BLS Analysis for November 2012

Bob Marshall’s BLS Analysis; 12/7/12

 

 November BLS Preface

 

Special BLS note – In October, 2012, 75,000 “Jobs” Were Created From Thin Air:

CNBC Op-Ed, Gary Kominsky, 11/5/12

*75,000 of the 171,000 jobs claimed in October were ‘seasonally adjusted’ jobs;

*Seasonal adjustment was decreased from minus to minus ;

*911,000 jobs are counted ‘not seasonally adjusted’ (NSA) for October 2012;

*October 2011 there were 895,000 jobs NSA.

 

TBMG News

To potential students:  If you want to increase your income as a recruiter, all the details of my three coaching plans are available to you on my website: www.TheMarshallPlan.org or you can reach me at 770-898-5550 or bob@themarshallplan.org

 

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 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

Forecast Lowers Q1 Jobs Estimate

Daily News, November 09 2012

Economists expect the U.S. to add an average of 127,400 jobs per month in the first quarter of 2013, according to the fourth-quarter Survey of Professional Forecasters released today by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. That’s down from an estimate of 151,700 in the forecasters’ last report.

Annually, the forecasters estimate the U.S. will add an average of 143,300 jobs per month in 2013, down from the estimate of 155,600 for 2012. The annual estimates in the new report released today are little changed from the previous report released last quarter.

The unemployment rate is estimated to trend down to an average annual level of 7.8% in 2013, according to today’s report. However, it is forecast to reach 6.9% in 2015.

Forecasters also estimate that growth in real gross domestic product will ease to 1.7% in the first quarter from the estimate of 1.8% for the fourth quarter.  However, growth is estimated to pick up again in the second quarter of 2013. The GDP estimates in today’s report are little changed from the previous report.

 

The U.S. economy grew 2.7% last quarter. That’s not entirely good news.

by Brad Plumer, Washington Post, November 29, 2012

The economy grew at a 2.7% pace in the third quarter of 2012, not the 2% pace previously estimated. That’s the latest verdict from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which went back and updated its GDP numbers as better data rolled in.

On the surface, this looks like a good sign—the economy was growing even faster than we thought. The revision also makes President Obama’s reelection seem a bit less mysterious, seeing as how the economy was actually trundling along at a healthy clip in the months leading up to November.

But the details of the report aren’t entirely positive. About 0.7% points of growth between July and September came from an anomalous spike in federal defense outlays. We’ve already dissected that strange surge in military spending — experts say it most likely came from the Pentagon looking to spend through its existing budget authority before the end of the fiscal year (and before the sequester spending cuts clamped down). 

What’s more, another 0.8% points of growth came from faster-than-expected inventory accumulation. Businesses were restocking at a faster rate, but sales weren’t necessarily keeping up. Final sales growth actually got revised downward from 2.1% to 1.9%. Many analysts think it’s unlikely that companies will keep stockpiling inventory next quarter — if anything, they’re likely to cut back a bit as sales slow.

So growth last quarter was boosted by two short-term factors. And the problem here, as Nigel Gault of IHS Global Insight points out, is that the rest of the economy — apart from housing — is still relatively fragile. “Consumer spending growth was sluggish at 1.4%, business fixed investment declined, and even though exports did better than first thought they were only up 1.1%,” Gault notes. “The one shining star was residential fixed investment, up 14.2% as the housing recovery kicked into gear.”

That’s not to say the U.S. economy is headed for a recession or anything. Gault expects that the slowly recovering housing market and improved business confidence should help bolster economic activity in 2013 — assuming that Congress figures out how to resolve the fiscal cliff. “But the immediate growth outlook is soft,” he notes. 

Meanwhile, nominal GDP—basically GDP that hasn’t been adjusted for inflation—grew at a 5.5% pace in the third quarter of 2012. Some economists think that the U.S. should aim for consistent nominal GDP growth of around 4.5% to 5%. So, at first glance, the economy appears to be on pace.

But there’s a catch: Right now, thanks to the recession, the U.S. is so far below that nominal growth target that the economy needs even faster growth to catch back up. Nominal growth of 5.5% helps a bit, but the gap is still large:

That helps explain why Federal Reserve officials are calling the current pace of growth “disappointing,” as Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley put it. He added that the Fed is planning to “stay the course” on its stimulus efforts.

Employers may be aggravating the ‘skills gap’ 

John W. Schoen, NBC News, December 6, 2012

With the economic recovery stuck in low gear, Tammy Krings has something of a happy problem for her growing, Columbus, Ohio-based global travel business, TS24.

Some 17 years after starting with out three employees, Krings is wrapping up a barnburner year. The company booked so much new business in 2012; she’s had to hire 60 new employees – up from a staff of 120 in January.

Faced with that kind of rapid growth, Krings says she ran smack into one of the biggest hurdles cited by many employers today: the so-called “skills gap.”

 “My frustration is you keep hearing about these unemployment numbers, but we have a very, very difficult time finding qualified people,” she said.

Researchers and staffing consultants say Krings’ frustration is widespread, the result of a host of powerful forces jarring the labor market – from the ongoing, rapid infusion of technology into the workplace to the decline of vocational training in the American education system and the ongoing, mass exodus of a generation of skilled baby boomers headed for retirement.    

As a result, Krings learned what labor economists and staffing consultants say is the hard reality of finding skilled workers in a rapidly changing workplace. 

If you can’t find what you’re looking for, try harder. And if that doesn’t work, you may have to cough up the money to train the best new hires you can find.

“We’ve been able to find the types of people that we want as long we are willing to invest in them to bring them to the level of skill that we need,” said Krings.

But millions of small- and medium-sized employers, the businesses that create the bulk of new jobs, are apparently unwilling or unable to spend the money to bring new hires up to speed.

“I don’t think companies are confident enough right now to make big investments (in training),” said Melanie Holmes who has tracked workplace issues in a 30-year career with Manpower, a global staffing company. “They want to hire someone who can be productive tomorrow.”

There’s no debate about the increased demand for higher-skilled workers in an economy that relies more heavily every year on advances in technology to raise the productivity of each worker. That’s why the jobs that employers said they had the hardest time filling in 2012 were skilled trades, engineers and IT Staff, according to a Manpower survey.

“It used to be all you needed was a strong back and an alarm clock to get a really good, family-sustaining job in manufacturing,” said Holmes. “Unfortunately for individuals – and fortunately for companies – technology has changed that. You need at least some post-secondary education.”

But a decades-long shift in emphasis on four-year, liberal arts college degrees has drained the supply of students entering job-based, vocational and technical schools. Employer- and union-sponsored training programs have also become artifacts of the last century, according to Peter Cappelli, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who heads the school’s Center for Human Resources. 

“Apprenticeship programs have collapsed,” he said. “We’ve got, by far, the least apprenticeship training per capita than any other industrialized country.”

That has shifted the burden of skills training to employers – a burden many say they’re unwilling or unable to take on. The current dearth of company-sponsored training programs is also, in part, a hangover from the mass layoffs and hiring freezes that accompanied the Great Recession.   

“Training was one of the first things that we cut during the downturn because we weren’t hiring,” said Krings. “If you’re not hiring, you don’t need to have anyone on board to train new hires.”

But with the economy now in its third year of a halting recovery, many companies continue to defer spending on training.

“It comes down to an excuse of budget limitations,” said David Smith, a human resources consultant at Accenture. “The biggest issue probably is return on investment. It’s hard to measure the results. But it’s a poor excuse. People just get hung up so quickly on that point and they’re very, very short-sighted.”

Some companies simply don’t get it. Many of the “skills gap” complaints are coming from small companies that have limited or no human resources expertise, according to Capelli.

“If they don’t have anybody in house who understands recruiting and training and development, then there’s nobody to explain to management ‘We’re looking in the wrong places’ or  ‘We can’t pay this much and expect to get the people we want.’ “

One simple solution would be to raise wages. The laws of economics suggest that if something is in short supply, prices should rise until demand is satisfied. If a computer programmer can earn $50 an hour working for a software company, she has little incentive to accept a $25 an hour job programming a manufacturing robot.

But Krings says she just can’t afford to pay the salaries that the best applicants are asking.

“Our customers don’t want to pay the rate they were paying three years ago,” she said. “We’re doing more for less today.”

Like Krings, most employers apparently are unwilling or unable to pay higher wages to compete for better skills. Manpower’s survey found that only 11 percent had increased starting salaries in 2012 to help recruit talented workers. More than three times as many said they preferred to provide additional training to existing staff.

Some hiring managers just give up looking and defer new hires, assuming they’ll save money that will add to profits. But that strategy generates a false sense of economy because few employers account for just how much those unfilled jobs are costing them, said Capelli.

“You can’t account for lost opportunities, or the work that’s not getting done, or the burnout of your employees — who all want to get out of there now because they feel you’re abusing them with overwork,” he said. “You can’t account for any of that stuff, so it looks like you’re saving money.”

Though tight budgets and a weak economy may have crimped companies’ spending on training and bigger paychecks, hiring managers bemoaning the “skills gap” may be in for a rude shock if the economy picks up speed next year. With increased demand for talent, the “skills gap” will only worsen as more companies have to draw from the same pool of workers, said Holmes.

“I think it’s going to worse before it gets better,” she said. “If business does come back next year, we’re not going to have enough people.”

 

3% pay raises the ‘new normal’ for 2013

Michelle V. Rafter, NBC News contributor

Many U.S. workers can expect to bring home 3% more in 2013 than they did this year, according to forecasts from national compensation surveys.

That’s just over the average median pay raise of 2.7% to 2.8% in 2012. It’s also more than the 2% to 2.5% raise most employees saw immediately after the recession, which started in late 2008, according to a 2012 salary report from Bucks Consultants.

Three percent raises are the new normal, says Ravin Jesuthasan, a compensation expert and managing director with management consultant Towers Watson. “I don’t think anyone should expect merit increases to deviate that much going forward, even if the economy does well,” he says.

Pay raises remain skimpy because unemployment is still high, and because companies continue to keep a lid on fixed costs, including labor, according to Jesuthasan and other compensation analysts.

As earnings at many businesses improve, however, they’re spending more on variable compensation. Put into plain English, that means next year workers can expect to see bigger bonuses or other monetary incentives, things that companies can choose to pay out or not depending on how they’re doing financially.

Top performers, people who do the best at going above and beyond their job descriptions, will see the biggest bonuses of all, roughly 50% more than the average worker, says Kerry Chou, a compensation practice leader for WorldatWork, the nonprofit human resources researcher.

During hard times when companies were asking fewer employees to do more for little or no change in compensation, promotions were few and far between. That’s changing, too, says David Van De Voort, a Buck Consultants principal. For 2013, he says, “we’re seeing a nice uptick in the percentage of people offered promotions, and also the size of the pay increase that people get for the promotion has gone up.” Promotions are double-edged swords, though, because more pay comes with more work and responsibility, he says.

 

Here are other trends compensation experts predict for 2013:

  • Energy industry employees will get the biggest pay bumps. Oil, gas and mining companies are expected to give average median pay raises of 3.8% to 3.9% in 2013, according to the ‘WorldatWork 2012-2013 Salary Budget Survey’.  High gas prices and energy production make these “booming” industries, Chou says.

 

  • Educators and government employees will miss out. Teachers at all levels and public-sector employees — think postal workers — will see the smallest raises, averaging 2.1%, Chou says.   

 

  • Talent shortages in in-demand jobs will continue to drive up wages. Despite lingering high unemployment, companies will continue to have trouble filling openings for airline pilots and select white-collar jobs, as well as skilled laborers such as tool and die makers due to talent shortages in those fields. As a result, people with highly sought-after skills can expect to see pay raises “much higher” than the average as companies try to keep them from jumping to the competition, Jesuthasan says.

 

  • Employees will pick up more of their own health insurance costs. Companies continue to ask workers to assume a higher share of health care premiums, negating some pay increases. “We have the added complication of Obamacare and employers trying to figure out how to cope with that,” Van De Voort says. Some companies are cutting back hours so employees won’t be eligible, while others want to provide benefits “but are struggling to figure out how to afford that,” he says.

 

The new ADP/Moody’s Report released December 5, 2012: 

Private sector employment increased by 118,000 (down from last month’s 157,000—revised down from the initially reported 158,000) jobs from October to November, according to the November ADP National Employment Report®, which is produced by Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP®), a leading provider of human capital management solutions, 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.  The report is based on an anonymous subset of 406,000 ADP clients in the U.S. which employ more than 23 million U.S. workers.


By Company Size

Small businesses: 19,000

1-19 employees 13,000

20-49 employees 6,000

 

Medium businesses: 33,000

50-499 employees 33,000

 

Large businesses: 66,000

500-999 employees 3,000

1,000+ employees 62,000

 

By Sector

 

Goods producing 4,000

Service providing 144,000

 

Industry Snapshot

 

Construction 23,000

Manufacturing -16,000

Trade/transportation/utilities 22,000

Financial activities 13,000

Professional/business services 16,000

 

Good-producing employment rose by 4,000 jobs in November as gains in construction jobs of 23,000 more than offset the 16,000 decline in manufacturing employment.

Service-providing jobs increased by 114,000.  Among the service industries reported by the ADP National Employment Report, trade/transportation/utilities services had the largest gain with 22,000 jobs added over the month.  Professional/business services added 16,000 jobs and financial activities added 13,000 jobs in November.

Carlos A. Rodriguez, president and CEO of ADP said, “This month’s ADP National Employment Report shows an increase of 118,000 new jobs in November.  Today’s report shows that year-to-date employment gains averaged 135,000 jobs per month.”

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said, “Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls.  The manufacturing, retailing, leisure and hospitality, and temporary help industries were hit particularly hard by the storm.  Abstracting from the storm, the job market turned in a good performance during the month.  This is especially impressive given the uncertainty created by the Presidential election and the fast-approaching fiscal cliff.  Businesses appear to be holding firm on their hiring and firing decisions.”

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 Structural Unemployment

On November 6th, the BLS reported that there were 3,600,000 job openings on the last business day of September—essentially unchanged from the approximately 3,600,000 job openings announced for the last business day of August.  (The next BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey results for October 2012 are scheduled to be released on December 11th).  The 3,600,000 reflects published openings comprised of jobs that are advertised either online or in print format. 

As we recruiters know, that 3,600,000 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 3,600,000 published job openings now become a total of 18,000,000 published and hidden job orders.

In November there were 12,029,000 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 12,029,000 unemployed, then they will keep reappearing each month as a BLS unemployment statistic—as they have.  In the meantime, our recruitment marketplace flourishes!

Online advertised vacancies were basically unchanged (down 15,700) in November to 4,719,900, according to The Conference Board Help Wanted OnLine® (HWOL) Data Series released on December 3, 2012.  The Supply/Demand rate stands at 2.6 unemployed for every vacancy. In October the number of unemployed was 7.5 million above the number of advertised vacancies, down from 11.8 million at the end of the recession in June 2009.

“Hurricane Sandy pushed the national labor demand into negative territory as declines along the East Coast more than offset the gains in States in the central and western U.S,” said June Shelp, Vice President at The Conference Board. The “hurricane effect” on the East Coast impacted job demand from Virginia to Massachusetts and contributed to a combined drop of 20,000 in New York and New Jersey. As we head into the final month of the year, November has left the average monthly national gain for the eleven months of 2012 at a very weak 36,000/month. In spite of this sluggish performance, advertised vacancies for Construction and Extraction occupations rose 16,000 or 19% in the first eleven months of 2012.

The November 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 December 7th, 2012, the BLS published the most recent unemployment rate for November, 2012 of 7.7% (actually it is 7.746 down .130 from 7.876 in October, 2012).

The unemployment rate was determined by dividing the unemployed of 12,029,000 (down from the month before by 229,000—since November, 2011 (one year ago), this number has decreased by 1,294,000) by the total civilian labor force of 155,291,000 (down by 350,000 from October, 2012).  Since November 2011, our total civilian labor force has increased by 1,354,000 people. 

(The continuing ‘Strange BLS Math’ saga):  The BLS continues to increase the total Civilian Working Population—this time up to 244,174,000; up from October by 191,000; up from September by 211,000, up from August by 206,000; up from July by 212,000; up from June by 199,000; 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.  And this month they have slightly decreased the Civilian Labor Force to 155,291,000 (down from October by 350,000). 

Subtract the second number from the first number and you get 88,883,000 ‘Not in Labor Force’.  That is an increase of 542,000 ‘Not in Labor Force” in one month’s time.  Since November 2011, 2,380,000 US workers have vanished!  Where did those 2,380,000 potential workers disappear to?  That’s approximately 7.6% of the entire US population of 314,899,621.  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—has fallen to 63.6% (1/10th higher than August’s historic low level).

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 November fell again, to 3.6% (this rate is down from last month’s 3.8% and the previous month’s 3.9%).  Or, you can look at it another way.  We usually place people who have college degrees.  That unemployment rate in November remained at 3.8%.

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”

On November 29th,  the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced that the “second” estimate of our real gross domestic product (GDP) – the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States – increased at an annual rate of 2.7% in the third quarter of 2012 (that is from the second quarter to the third quarter).  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3%.  And in the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0%.  The economy needs to expand at about 3% just to keep the unemployment rate from rising.


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 November “management, professional and related” types of worker category, you will find the following rates:

November 2011                      4.2%

November 2010                      4.7%

November 2009                      4.6%

November 2008                      3.2%

November 2007                      1.8%

November 2006                      1.7%

November 2005                      2.1%

November 2004                      2.4%

November 2003                      2.9%

November 2002                      2.9%

 

Here are the rates, during those same time periods, for “college-degreed” workers:

 

November 2011                      4.4%

November 2010                      5.1%

November 2009                      4.9%

November 2008                      3.2%

November 2007                      2.2%

November 2006                      1.9%

November 2005                      2.3%

November 2004                      2.5%

November 2003                      3.1%

November 2002                      2.9%

 

So, while November’s 2012 rates for these two categories, at 3.6% and 3.8% respectively, are trending positively, 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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

13.1%

12.9%

12.6%

12.5%

13.0%

12.6%

12.7%

12.0%

11.3%

12.2%

12.2%

 

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

8.4%

8.3%

8.0%

7.9%

8.1%

8.4%

8.7%

8.8%

8.7%

8.4%

8.1%

 Some College; or AA/AS – Unemployment Rate

 

12/08

5.6%

 

1/09

2/09

3/09

4/09

5/09

6/09

7/09

8/09

9/09

10/09

11/09

12/09

6.2%

7.0%

7.2%

7.4%

7.7%

8.0%

7.9%

8.2%

8.5%

9.0%

9.0%

9.0%

 

1/10

2/10

3/10

4/10

5/10

6/10

7/10

8/10

9/10

10/10

11/10

12/10

8.5%

8.0%

8.2%

8.3%

8.3%

8.2%

8.3%

8.7%

9.1%

8.5%

8.7%

8.1%

 

1/11

2/11

3/11

4/11

5/11

6/11

7/11

8/11

9/11

10/11

11/11

12/11

8.0%

7.8%

7.4%

7.5%

8.0%

8.4%

8.3%

8.2%

8.4%

8.3%

7.6%

7.7%

 

1/12

2/12

3/12

4/12

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

7.2%

7.3%

7.5%

7.6%

7.9%

7.5%

7.1%

6.6%

6.5%

6.9%

6.6%

 

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

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

4.2%

4.2%

4.2%

4.0%

3.9%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

3.8%

3.8%

 

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

4.3%

4.2%

4.2%

3.7%

4.0%

4.4%

4.8%

4.5%

3.9%

3.8%

3.6%

 

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

53,152

53,208

53,771

54,055

54,156

53,846

53,165

53,696

54,655

55,223

54,951

 

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

2,410

2,336

2,330

2,062

2,275

2,472

2,666

2,556

2,245

2,170

2,077

 

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

55,562

55,544

56,101

56,117

56,431

56,318

55,831

56,252

56,900

57,393

57,028

 

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

4.5%

4.4%

4.4%

4.0%

4.1%

3.8%

3.8%

3.7%

3.5%

3.6%

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

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

4.2%

4.1%

4.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.8%

5.5%

5.2%

4.3%

3.9%

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

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

8.2%

7.9%

8.1%

7.6%

7.9%

8.4%

8.3%

8.6%

7.9%

7.0%

7.3%