Bob Marshall’s BLS Analysis; 7/6/12
June BLS Preface
Preface
Over the past months, some of you have corresponded with me about these monthly BLS analyses and asked if it is OK to use them in your presentations. The answer is, of course, yes! That is why I spend the time to write down this information. I would encourage any of you who have that desire to weave any of the information I have printed below into your presentations. I write these analyses for the benefit of our recruitment industry in general and for the members of my email list in particular. So use this info as you deem appropriate.
I also write these monthly BLS analyses to not only counterbalance the negative/incorrect press reporting of our general economic state but, more than that, to remind all of my recruitment readers that, at the level we work, there is no unemployment and so we must recruit to find the candidates our client companies so desperately need!
So to my recruiter colleagues, get out there and do what your name implies…RECRUIT. When your client companies have unique and difficult positions to fill, they need you. When they are being picky, they need you. When they are longing for more production from fewer employees, they need you. Go fill those needs. These should be the halcyon days in the recruitment arena!
Finally, always remember that we are not in an HR business, but in a ‘circumventing the time factor in the hiring sequence’ business—and adding value to our client companies
CEO confidence declines
CEO confidence decreased in the second quarter of 2012 after rising in the first quarter, The Conference Board reported on June 5th. The organization’s measure of CEO confidence fell to a reading of 47 in the second quarter of 2012 from a reading of 63 in the first quarter. A reading of more than 50 points reflects more positive than negative responses.
“CEOs began the year quite upbeat, but the lackluster performance of the economy so far, and expectations of more of the same, have clearly impacted attitudes,” said Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at The Conference Board. “On a positive note, CEOs remain confident profits will continue to increase, driven primarily by market/demand growth.”
Only 17 percent of CEOs said conditions have improved compared to six months ago, down from 67 percent who said the same in the last quarter, according to a survey that accompanied the measure. Only 20 percent of CEOs anticipate an improvement in economic conditions over the next six months, down from 59 percent who said the same in the fourth quarter.
Temps Represent Chunk of Job Gains in June
As reported on July 6, 2012 by Staffing Industry Analysts, Daily News, the “temporary help services” industry added 25,200 jobs in June, representing almost a third of the 80,000 total nonfarm jobs added by the U.S. in June, according to seasonally adjusted numbers released today by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Revised numbers for May show that the temp help industry added 17,500 jobs that month instead of the 9,200 gain initially reported by the bureau.
Overall, temporary help employment totaled approximately 2.53 million in June, representing an increase of 245,400 jobs, or a gain of 10.7 percent, on a year-over-year basis.
The percent of temporary employment to total employment — the temporary help penetration rate — edged up to 1.90 percent in June from 1.89 percent in May.
However, employment rose by just 22,500 jobs during June in the “employment services” industry — which includes temporary employment as well as employment placement agencies, executive search services and professional employer organizations — for total employment of approximately 3.19 million.
Total nonfarm jobs in the U.S. rose by 80,000 in June to almost 133.1 million, according to seasonally adjusted numbers from the bureau. The U.S. unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 percent in June from May. The seasonally adjusted college-level unemployment rate, which can serve as a proxy for professional employment, rose to 4.1 percent in June from 3.9 percent in May.
Today’s total nonfarm job gained proved a disappointment.
“The slow labor market improvement reflected in this month’s 80,000 increase in jobs once again confirms that the better payroll increases in the beginning of the year were another false start,” Kathy Bostjancic, director of macroeconomic analysis at The Conference Board, said in a statement.
“The pullback marks the third straight disappointing year,” Bostjancic, said. “Subdued demand has been the one consistent factor in this sluggish economic expansion.”
Private sector jobs rose by 84,000 jobs in June, according to the BLS. However, the government sector shed 4,000 jobs in June, with most of the losses at the state and federal levels.
Supreme Court Upholds Healthcare Reform – A Staffing Perspective
As reported on June 28, 2012 by Staffing Industry Analysts, Daily News, the U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as healthcare reform, drew concerns from business groups and others. The law is certain to impact the staffing industry.
George Reardon, special counsel at employment law firm Littler Mendelson, said the law will cause the cost of contingent labor to rise as employer penalties take effect in 2014.
Staffing firms also shouldn’t count on a repeal of the law, Reardon said. Republicans would have to win both houses in the election (including a 60-vote, filibuster-proof Senate) and the presidency and would also have to resist pressure to keep popular pieces of the law.
However, the National Federation of Business said it plans to continue to fight against healthcare reform. The federation and 26 states were parties to the lawsuit.
“Under PPACA, small-business owners are going to face an onslaught of taxes and mandates, resulting in job loss and closed businesses,” Dan Danner, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for the repeal of PPACA in the halls of Congress; only with PPACA’s full repeal will Congress have the ability to go back to the drawing board to craft real reform that makes reducing costs a number one priority.”
The Supreme Court’s opinion today did not include the employer mandates portion of the law. The complex opinion concerned the individual mandate, which requires individuals to buy health insurance starting in 2014 or face penalties. The court’s opinion also covered a portion of the law that allowed the federal government to pull all Medicaid funding for states if they didn’t expand Medicaid coverage to those making up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line.
In short, the court upheld the individual mandate on the grounds that it could be thought of as raising taxes for those who don’t buy healthcare insurance.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” according to the court’s opinion written by Justice Roberts. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
Removal of the mandate might have invalidated the entire healthcare reform law.
In addition, the Supreme Court ruled against allowing the federal government to withdraw all Medicaid funding from states that don’t allow expanded Medicaid coverage.
The court’s opinion ran 193 pages.
Penalties
The decision paves the way for employer penalties to take effect in 2014.
The law requires that employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees provide a certain level of healthcare coverage or pay a penalty. The penalty is $2,000 multiplied by the number of full-time workers (minus 30) if any employee receives a federal subsidy to purchase healthcare insurance, according to the April 2010 issue of the Legs & Regs Advisor.
If an employer offers coverage that is deemed “unaffordable” because the employee has to pay more than 9.5 percent of his or her income, or the employer contributes less than 60 percent of the actuarial value of the plan, the employer must pay $3,000 for each full-time employee getting a federal subsidy up to a cap of $2,000 multiplied by the number of full-time employees.
At one time a “look-back” period was discussed that would allow staffing firms to track how many full-time employees they have — for the purposes of calculating possible penalties under healthcare reform — for up to an entire year instead of on a month-to-month basis. This could drastically reduce the number of workers for which a staffing firm could be penalized. A year-long look-back period would allow a staffing firm to be penalized for a worker only if that worker was on the job full-time for a year.
However, Reardon said staffing firms shouldn’t count on long look-back periods for defining who is a full-time employee because they are opposed by the Service Employees International Union and others.
Anti-discrimination portions of healthcare reform might also impact staffing firms’ ability to offer one type of healthcare insurance to internal workers and another type of insurance to external, temporary workers.
Reardon advised that firms should prepare for nondiscrimination rules when they are published.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Reardon also noted:
- Staffing firms should analyze the patterns of their contingent workforce.
- Although qualifying insurance for temporary workers is theoretically an option, it may be unfeasible because of unavailability and unreasonable cost.
- Staffing firms might consider ways to mitigate penalties through workforce reallocation and management strategies such as franchising, branchising, job-sharing and term limits.
However, some in the staffing industry say the new law could increase business.
AMN Healthcare Services Inc. (NYSE: AHS) in its 10-K filing earlier this year with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said the law could increase demand for its services.
“It is widely anticipated the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (in its current form), will result in a substantial increase in the number of newly insured Americans that will require access to care, increasing the need for physicians, nurses and other allied health professionals in various healthcare settings in and outside of the traditional acute-care hospital, which could increase demand for our services,” according to the 10-K
Small & Mid-sized Companies account for 93.75% of the job growth in June!
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 June 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 June 5th, ADP reported that employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 176,000 from May to June on a seasonally adjusted basis. This was up by 40,000 from the previous month. The estimated gain from April to May was revised up slightly, from the initial estimate of 133,000 to a revised estimate of 136,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector rose 160,000 in June, after rising a revised 137,000 in May and a revised 119,000 in April. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector increased added 16,000 jobs in June, up from 1,000 additions in May. Manufacturing employment added 4,000 after dropping 2,000 jobs in May
Construction employment rose by 8,000 jobs, after two months of declines.
Employment in the financial services sector added 11,000 jobs from May to June, extending this sector’s consecutive advances to eleven months.
But here is the real good news for those of you who include small and mid-sized companies in your specialty niches (as I strongly recommend):
In June…
Small business (those with up to 49 employees) payrolls rose +93,000, up from the 67,000 jobs created among small businesses last month.
Medium business (50-499 employees) payrolls rose +72,000 up from 57,000 jobs created in May. Of the 72,000 jobs created by medium-sized businesses, 7,000 jobs were created by the goods-producing sector and 65,000 jobs were created by the service-producing sector.
Large business (500+ employees) payrolls increased by +11,000. This is an increase from +9,000 in May. This follows increases of +4,000 in April, +22,000 in March, +20,000 in February, +20,000 in January, +37,000 in December and +12,000 in November and follows declines in October of and in September of .
So, the combined small and medium-sized company employment growth of +165,000 (up from 124,000 in May) accounted for a noteworthy 93.75% (up from 93.2% in May, but down from 96.6% in April, but up from 89.5% in March and from 90.7% in February and down from 98.2% in January, but up from 88.6% in December) of the total 176,000 (up from 133,000 in May, and up from 119,000 in April, but down from 209,000 in March and from 216,000 in February) job growth in June, 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 June 19th, the BLS reported that there were 3,400,000 job openings on the last business day of April—a decrease from the 3,700,000 job openings announced for the last business day of March. (The next BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey results for May 2012 are scheduled to be released on July 10th). The 3,400,000 reflects published openings comprised of jobs that are advertised either online or in print format.
(The Conference Board, on July 2nd, released a report that online advertised vacancies, in the US alone, rose by 232,000 in June to approximately 4,950,000. June marked a strong gain after the second quarter got off to a slow start. “Online labor demand in the first half of 2012 increased by an average of 104,000 per month, but about one-third of both the states and the 100 largest metro areas are still below their pre-recession highs for labor demand,” said June Shelp, VP at the Conference Board).
As we recruiters know, that 3,400,000 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 3,400,000 published job openings now become a total of 17,000,000 published and hidden job orders.
In June there were 12,749,000 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 12,749,000 unemployed, then they will keep reappearing each month as a BLS unemployment statistic—as they have. In the meantime, our recruitment marketplace flourishes!
The June 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 July 6th, 2012, the BLS published the most recent unemployment rate for June, 2012 of 8.2% (actually it is 8.217, up .011% from 8.206 in May, 2012). The unemployment rate was determined by dividing the unemployed of 12,749,000 (up from the month before by 29,000—since June, 2011 (one year ago), this number has decreased by 1,275,000) by the total civilian labor force of 155,163,000 (up by 156,000 from May, 2012). Since June 2011, our total civilian labor force has increased by 1,754,000 people.
(The continuing ‘Strange BLS Math’ saga): The BLS continues to increase the total Civilian Working Population—this time up to 243,155,000; up from May by 189,000; up from April by 182,000; up from March by 180,000; up from February by 169,000; up from January by 335,000; and up from December by 2,020,000. But this month they have slightly increased the Civilian Labor Force to 155,163,000 (up from May by 156,000). Subtract the second number from the first number and you get 87,992,000 ‘Not in Labor Force’. That is an increase of 1,295,000 since December 2011—6 months ago. In one year’s time, since June 2011, 1,912,000 US workers have vanished! Where did those 1,912,000 potential workers disappear to? That’s approximately 6.1% 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—remains at 63.8% (same as May’s rate) just two-tenths higher than April 2012’s historic lowest level since December 1981!) Final take on these numbers: Fewer people looking for work will always bring down the unemployment rate).
And finally, it is important to note that the final ‘estimate’ of our GDP number for the first quarter of 2012 was announced on June 28th and confirmed at 1.9% (that is exactly the same and the second ‘estimate’ and down from the first ‘estimate’ of 2.2%). This is down from the final GDP ‘estimate’ for the fourth quarter of 2011 of 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 2012. A recent survey by the National Association for Business Economics, a group of private economists predicted gross domestic product (the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States) 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 June rose to 4.4% (this rate is up from last month’s 4.0%). Or, you can look at it another way. We usually place people who have college degrees. That unemployment rate in June rose to 4.1% (this rate is up from last month’s 3.9%).
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 June “management, professional and related” types of worker category, you will find the following rates:
June 2011 4.7%
June 2010 4.9%
June 2009 5.0%
June 2008 2.7%
June 2007 2.3%
June 2006 2.4%
June 2005 2.6%
June 2004 2.9%
June 2003 3.5%
June 2002 3.3%
Here are the rates, during those same time periods, for “college-degreed” workers:
June 2011 4.4%
June 2010 4.4%
June 2009 4.7%
June 2008 2.3%
June 2007 2.0%
June 2006 2.1%
June 2005 2.3%
June 2004 2.7%
June 2003 3.1%
June 2002 3.0%
So, while June’s 2012 rates for these two categories, at 4.4% and 4.1% respectively, are not huge when looking at the big picture, it’s not anything to be very happy about either—especially when we see how well we had it during the 2002-2008 time frame. But regardless, these unemployment numbers usually include a good number of job hoppers, job shoppers and rejects. We, on the other hand, are engaged by our client companies to find those candidates who are happy, well-appreciated, making good money and currently working and we entice them to move for even better opportunities—especially where new technologies are expanding. This will never change. And that is why, no matter the unemployment rate, we still need to market to find the best job orders and we still need to recruit to find the best candidates.
Below are the numbers for the over 25 year olds:
Less that H.S. diploma – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
10.9% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
12.0% |
12.6% |
13.3% |
14.8% |
15.5% |
15.5% |
15.4% |
15.6% |
15.0% |
15.5% |
15.0% |
15.3% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
15.2% |
15.6% |
14.5% |
14.7% |
15.0% |
14.1% |
13.8% |
14.0% |
15.4% |
15.3% |
15.7% |
15.3% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
14.2% |
13.9% |
13.7% |
14.6% |
14.7% |
14.3% |
15.0% |
14.3% |
14.0% |
13.8% |
13.2% |
13.8% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
13.1% |
12.9% |
12.6% |
12.5% |
13.0% |
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 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
8.4% |
8.3% |
8.0% |
7.9% |
8.1% |
8.4% |
Some College; or AA/AS – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
5.6% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
6.2% |
7.0% |
7.2% |
7.4% |
7.7% |
8.0% |
7.9% |
8.2% |
8.5% |
9.0% |
9.0% |
9.0% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
8.5% |
8.0% |
8.2% |
8.3% |
8.3% |
8.2% |
8.3% |
8.7% |
9.1% |
8.5% |
8.7% |
8.1% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
8.0% |
7.8% |
7.4% |
7.5% |
8.0% |
8.4% |
8.3% |
8.2% |
8.4% |
8.3% |
7.6% |
7.7% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
7.2% |
7.3% |
7.5% |
7.6% |
7.9% |
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 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
4.0% |
3.9% |
4.1% |
Management, Professional & Related – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
3.3% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
4.1% |
3.9% |
4.2% |
4.0% |
4.6% |
5.0% |
5.5% |
5.4% |
5.2% |
4.7% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
5.0% |
4.8% |
4.7% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
4.9% |
5.0% |
5.1% |
4.4% |
4.5% |
4.7% |
4.6% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
4.7% |
4.4% |
4.3% |
4.0% |
4.4% |
4.7% |
5.0% |
4.9% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
4.3% |
4.2% |
4.2% |
3.7% |
4.0% |
4.4% |
Or employed…(,000)
|
12/08 |
|
52,548 |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
52,358 |
52,196 |
52,345 |
52,597 |
52,256 |
51,776 |
51,810 |
51,724 |
52,186 |
52,981 |
52,263 |
52,131 |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
52,159 |
52,324 |
52,163 |
52,355 |
51,839 |
51,414 |
50,974 |
50,879 |
51,757 |
51,818 |
52,263 |
51,704 |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
51,866 |
52,557 |
53,243 |
53,216 |
52,778 |
52,120 |
51,662 |
51,997 |
52,665 |
52,864 |
52,787 |
52,808 |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
53,152 |
53,208 |
53,771 |
54,055 |
54,156 |
53,846 |
And unemployed…(,000)
|
12/08 |
|
1,802 |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
2,238 |
2,137 |
2,292 |
2,164 |
2,373 |
2,720 |
3,034 |
2,925 |
2,859 |
2,593 |
2,530 |
2,509 |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
2,762 |
2,637 |
2,600 |
2,464 |
2,450 |
2,644 |
2,687 |
2,762 |
2,381 |
2,417 |
2,525 |
2,468 |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
2,557 |
2,435 |
2,381 |
2,196 |
2,419 |
2,598 |
2,742 |
2,671 |
2,450 |
2,410 |
2,336 |
2,303 |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
2,410 |
2,336 |
2,330 |
2,062 |
2,275 |
2,472 |
For a total Management, Professional & Related workforce of…(,000)
|
12/08 |
|
54,350 |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
54,596 |
54,333 |
54,637 |
54,761 |
54,629 |
54,496 |
54,844 |
54,649 |
55,045 |
55,574 |
54,793 |
54,640 |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
54,921 |
54,961 |
54,763 |
54,819 |
54,289 |
54,058 |
53,661 |
53,641 |
54,138 |
54,235 |
54,788 |
54,172 |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
54,423 |
54,992 |
55,624 |
55,412 |
55,197 |
54,718 |
54,404 |
54,668 |
55,115 |
55,274 |
55,123 |
55,111 |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
55,562 |
55,544 |
56,101 |
56,117 |
56,431 |
56,318 |
Management, Business and Financial Operations – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
3.9% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
4.6% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.6% |
4.8% |
4.9% |
5.0% |
5.2% |
5.4% |
5.4% |
5.2% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
5.2% |
5.1% |
5.4% |
5.1% |
4.9% |
4.8% |
4.7% |
4.9% |
4.3% |
5.0% |
5.5% |
5.7% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
5.3% |
4.9% |
4.8% |
4.6% |
4.9% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
4.6% |
4.7% |
4.6% |
4.4% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
4.5% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
4.0% |
4.1% |
3.8% |
Professional & Related – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
2.9% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
3.7% |
3.5% |
3.9% |
3.6% |
4.2% |
5.1% |
6.0% |
5.6% |
5.2% |
4.2% |
4.1% |
4.2% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
4.9% |
4.6% |
4.3% |
4.1% |
4.3% |
5.0% |
5.2% |
5.3% |
4.4% |
4.1% |
4.1% |
3.8% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
4.3% |
4.1% |
3.9% |
3.5% |
4.0% |
4.9% |
5.3% |
5.1% |
4.4% |
4.1% |
4.0% |
4.0% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
4.2% |
4.1% |
4.0% |
3.5% |
4.0% |
4.8% |
Sales & Related – Unemployment Rate
|
12/08 |
|
7.0% |
|
1/09 |
2/09 |
3/09 |
4/09 |
5/09 |
6/09 |
7/09 |
8/09 |
9/09 |
10/09 |
11/09 |
12/09 |
|
7.7% |
8.4% |
8.9% |
8.6% |
8.9% |
9.1% |
8.3% |
8.7% |
8.9% |
9.5% |
9.1% |
8.9% |
|
1/10 |
2/10 |
3/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
10/10 |
11/10 |
12/10 |
|
10.1% |
10.2% |
9.7% |
9.2% |
9.6% |
9.4% |
10.1% |
9.0% |
9.4% |
9.1% |
8.8% |
8.3% |
|
1/11 |
2/11 |
3/11 |
4/11 |
5/11 |
6/11 |
7/11 |
8/11 |
9/11 |
10/11 |
11/11 |
12/11 |
|
9.3% |
9.0% |
8.5% |
8.5% |
9.4% |
9.7% |
9.4% |
8.6% |
9.4% |
8.2% |
7.8% |
7.7% |
|
1/12 |
2/12 |
3/12 |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
|
8.2% |
7.9% |
8.1% |
7.6% |
7.9% |
8.4% |