U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Employment/Population Ratios for 

the 50 Largest Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas: 2008, 2009, and 2010

American Community Survey Briefs

Issued September 2011

ACSBR/10-09

By

David J. Howard 

and 

Braedyn K. Kromer

INTRODUCTION

According to the National Bureau of 

Economic Research, the recession that 

began in December 2007 ended in June 

2009.1 However, during 2009 and 2010, 

many areas of the country were still 

struggling economically. Using data from 

the American Community Surveys (ACS), 

this report will show employment/

population ratios for the 50 largest 

metropolitan areas between 2008 and 

2010, with particular emphasis on those 

metropolitan areas hit hardest by the 

most recent recession.2

Unlike the unemployment rate, which 

reflects the number of unemployed 

people actively looking for work, the 

employment/population ratio provides 

a measure of employment for the entire 

pool of people who are of working age 

(for this report, those people 16 to 64 

years old), including those who have 

stopped looking for work. Those who 

have stopped looking for work are not 

counted as being unemployed, and 

therefore, are not included in the official 

unemployment rate. Typically, an increase 

in the employment/population ratio is a 

reflection of economic growth as a larger 

proportion of the population is employed. 

The employment/population ratio 

decreases whenever the working-age 

population grows without a corresponding increase in employment, or whenever 

large numbers of people 16 to 64 years 

old stop working, either because they 

1 See <www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html> for 

more information. 2 For more information on metropolitan statistical 

areas, please see <www.whitehouse.gov/sites

/default/files/omb/assets/bulletins/b10-02.pdf>.

lost their jobs or retired. Examining the 

employment/population ratio, in addition 

to the unemployment rate, provides one 

with a more complete picture of the state 

of the labor market. 

EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION 

RATIO TRENDS

Between 2008 and 2010, the United 

States experienced a 4.9 percentage point 

decline in the employment/population 

ratio, from 71.5 in 2008 to 66.6 in 2010.3 

Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas, all 

but one (New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, 

LA) experienced a significant decrease in 

their employment/population ratio during 

this time period. Fifteen metropolitan 

areas saw larger employment/population ratio declines than the nation (please 

see the table for additional detail). Eight 

of these experienced severe housing 

3 A 4.9 percentage point decline in the employment/population ratio is a relatively large change 

over 2 years. According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), between 1948 and 2007, the average 

employment/population ratio change was 0.1 percentage points per year. The employment/population 

ratio change between 2008 and 2009 was the largest 

1-year change the BLS has reported since 1948. Note, 

the BLS definition of the employment/population 

ratio differs slightly from the definition used in this 

report, where the BLS definition is for the 16 and over 

noninstitutionalized population. More information 

can be found at: <www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy

/cpsatab1.htm>.

Employment/population ratio: 

A measure derived by dividing 

the civilian noninstitutionalized 

population 16 to 64 years who are 

employed by the total civilian noninstitutionalized population 16 to 

64 years and multiplying by 100.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

market declines—Jacksonville, FL; 

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV; Miami-Fort 

Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL; 

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL; PhoenixMesa-Scottsdale, AZ; RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario, CA; 

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—

Roseville, CA; and Seattle-TacomaBellevue, WA.4 At least six of the 

remaining are located in regions 

that have seen major industry 

declines.5 For example, the DetroitWarren-Livonia, MI, metropolitan 

area (home to three of the largest 

U.S. automakers) was hit hard by 

the automotive manufacturing 

declines.6 Charlotte-GastoniaConcord, NC-SC, was particularly 

impacted by the financial industry 

collapse. In 2008, of the 50 largest 

metropolitan areas, the CharlotteGastonia-Concord metropolitan 

area was one of three that reported 

the highest concentration of financial industry employment, according to the ACS.7 This area is

4 According to data from the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency’s Housing Price 

Index (HPI), of the largest 50 metropolitan 

areas, the 8 listed above (Jacksonville, FL; Las 

Vegas-Paradise, NV; Miami-Fort LauderdalePompano Beach, FL; Orlando-Kissimmee, FL; 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ; Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA; Sacramento—ArdenArcade—Roseville, CA; and Seattle-TacomaBellevue, WA) all ranked in the top 15 for the 

largest declines in HPI between the second 

quarter of 2008 through the second quarter 

of 2009. HPI is a broad measure of singlefamily home prices. More information can be 

found at: <www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/14801

/FINAL2q09hpi.pdf>. 5 According to BLS data, of the largest 50 

metropolitan areas, 6 (Atlanta-Sandy SpringsMarietta, GA; Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, 

NC-SC; Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI; 

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN; Portland-VancouverBeaverton, OR-WA; and Salt Lake City, UT) 

ranked in the top 10 for the largest nonfarm 

payroll employment declines (by percentage 

change) between December 2008 and 

December 2009. More information can be 

found at <http://bls.gov/news.release

/archives/metro_02022010.htm>. 6 According to BLS, the Detroit-WarrenLivonia, MI, metropolitan area experienced 

a 20 percent decrease in manufacturing 

employment between 2008 and 2010. More 

information can be found at <www.bls.gov

/sae/>. 7 Besides Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, 

NC-SC; Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT; and Jacksonville, FL, were the other two 

metropolitan areas with the largest concentration in financial industry employment.

also home to some of the largest banking and financial services 

companies.8

THE ROAD TO RECOVERY

Although the recession was officially over by mid-2009, the 

nation’s employment/population 

ratio continued to decline between 

2009 and 2010, dropping from 

68.2 to 66.6—a decline of 1.6 

percentage points. However, this 

decline was smaller than the 3.3 

percentage point decline experienced between 2008 and 2009. 

The majority of the 50 largest metropolitan areas (43) continued to 

experience declining employment/

population ratios between 2009 

and 2010. However, similar to the 

national experience, most (30) saw 

a significantly smaller employment/

population ratio decrease between 

2009 and 2010 compared with 

the declines experienced between 

2008 and 2009. Eight of the fifty 

largest metropolitan areas suffered 

larger employment/population 

declines than the nation between 

2009 and 2010—CharlotteGastonia-Concord, NC-SC; 

Jacksonville, FL; Las Vegas-Paradise, 

NV; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa 

Ana, CA; Nashville-Davidson–

8 See <http://charlottechamber.com

/business-profile/largest-employers/> for 

more information.

Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN; 

Providence-New Bedford-Fall 

River, RI-MA; Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA; and San 

Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA. 

These eight metropolitan areas 

may have lagged behind due to a 

slower recovery in their housing 

markets as well as local economic 

issues such as budget deficits.9 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) reported comparable data 

for seven of these metropolitan 

areas. According to BLS, Las VegasParadise, NV, and Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA, had the 

two highest 2010 unemployment 

rates of the 50 largest metropolitan 

areas. Charlotte-GastoniaConcord, NC-SC; Jacksonville, FL; 

9 According to the most recent Federal 

Housing Finance Agency’s Housing Price 

Index (HPI), Las Vegas and Jacksonville are 

still experiencing housing market declines. Of 

the 50 largest metropolitan areas, Las VegasParadise, NV, and Jacksonville, FL, reported 

the second and fourth largest HPI decline 

between the first quarter of 2010 and the 

first quarter of 2011, respectively 

(<www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/21305/UPDATED

_HPI_REPORT--2011Q1_June2011.pdf>). The 

housing market was still impacting CharlotteGastonia-Concord, NC-SC; Los Angeles-Long 

Beach-Santa Ana, CA; and Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA, in 2010 as well. 

According to the BLS, all three metropolitan 

areas ranked in the top 15 for the largest 

construction employment declines among the 

50 largest metropolitan areas between 2009 

and 2010. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, 

RI-MA, is currently facing a budget crisis with 

a $70 million budget deficit in FY2011 

<www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134738522

/Providence-Mayor-Defends-Massive-Teacher

-Layoffs-Budget-Cuts>. 

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities with reliable and timely 

demographic, social, economic, and housing data for the nation, 

states, congressional districts, counties, places, and other localities 

every year. It has an annual sample size of about 3 million 

addresses across the United States and Puerto Rico and includes 

both housing units and group quarters (e.g., nursing facilities 

and prisons). The ACS is conducted in every county throughout 

the nation, and every municipio in Puerto Rico, where it is called 

the Puerto Rico Community Survey. Beginning in 2006, ACS data 

for 2005 were released for geographic areas with populations 

of 65,000 and greater. For information on the ACS sample 

design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs/www>.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, 

CA; Providence-New Bedford-Fall 

River, RI-MA; and San DiegoCarlsbad-San Marcos, CA, also 

ranked among the top 15 of the 

50 largest metropolitan areas for 

the highest 2010 unemployment 

rates.10

10 See <http://bls.gov/lau/lamtrk10.htm> 

for more information.

ACCURACY OF THE 

ESTIMATES

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2008, 

2009, and 2010. The resulting 

estimates are representative of the 

entire population. All comparisons 

presented in this report have taken 

sampling error into account and are 

significant at the 90 percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. 

Due to rounding, some details may 

not sum to totals. For information 

on sampling and estimation methods, confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the “2010 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data” document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2010.pdf>. 
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Employment/Population Ratios for the 50 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2008, 

2009, and 20101

Area

2008 

employment/ 

population 

ratio

2009 

employment/ 

population 

ratio

2010 

employment/ 

population 

ratio

2008–2009 

employment/ 

population ratio 

change

2009–2010 

employment/ 

population ratio 

change

2008–2010 

employment/ 

population ratio 

change

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error 

(±)2

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error 

(±)2

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error 

(±)2

Percentage 

point 

change

Margin 

of 

error 

(±)2

Percentage 

point 

change

Margin 

of 

error 

(±)2

Percentage 

point 

change

Margin 

of 

error 

(±)2

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5 0.1 68.2 0.1 66.6 0.1 –3.3 0.1 –1.6 0.1 –4.9 0.1

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . 72.7 0.5 68.4 0.4 66.4 0.4 –4.4 0.7 –2.0 0.6 *–6.3 0.7

Austin-Round Rock, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.9 0.8 72.8 0.9 70.7 0.8 –2.1 1.2 –2.1 1.2 –4.1 1.1

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.6 0.6 72.1 0.6 70.9 0.6 –2.5 0.8 –1.2 0.9 –3.7 0.8

Birmingham-Hoover, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.8 0.9 66.8 0.9 64.0 1.1 –3.0 1.3 –2.8 1.4 –5.8 1.4

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . 75.6 0.4 73.1 0.4 71.9 0.5 –2.5 0.6 –1.2 0.6 –3.7 0.6

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.8 0.9 69.5 0.8 67.8 1.0 –2.3 1.2 –1.7 1.3 –4.0 1.3

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC . . . . . . 74.6 0.7 70.4 0.8 67.2 0.7 –4.2 1.0 –3.2 1.1 *–7.4 1.0

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . 72.2 0.3 68.7 0.3 67.4 0.3 –3.5 0.4 –1.3 0.4 –4.8 0.4

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . . . . . . . . 73.8 0.7 69.7 0.7 68.9 0.6 –4.1 1.0 –0.8 0.9 –4.9 0.9

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 0.6 68.0 0.6 68.4 0.7 –3.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 –3.3 0.9

Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.7 0.7 71.1 0.7 70.1 0.7 –3.6 0.9 –1.0 1.0 –4.6 1.0

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 0.3 71.2 0.4 70.2 0.4 –2.8 0.5 –0.9 0.5 –3.7 0.5

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO . . . . . . . . . . . 77.7 0.5 73.4 0.6 71.8 0.5 –4.3 0.7 –1.6 0.8 *–5.8 0.7

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.8 0.4 61.3 0.5 61.0 0.4 –5.5 0.7 –0.3 0.7 *–5.8 0.6

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT . . . 75.2 0.9 73.0 0.8 71.7 0.8 –2.3 1.2 –1.3 1.1 –3.5 1.2

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . 72.3 0.4 69.7 0.4 67.8 0.5 –2.6 0.6 –1.9 0.7 –4.5 0.7

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.0 0.8 71.1 0.7 69.0 0.7 –3.9 1.1 –2.1 1.0 *–6.0 1.1

Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.9 0.9 68.6 1.0 65.6 0.9 –3.3 1.3 –3.0 1.3 *–6.3 1.3

Kansas City, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.7 0.5 73.0 0.6 72.5 0.6 –3.7 0.8 –0.6 0.8 –4.3 0.8

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0 0.6 68.9 0.9 65.5 0.8 –4.1 1.0 –3.4 1.2 *–7.5 1.0

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . 69.6 0.3 67.0 0.2 64.7 0.3 –2.6 0.4 –2.3 0.4 –4.9 0.4

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN . . . . . . . . . 72.4 0.8 69.4 0.9 68.0 0.7 –3.0 1.2 –1.4 1.1 –4.4 1.1

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.1 0.8 65.7 0.9 64.4 0.9 –4.4 1.2 –1.3 1.3 –5.6 1.2

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano 

Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 0.4 67.8 0.5 65.6 0.5 –3.5 0.7 –2.2 0.7 *–5.7 0.7

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI . . . . . . . 75.8 0.8 72.2 0.8 70.6 0.7 –3.6 1.1 –1.5 1.1 –5.1 1.0

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI . . 79.2 0.4 75.7 0.4 74.8 0.4 –3.5 0.6 –0.9 0.6 –4.4 0.6

Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–

Franklin, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.4 0.6 70.4 0.8 67.6 0.8 –3.0 1.0 –2.9 1.1 –5.8 1.0

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . 66.9 1.1 67.0 0.9 65.6 1.0 0.2 1.4 –1.4 1.3 –1.3 1.5

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.9 0.2 68.3 0.2 66.6 0.2 –2.6 0.3 –1.7 0.3 –4.3 0.3

Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.4 0.8 71.0 0.8 68.8 0.9 –2.4 1.2 –2.1 1.3 –4.5 1.3

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0 0.9 68.3 0.8 66.3 0.7 –4.7 1.3 –2.0 1.1 *–6.7 1.2

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 0.4 69.5 0.5 67.8 0.4 –2.1 0.6 –1.7 0.6 –3.8 0.5

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 0.5 67.6 0.6 65.6 0.6 –4.8 0.8 –1.9 0.8 *–6.8 0.7

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3 0.6 69.9 0.6 68.9 0.7 –2.4 0.8 –1.0 0.9 –3.4 0.9

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA . . . . 73.4 0.6 69.2 0.7 66.9 0.6 –4.2 0.9 –2.2 1.0 *–6.5 0.9

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA . . 72.8 0.8 70.8 0.8 67.5 0.7 –2.1 1.1 –3.3 1.1 –5.3 1.1

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.0 0.8 72.0 0.9 70.3 1.0 –2.9 1.2 –1.8 1.4 –4.7 1.3

Richmond, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.3 0.9 70.8 0.7 69.0 0.8 –3.5 1.2 –1.8 1.1 –5.4 1.2

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA . . . . . 65.9 0.7 61.9 0.5 59.4 0.5 –4.0 0.8 –2.5 0.7 *–6.5 0.9

Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA . . 69.8 0.8 65.5 0.7 63.1 0.9 –4.3 1.1 –2.5 1.1 *–6.8 1.2

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.7 0.6 70.5 0.5 69.5 0.6 –3.3 0.8 –0.9 0.8 –4.2 0.8

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.5 0.8 73.7 0.7 71.2 1.0 –3.9 1.1 –2.5 1.2 *–6.4 1.2

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.7 0.7 67.9 0.7 67.5 0.7 –1.8 1.0 –0.4 1.0 –2.2 1.0

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . . . . . . 70.0 0.7 67.1 0.7 64.3 0.7 –2.9 1.0 –2.8 1.0 –5.7 1.0

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . 72.5 0.4 69.9 0.5 68.4 0.5 –2.6 0.7 –1.5 0.7 –4.1 0.6

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . 72.4 0.7 68.8 0.8 66.9 0.6 –3.6 1.1 –1.9 1.0 –5.5 0.9

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.9 0.4 71.4 0.6 69.3 0.5 –3.5 0.7 –2.1 0.8 *–5.7 0.7

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL . . . . . . 70.2 0.6 66.4 0.8 64.7 0.7 –3.8 1.0 –1.7 1.1 –5.5 0.9

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA-NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 0.8 71.0 0.9 69.3 0.8 –3.1 1.2 –1.8 1.2 –4.9 1.1

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VAMD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 0.3 74.8 0.4 74.3 0.4 –2.4 0.5 –0.5 0.6 –2.8 0.5

* Statistically larger decline than the 2008–2010 U.S. decline at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Metropolitan statistical area populations based on the 2010 Census. Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error is in relation to 

the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, 2009, and 2010 American Community Surveys.