Surge in Women’s Employment Brings Unemployment Rate Down to 9.7 Percent
Friday 05 February 2010
by: Dean Baker | The Center for Economic and Policy Research

(Photo: oooh.oooh; Edited: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t)
The unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent in January, driven by a 0.4 percentage-point drop in the unemployment rate for women to 8.4 percent. The unemployment rate for men fell 0.2 percentage points to 10.8 percent. This drop came in spite of a reported loss of 20,000 jobs in the establishment survey.
The improved employment picture was primarily a story for adult white women. Their unemployment rate fell by 0.6 percentage points to 6.8 percent, while their employment rate (EPOP) rose by 0.6 percentage points to 56.1 percent. The unemployment rate for black women rose slightly to 13.3 percent, although their EPOP also rose 0.2 percentage points to 54.7 percent. It is striking that the EPOP for white women is now 1.4 percentage points higher than for black women. Until last summer it had always been lower, although the gap had been narrowing over the last three decades.
For blacks overall, January was a bad month. The unemployment rate rose to 16.5 percent, the highest of the downturn. The unemployment rate for black men rose a full percentage point to 17.6 percent, also a high for the downturn.
By education group, the big winners were people with some college, who saw 1.2 percentage-point increase in their EPOP. There was little change in the EPOPs for other groups. Workers over age 55 continued to fare best, accounting for 178,000 of the 541,000 increase in employment. Women over age 55 accounted for 140,000 of these jobs.
In addition to the gains in employment, the household survey also showed a sharp fall in the number of people involuntarily working part-time, from 9,055,000 to 8,193,000. The U-6 measure of labor market slack correspondingly fell from 17.3 percent to 16.5 percent. It is also worth noting that the percentage of the unemployed who have voluntarily quit their job has edged up to 6.1 percent. This is still very low, but somewhat better than the 5.6 percent reported last summer, suggesting somewhat greater confidence in the labor market.
The establishment data look somewhat less positive. Not only do the data continue to show job loss, but the job loss over the last three months (Oct-Dec) was revised upward by 102,000, giving an average job loss of 103,000 per month over this period. Without 33,000 temporary census jobs, the establishment survey would have shown a loss of 53,000 jobs for January.
However, even in the establishment survey there are some positive signs. Manufacturing employment increased by 11,000, the first gain since January of 2007. This was fully explained by a 22,700 rise in auto employment. While this may not be repeated, it is likely that manufacturing employment has finally bottomed out.
Retail trade added 42,100 jobs, although this may be a seasonal anomaly with fewer people than normal hired in the holiday season and therefore fewer layoffs in January. Employment services showed another big increase, adding 52,000 jobs in January. This is consistent with a picture of employees getting ready to add permanent employees. Hours worked also increased, with the index of aggregate hours rising from 97.9 to 98.2.

However, there were also many negative aspects to the establishment data. Construction lost another 75,000 jobs, the vast majority in non-residential construction. State and local governments shed 41,000 jobs. The leisure and hospitality sector shed 14,000 jobs. Even health care seems to be weakening as a bastion of employment growth, adding just 14,500 jobs in January.
The benchmark revisions show the downturn to be even deeper than previously believed. The revised data show a loss of 8,424,000 from the peak in December of 2007. Over the decade from January 2000 to January 2010, the economy actually lost 1,254,000 jobs. The economy lost 2,100,000 construction jobs (27.2 percent) since the peak in August of 2006 and 2,467,000 manufacturing jobs since the decline began in January 2007. The index of hours worked is below the November 1997 level.
On the whole, there is some positive news in this report, with the household survey showing a much brighter picture than the establishment survey. It is possible that the birth/death data could now be understating job growth. Dean
Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report. For more information or to subscribe by fax or email contact CEPR at 202-293-5380 ext. 102, or chinku [at] cepr [dot] net. Dean Baker is a member of the Truthout Board of Advisers.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
The number of employed
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 18:01 — Carlton (not verified)The number of employed declined last month, yet the unemployment rate fell because of data "adjustments." Orwell would like this.
All that happened last month
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 19:59 — Rick (not verified)All that happened last month was negative. The GOV, just spun the data, once again.
Most of the time I agree
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 20:10 — Devon J. Noll, MPA (not verified)Most of the time I agree with Dr. Baker, but on this he sounds just like any other economist trying to justify the poor economic policies of the last 30 years, of which he was a key player at times. Yes women and people over 55 fared better in the last quarter - we are the ones who took low wage jobs at places like Wal-Mart so our families could have Christmas. But watch how our layoffs, post holiday, will affect the numbers in 2010's first quarter. As for those numbers, very few of the U6 numbers included the number of people who actually are now homeless as the result of job loss and dropping of the unemployment rolls. They are not counted because they do not exist as far the government is concerned.
These figures are all skewed to show that the government is actually addressing the issue, but one article today posed an important question: how do you have an economic recovery when you have no jobs recovery? You don't have a sustainable recovery, you have a paper recovery just like you have paper wealth in economic bubbles. That is all the last quarter figures reflect, and Dr. Baker should be well aware of that. When he and other economists start telling this administration and future administrations that pandering to the wealthy with free trade and tax cuts will help the economy, and start demanding that American companies bring American jobs back home or lose their tax benefits, then and only then will we begin to see real, sustainable recovery. Only when these economists start telling the powers that rule this nation that unless they fund SBA adequately and force banks to lend again to small businesses, only then will we have real recovery, not a paper one.
These figures are not reflective of the real world, and anyone who fails to address the realities of the average American only shores up the paper recovery that has only helped the wealthy and corporate interests.