The Conference Board. “The overall level of demand still remains high, but the very weak start of 2016 suggests a possible temporary weakening in employer demand for labor.”
In February, the Professional category saw a large gain in Management (11.2) but losses in Healthcare (−10.8) and Computer/Math (−12.5). The Services/Production category saw the largest February losses including: Office/Administration (−48.7), Transportation (−29.5), Installation/Maintenance (−12.4), Construction (−12.2), and Food (−12.0).
The Conference Board Help Wanted OnLine®Data Series (HWOL) measures the number of new, first-time online jobs and jobs reposted from the previous month for over 16,000 Internet job boards, corporate boards and smaller job sites that serve niche markets and smaller geographic areas.
(The March 2016 Conference Board Help Wanted OnLine® (HWOL) Data Series will be released at 10:00 AM ET on Wednesday, March 30, 2016).
U-6 Update
In February, 2016 the regular unemployment number remained at 4.9%, and the broader U-6 measure fell to 9.7%, a little less than twice as high as the regular unemployment figure.
The above 9.7% is referred to as the U6 unemployment rate (found in the monthly BLS Employment Situation Summary, Table A-15; Table A-12 in 2008 and before). It counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the “marginally attached workers” include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 year and over.
Here is a look at the February U-6 numbers for the past 13 years:
February 2015 11.0%
February 2014 12.6%
February 2013 14.3%
February 2012 15.0%
February 2011 15.9%
February 2010 16.8%
February 2009 15.0%
February 2008 9.0%
February 2007 8.1%
February 2006 8.4%
February 2005 9.3%
February 2004 9.7%
February 2003 10.1%
The February 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 March 4th, 2016, the BLS published the most recent unemployment rate for February, 2016 of 4.9% (actually it is 4.918%, down by .003% from 4.921% in January, 2016.
The unemployment rate was determined by dividing the unemployed of 7,815,000 (—up from the month before by 24,000—since February, 2015 this number has decreased by 831,000) by the total civilian labor force of 158,890,000 (up by 555,000 from January, 2016). Since February 2015, our total civilian labor force has increased by 2,678,000 workers.
(The continuing ‘Strange BLS Math’ saga): The BLS continues to increase the total Civilian Noninstitutional Population—this time up to 252,577,000. This is an increase of 180,000 from last month’s increase. In one year’s time, this population has increased by 2,678,000. The Civilian Noninstitutional Population has increased each month by…)
Up from January 2016 by 180,000
Up from December 2015 by 461,000
Up from November 2015 by 189,000
Up from October 2015 by 206,000
Up from September 2015 by 216,000
Up from August 2015 by 229,000
Up from July 2015 by 220,000
Up from June 2015 by 213,000
Up from May 2015 by 208,000
Up from April 2015 by 189,000
Up from March 2015 by 186,000
Up from February 2015 by 191,000
Up from January 2015 by 176,000
Up from December 2014 by 696,000
Up from November 2014 by 143,000
Up from October 2014 by 187,000
Up from September 2014 by 211,000
Up from August 2014 by 217,000
Up from July 2014 by 206,000
Up from June 2014 by 209,000
Up from May 2014 by 192,000
Up from April 2014 by 183,000
Up from March 2014 by 181,000
Up from February 2014 by 173,000
Up from January 2014 by 170,000
Up from December 2013 by 170,000
Up from November 2013 by 178,000
Up from October 2013 by 186,000
Up from September 2013 by 213,000
Up from August 2013 by 209,000
Up from July 2013 by 203,000
Up from June 2013 by 204,000
Up from May 2013 by 189,000
Up from April 2013 by 188,000
Up from March 2013 by 180,000
Up from February 2013 by 167,000
Up from January 2013 by 165,000
Up from December 2012 by 313,000
Up from November 2012 by 176,000
Up from October 2012 by 191,000
Up from September 2012 by 211,000
Up from August 2012 by 206,000
Up from July 2012 by 212,000
Up from June 2012 by 199,000
Up from May 2012 by 189,000
Up from April 2012 by 182,000
Up from March 2012 by 180,000
Up from February 2012 by 169,000
Up from January 2012 by 335,000
Up from December 2011 by 2,020,000
And this month the BLS has increased the Civilian Labor Force to 158,890,000 (up from January by 555,000).
Subtract the second number (‘civilian labor force’) from the first number (‘civilian noninstitutional population’) and you get 93,688,000 ‘Not in Labor Force’—down by 374,000 from last month’s 94,062,000. Since February, 2015, 666,000 US workers have vanished! Where did those 666,000 potential workers disappear to in one year’s time? I am assuming they still have to eat and pay their rent. They still need money, don’t they? The government tells us that most of these NILFs got discouraged and just gave up looking for a job. My monthly recurring question is: “If that is the case, how do they survive when they don’t earn any money because they don’t have a job? Are they ALL relying on the government to support them??”
This month our Employment Participation Rate—the population 16 years and older working or seeking work—rose to 62.9%. This is .5% above the historically low rate of 62.4% recorded in September and October—and, before that, the rate recorded in October 1977—9 months into Jimmy Carter’s presidency—38 years ago!
Final take on these numbers: Fewer people looking for work will always bring down the unemployment rate.
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 February was 2.4% (this rate was .1% higher than last month’s 2.3%). Or, you can look at it another way. We usually place people who have college degrees. That unemployment rate in February was 2.5% (this rate was the same as the last six month’s 2.5%).
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 are well below the 4-6% threshold for full employment…we find no unemployment! None! Zilch! A Big Goose Egg!
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”
On February 26th, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced the real gross domestic product (GDP) — the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price changes — increased at an annual rate of +1.0% in the fourth quarter of 2015, according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.0%.
The GDP estimate is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 0.7%. With this second estimate for the fourth quarter, the general picture of economic growth remains the same; private inventory investment decreased less than previously estimated.
The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), residential fixed investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by negative contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, state and local government spending, and private inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.
The deceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected a deceleration in PCE and downturns in nonresidential fixed investment, in state and local government spending, and in exports that were partly offset by a smaller decrease in private inventory investment, a downturn in imports, and an acceleration in federal government spending.
*The economy needs to expand at about +3% to keep the unemployment rate from rising.
2015 GDP
Real GDP increased 2.4% in 2015 (that is, from the 2014 annual level to the 2015 annual level), the same rate as in 2014.
The increase in real GDP in 2015 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, residential fixed investment, private inventory investment, state and local government spending, and exports. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
Comparing real GDP growth in 2015 with growth in 2014, real GDP increased 2.4% in both years, though there were offsetting movements in the components. Decelerations in nonresidential fixed investment and in exports and an acceleration in imports were offset by accelerations in PCE and in residential fixed investment, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and accelerations in private inventory investment and in state and local government spending.
(The “third” estimate for the 4th Quarter and Annual 2015 GDPs will be released on March 25th, 2016).
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT EVER TO BE ZERO
‘Unemployment’ is an emotional ‘trigger’ word…a ‘third rail’, if you will. 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. Currently, in 2015, workers in most states are eligible for up to 26 weeks of benefits from the regular state-funded unemployment compensation program, although eight states provide fewer weeks and two provide more. No additional weeks of federal benefits are available in any state: the temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program expired at the end of 2013, and no state currently qualifies to offer more weeks under the permanent Extended Benefits (EB) program. Studies suggest that additional weeks of benefits reduce 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 February “management, professional and related” types of worker category, you will find the following rates:
February 2015 2.7%
February 2014 3.2%
February 2013 3.8%
February 2012 4.2%
February 2011 4.4%
February 2010 4.8%
February 2009 3.9%
February 2008 2.2%
February 2007 1.9%
February 2006 2.1%
February 2005 2.5%
February 2004 2.7%
February 2003 3.1%
February 2002 2.8%
Here are the rates, during those same time periods, for “college-degreed” workers:
February 2015 2.7%
February 2014 3.4%
February 2013 3.9%
February 2012 4.2%
February 2011 4.3%
February 2010 4.9%
February 2009 4.2%
February 2008 2.1%
February 2007 1.9%
February 2006 2.2%
February 2005 2.4%
February 2004 2.9%
February 2003 3.0%
February 2002 2.8%
February’s 2016 rates for these two categories, 2.4% and 2.5%, respectively, are trending very positively and are approaching the halcyon numbers we attained in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 time frames. 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 possible job orders and we still need to recruit to find the best possible candidates.
Below are the numbers for the over 25 year olds:
Less than H.S. diploma – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
7.7% 7.4% 8.2% 7.9% 8.4% 8.9% 8.6% 9.7% 9.8% 10.4% 10.6% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
13.1% 12.9% 12.6% 12.5% 13.0% 12.6% 12.7% 12.0% 11.3% 12.2% 12.2% 11.7%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
12.0% 11.2% 11.1% 11.6% 11.1% 10.7% 11.0% 11.3% 10.3% 10.9% 10.8% 9.8%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
9.6% 9.8% 9.6% 8.9% 9.1% 9.1% 9.6% 9.1% 8.4% 7.9% 8.5% 8.8%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
8.5% 8.4% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.2% 8.3% 7.7% 7.7% 7.3% 6.8% 6.7%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
7.4% 7.3%
H.S. Grad; no college – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
4.6% 4.7% 5.1% 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.8% 6.3% 6.5% 6.9% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
8.4% 8.3% 8.0% 7.9% 8.1% 8.4% 8.7% 8.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 8.0%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
8.1% 7.9% 7.6% 7.4% 7.4% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.3% 7.3% 7.1%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.5% 5.8% 6.1% 6.2% 5.3% 5.7% 5.6% 5.3%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.4% 5.8% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.6%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
5.3% 5.3%
Some College; or AA/AS – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.3% 4.4% 4.6% 5.0% 5.1% 5.3% 5.5% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
7.2% 7.3% 7.5% 7.6% 7.9% 7.5% 7.1% 6.6% 6.5% 6.9% 6.6% 6.9%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
7.0% 6.7% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.4% 6.0% 6.1% 6.0% 6.3% 6.4% 6.1%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
6.0% 6.2% 6.1% 5.7% 5.5% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 4.8% 4.9% 5.0%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
5.2% 5.1% 4.8% 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.1%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
4.2% 4.2%
BS/BS + – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 2.6% 3.1% 3.2% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.0% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.8% 3.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 3.4% 3.3%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 3.3% 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% 2.8%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
2.5% 2.5%
Management, Professional & Related – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% 3.3% 2.8% 3.0% 3.2% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.7% 4.0% 4.4% 4.8% 4.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6% 3.9%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
3.9% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 4.2% 4.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.1% 2.9%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 2.9% 3.1% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 2.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.7%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
2.9% 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.9% 3.1% 2.9% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
2.3% 2.4%
Or employed…(,000)
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
52,165 52,498 52,681 52,819 52,544 52,735 52,655 52,626 53,104 53,485 53,274 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
53,152 53,208 53,771 54,055 54,156 53,846 53,165 53,696 54,655 55,223 54,951 54,635
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
54,214 54,563 54,721 54,767 54,740 54,323 54,064 54,515 55,013 55,155 55,583 54,880
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
55,096 55,501 56,036 55,896 56,202 55,714 55,381 55,646 56,365 56,759 57,110 56,888
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
57,367 57,596 57,805 57,953 58,155 57,710 57,392 57,288 58,105 58,456 58,667 59,030
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
59,014 59,583
And unemployed…(,000)
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
1,164 1,159 1,121 1,088 1,407 1,478 1,585 1,779 1,539 1,647 1,786 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
2,410 2,336 2,330 2,062 2,275 2,472 2,666 2,556 2,245 2,170 2,077 2,221
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
2,211 2,164 2,020 1,980 1,990 2,358 2,286 2,130 1,978 1,930 1,749 1,637
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
1,784 1,845 1,890 1,642 1,795 2,001 2,011 1,930 1,617 1,582 1,656 1,568
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
1,741 1,601 1,398 1,435 1,460 1,714 1,807 1,686 1,414 1,312 1,276 1,208
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
1,404 1,456
For a total Management, Professional & Related workforce of…(,000)
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
53,329 53,657 53,802 53,907 53,951 54,213 54,240 54,405 54,643 55,132 55,060 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
55,562 55,544 56,101 56,117 56,431 56,318 55,831 56,252 56,900 57,393 57,028 56,856
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
56,425 56,727 56,741 56,747 56,730 56,681 56,350 56,645 56,991 57,085 57,332 56,517
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
56,880 57,346 57,926 57,538 57,997 57,715 57,392 57,576 57,982 58,341 58,766 58,456
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
59,108 59,197 59,203 59,388 59,615 59,424 59,199 58,974 59,519 59,768 59,943 60,238
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
60,418 61,039
Management, Business and Financial Operations – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% 2.8% 2.8% 3.0% 3.6% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.0% 4.1% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 4.1%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
4.0% 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.8% 3.5% 3.1% 3.4% 3.3% 3.7% 3.2% 3.1%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
3.4% 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 3.3% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
3.0% 2.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.9% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 1.9%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
2.3% 2.6%
Professional & Related – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 3.6% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9%
1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10
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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.8% 5.5% 5.2% 4.3% 3.9% 3.5% 3.8%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
3.8% 3.8% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.0% 3.6% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 2.6% 2.9% 4.0% 4.1% 3.9% 3.1% 2.7% 2.9% 2.8%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
2.9% 2.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 3.2% 3.6% 3.3% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
2.4% 2.2%
Sales & Related – Unemployment Rate
1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08
5.2% 5.2% 4.8% 4.3% 5.1% 5.6% 6.2% 6.3% 5.7% 6.1% 6.5% 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 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12
8.2% 7.9% 8.1% 7.6% 7.9% 8.4% 8.3% 8.6% 7.9% 7.0% 7.3% 7.0%
1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13
8.5% 8.2% 7.7% 6.9% 7.1% 6.7% 6.9% 7.2% 7.5% 7.3% 7.0% 6.3%
1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14
7.1% 7.7% 6.8% 5.8% 6.8% 6.1% 6.2% 5.6% 5.4% 5.2% 5.3% 5.0%
1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15
5.8% 5.2% 5.8% 5.5% 5.8% 5.6% 5.8% 5.4% 5.6% 5.3% 5.1% 4.3%
1/16 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 8/16 9/16 10/16 11/16 12/16
5.0% 4.4%