Bob Marshall’s BLS Analysis; 5/4/12
April 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 keep in mind the inherent weaknesses in sending resumes to start your relationships. According to a new study released by ‘TheLadders’ on April 10th, resume evaluation takes just 6 seconds, not the generally accepted 4 minutes that has been the industry standard for years. The findings continue, “One part of the study – “gaze tracking” technology – showed that recruiters spend almost 80% of their resume-review time on the following data points, respectively: name, current title/company, previous title/company, previous position’s start and end dates, current position’s start and end dates, and education.”
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.
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!
Low GDP numbers equal falling Unemployment Rates???
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. And the just published GDP rate for the first quarter 2012 came in at only 2.2%. Keep in mind, the economy needs to expand at about 3.0% just to keep the unemployment rate from rising—and yet it keeps falling. Why is that?
The Civilian Labor Participation Rate
In April, the civilian labor participation rate, dropped -0.2% to 63.6%. This rate has not been this low since December 1981! And remember, in the 1970s and 1980s women were just starting to enter the labor force in large numbers. If we go back to December 2007, the labor participation rate was 66%. The highest civilian labor participation rate was in January 2000, at 67.3%.
On May 4, 2012, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled; “The Vanishing Workers” that best explains this somewhat terrifying new trend:
The Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2012, 7:14pm ET
The Vanishing Workers
The labor participation rate is back where it was in December 1981.
The economy turned in another lackluster month for job creation in April, with 115,000 net new jobs, 130,000 in private business (less 15,000 fewer in government). The unemployment rate fell a tick to 8.1%, albeit mainly because the labor force shrank by 342,000. This relates to what is arguably the most troubling trend in the April jobs report, which is the continuing decline in the share of working-age Americans who are in the labor force.
The civilian labor participation rate, as it’s known, fell again in April to 63.6%. That’s the second decline in a row and the lowest rate since December 1981. That’s right—more than 30 years ago, longer than Mark Zuckerberg has been alive. The nearby chart shows the disturbing round trip the workforce participation rate has taken since 1980 and the precipitous drop in the last three years.
This decline is highly unusual coming out of a recession. Normally as hiring picks up, more Americans see more job opportunities and jump back into the labor force. That’s what happened after the sharp recession of 1981-82, when the participation rate last hit 63.6%.
It rose smartly through the boom of the 1980s to a peak of 66.8% in January 1990. The rate dipped to 66% in the mild 1991 recession, but then rose again through the 1990s to a modern peak of 67.3% in January 2000 at the top of the dot-com bubble.
The last decade has never reached the same heights, though the participation rate did rise back to 66.4% in late 2006 and early 2007. The rate fell to 65.7% in July 2009 when the last recession officially ended, yet the distressing fact is that it has kept falling over the course of the next 33 months of ostensible economic recovery.
The trend deserves deeper economic study, though we can offer a few of the likelier explanations. One may be demographic as the baby boom generation gets closer to retirement age. Economist David Malpass notes that Americans age 55 and older are a rapidly rising share of the working-age population, a trend that has historically meant a lower overall labor participation rate.
Still, the recent fall is so sharp and surprising that aging baby boomers can’t be the entire reason. Another explanation is surely the slow pace of job growth, which means fewer opportunities to entice what economists call the “marginal” worker back into the labor force. Older workers who’ve lost a longtime job may find themselves unemployable in a rapidly changing economy. They may retire earlier than they might have preferred.
Second earners in a household may also not find work at a high enough wage to justify the costs of commuting or child care. In a recovery that is really cooking, like the Reagan boom, these workers find that the opportunities reward more work. In today’s mediocre expansion, not so much.
That’s especially true when stagnant wage growth means less reward for the effort. Over the past 12 months, average weekly earnings are up 2.1% but inflation has climbed by 3%. Real pay is rising far too slowly, which makes work less attractive.
The Federal Reserve has maintained a super-easy monetary policy in the name of reducing the jobless rate and to reflate the housing market, but this has contributed to higher food and energy prices and thus reduced real income gains. This too is a disincentive to work and undermines one ostensible purpose of the Fed’s easing.
Another culprit may be the rapid expansion of government transfer payments during this recession. Medicaid, disability payments and food stamps have all risen sharply in recent years, starting under President Bush and accelerating under President Obama.
This is a particular disincentive to low-skilled workers to enter the job market because in some high-benefit states they need to earn $30,000 or more to compensate for the benefits they lose. This is an insidious high marginal tax rate that deters many from ever acquiring the basic skills and experience they need to move up the income ladder.
Reversing this falling labor force trend is a major policy challenge, especially as more of the baby boomers retire. The U.S. will need more workers to finance more retirees. This will require faster growth and more job creation than we’ve seen in this disappointing recovery.
The tragedy of the Obama Administration is that it put the political pursuit of its social welfare agenda above policies to nurture a strong, durable economic expansion. Americans are paying for that mistake in less work and less reward for the work they get. The priority of the next Administration must be to reverse the decline.
One last thought on the “Not in labor force” number manipulation
Let’s say that we want to keep the “Not in labor force” (Nilf) numbers the same for the last two years so that we can compare apples to apples.
If you take the April 2010 and 2011 “Not in labor force” (Nilf) numbers and subtract them from the April 2012 (Nilf) numbers, then take those results and add those numbers back into the unemployed numbers (where they belong) and then work out the unemployment rates you get 9.8% and 11.7% effective unemployment. Split the difference and our current ‘real’ unemployment rate comes in at 10.75%–without the BLS manipulation of the (Nilf) numbers. (This presupposes that the Nilf numbers do not change as much as the BLS would like us to believe)
Here is the math (in thousands):
April 2010 (Nilf) = 82,809
April 2011 (Nilf) = 85,725
April 2012 (Nilf) = 88,419
April 2012 minus April 2011 = 88,419 – 85,725 = 2,694; Add to unemployment of 12,500 = 15,194 total unemployed; divide 15,194 by 154,365 = 9.8% unemployment rate.
April 2012 minus April 2010 = 88,419 – 82,809 = 5,610; Add to unemployment of 12,500 = 18,110 total unemployed; divide 18,110 by 154,365 = 11.7% unemployment rate.
Small & Mid-sized Companies account for all but 3.4% of the job growth in April!
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 April 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 2nd, ADP reported that employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 119,000 from March to April on a seasonally adjusted basis. This was down by 90,000 from the previous month. The estimated gain from February to March was revised down modestly, from the initial estimate of 209,000 to a revised estimate of 201,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector increased 123,000 in April, after rising 158,000 in March. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector declined 4,000 jobs in April. Manufacturing employment dropped 5,000 jobs, the first loss since September of last year.
Construction employment also fell by 5,000, the first decline in seven months and following healthy gains during the unusually warm winter months. Employment in the financial services sector increased 13,000, marking nine consecutive monthly gain there.
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 April…
Small business (those with up to 49 employees) payrolls rose +58,000, down from the 100,000 jobs created among small businesses last month.
Medium business (50-499 employees) payrolls rose +57,000. This is a decrease from +87,000 in March. Of the 57,000 jobs created by medium-sized businesses, 8,000 jobs were created by the goods-producing sector and 49,000 jobs were created by the service-producing sector.
Large business (500+ employees) payrolls increased by only +4,000. This is a decrease from +22,000 in March. This follows increases of +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 115,000 (down from 187,000 in March) accounted for a noteworthy 96.6% (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 119,000 (down from 209,000 in March and from 216,000 in February) job growth in April, 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 April 10th, the BLS reported that there were 3,500,000 job openings on the last business day of February—basically a repeat of the 3,500,000 job openings announced for January. (The next BLS job openings update will be released on May 8th). The 3,500,000 reflects published openings comprised of jobs that are advertised either online or in print format. (The Conference Board, on April 30th, released a report that online advertised vacancies, in the US alone, rose 90,900 in April to 4,760,500—the Supply/Demand rate stands at 2.7 unemployed for every vacancy, and the number of unemployed was 8 million above the number of advertised vacancies). 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 April there were 12,500,000 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 12,500,000 unemployed, then they will keep reappearing each month as a BLS unemployment statistic—as they have. In the meantime, our recruitment marketplace flourishes!
The April 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 May 4th, 2012, the BLS published the most recent unemployment rate for April, 2012 of 8.1% (actually it is 8.098, down .094% from 8.192 in March, 2012). The unemployment rate was determined by dividing the unemployed of 12,500,000 (down from the month before by 173,000—since April, 2011 (one year ago), this number has decreased by 1,292,000) by the total civilian labor force of 154,365,000 (down by 342,000 from March, 2012). Since April 2011, our total civilian labor force has increased by 945,000 people.
(The continuing ‘Strange BLS Math’ saga): The BLS continues to increase the total Civilian Working Population—this time to 242,784,000; 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. And, they have decreased the Civilian Labor Force to154,365,000 (down from March by 342,000). Subtract the second number from the first number and you get 88,419,000 ‘Not in Labor Force’. That is an increase of 1,722,000 since December 2011. In one year’s time, since April 2011, 2,693,000 US workers have vanished! Where did those 2,693,000 potential workers disappear to? That’s 8.6% 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 63.6%, which is at its lowest level since December 1981—over 30 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 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. Indeed, our first GDP estimate for the first Quarter 2012 came in at 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 April dropped significantly to 3.7% (this rate is down from last month’s 4.2% and is the lowest rate in 40 months!). Or, you can look at it another way. We usually place people who have college degrees. That unemployment rate in April also dropped strongly to 4.0% (this rate is down from last month’s 4.2% and is the lowest rate in 39 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 March “management, professional and related” types of worker category, you will find the following rates:
April 2011 4.0%
April 2010 4.5%
April 2009 4.0%
April 2008 2.0%
April 2007 1.8%
April 2006 1.9%
April 2005 2.2%
April 2004 2.6%
April 2003 2.9%
April 2002 2.7%
Here are the rates, during those same time periods, for “college-degreed” workers:
April 2011 4.5%
April 2010 4.9%
April 2009 4.4%
April 2008 2.1%
April 2007 1.8%
April 2006 2.2%
April 2005 2.5%
April 2004 2.9%
April 2003 3.1%
April 2002 3.0%
So, while April’s 2012 rates for these two categories, at 3.7% and 4.0% 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 |
|
13.1% |
12.9% |
12.6% |
12.5% |
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 |
|
8.4% |
8.3% |
8.0% |
7.9% |
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 |
|
7.2% |
7.3% |
7.5% |
7.6% |
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 |
|
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.0% |
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 |
|
4.3% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
3.7% |
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 |
|
53,152 |
53,208 |
53,771 |
54,055 |
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 |
|
2,410 |
2,336 |
2,330 |
2,062 |
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 |
|
55,562 |
55,544 |
56,101 |
56,117 |
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 |
|
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
4.0% |
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 |
|
4.2% |
4.1% |
4.0% |
3.5% |
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 |
|
8.2% |
7.9% |
8.1% |
7.6% |