United States

Department of

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report

Number 44

Patterns of Chari

in the Metro and Nonmetro

Labor Force, 1976-82

Stan G. Daberkow

Herman Bluestone
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82, by

Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone. Economic Development Division,

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Research Report No. 44.

Abstract

Nonmetro areas, particularly farm areas, lagged behind metro areas in employment growth during the 1976-82 period. This reversed a pattern of faster

nonmetro growth occurring in the late sixties and early seventies. Nonmetro

growth rates fell far below metro rates in the South and West. Economic

conditions improved less in nonmetro than metro areas during the 1976-79

business expansion, and conditions declined more in nonmetro than metro

areas during the 1979-82 recession. If these trends continue, specific programs to deal with this problem of slower rural growth may be needed.

Keywords: Region, metro, nonmetro, farm areas, labor force, employment,

unemployment, growth, public policy.

Additional Copies...

This report can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Ask for Patterns of

Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82 (RDRR-44). Write to

the above address for price and ordering instructions. For faster service,

call the GPO order desk at (202) 783-3238 and charge your purchase to your

VISA, MasterCard, or GPO Deposit Account. A 25-percent bulk discount is

available on orders of 100 or more copies shipped to a single address.

Foreign customers, please add 25 percent extra for postage.

Microfiche copies ($4.50 each) can be purchased from the Identification

Section, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161. Ask for Patterns of Change in the Metro and

Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82 (RDRR-44). Enclose check or money order,

payable to NTIS. For faster service, call NTIS at (703) 487-4780 and charge

your purchase to your VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or NTIS

Deposit Account.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing.

Washington, D.C. December 1984
Contents

Page

Highlights iv

Introduction1

Data and Methodology2

Secular Change, 1976-822

Regions2

Nonmetro versus Metro Areas5

Farm Areas6

Economic Expansion, 1976-796

Regions7

Nonmetro versus Metro Areas7

Farm Areas8

Economic Stagnation, 1979-82 10

Regions11

Nonmetro versus Metro Areas11

Farm Areas,11

Conclusions.15

References17

Appendix Tables18
Highlights

Nonmetro areas, particularly farm areas, lagged behind metro areas in employment growth during the 1976-82 period. This reversed a pattern of faster

nonmetro growth occurring in the late sixties and early seventies. Nonmetro

growth rates fell far below metro rates in the South and West. Economic

conditions improved less in nonmetro than metro areas during the 1976-79

business expansion, and conditions declined more in nonmetro than metro

areas during the 1979-82 recession. If these trends continue, specific programs to deal with this problem of slower rural growth may be needed.

The Nation's employment increase of 12.1 percent during the 1976-82 period

was not large enough to absorb the 14.6-percent increase in the Nation's

labor force. As a result, the unemployment rate rose from 7.7 percent in

1976 to 9.7 percent in 1982. Among the factors responsible for the Nation's

sluggish economic performance were the deep recession between 1979 and

1982 and intensified foreign competition throughout the 1976-82 period.

Most severely affected by the recession were the regions and subregions

specializing in the manufacture of durable goods, particularly the East

North Central and the East South Central manufacturing belts. Among the

Nation's four major regions, the North Central bore the brunt of the 1979-82

recession. During this 3-year period, employment declined by 4.6 percent in

the North Central region, remained about unchanged in the Northeast, and

increased by about 3.5 percent in the South and West. As a result, the

North Central region changed from being the region with the lowest unemployment rate in 1976 and 1979 to the region with the highest rate in 1982.

Economic activity also was less vigorous in nonmetro than metro areas during both the 1976-79 economic expansion and during the 1979-82 recession.

From 1976 to 1979, employment increased 9.8 percent in nonmetro areas,

compared with 12.1 percent in metro areas. And between 1979 and 1982,

employment declined by 1 percent in nonmetro areas while increasing by

1.1 percent in metro areas. In 1976, the unemployment rate was about half a

percentage point lower in nonmetro than metro areas, but by 1982 the nonmetro rate exceeded the metro rate by 1.7 percentage points.

This inferior performance of the nonmetro economy during 1976-82 was in

stark contrast to its good showing during the late sixties and early seventies. The slower nonmetro growth cannot be attributed entirely to weakness

in manufacturing even though low-wage, labor-intensive manufacturing,

which has been vulnerable to foreign competition, is somewhat more important in nonmetro than metro areas. Rather, a number of factors appear to

have been at work: most notably, labor concessions and an improving

business climate in metro areas, and a reduction in the growth of spending

generated by the influx of retirees into nonmetro areas.

Within nonmetro America, employment increased less in farm than in nonfarm areas. While the increases in unemployment rates between 1976 and

1982 in both farm and nonfarm nonmetro counties were identical (3.8

percentage points), employment grew only about half as fast in the farm as

in the nonfarm counties. In the northern Plains, a subregion remote from

major metro influence, employment in farm counties actually declined

slightly during the 6-year period, suggesting that many farm counties are

continuing their decades-long pattern of outmigration.

The findings of this study have two major implications for public policy.

First, rural development policy will have to be concerned with expanding

economic opportunities if slow growth persists. Second, because economic

recessions generate greater disparities among regions than between metro

and nonmetro areas, public policy which is intended to even out economic

cycles is likely to be more effective in reducing regional differences than

metro-nonmetro inequality.

I¥
Patterns of Change in the

Metro and Nonmetro Labor

Force, 1976-82

Stan G. Daberkow and

Herman Bluestone*

Introduction

Population in the decade prior to the late sixties

grew more slowly in snnall towns and in the

open country than in the big cities. Economic

conditions also improved less in nonmetro than

in metro areas (11, 14)? But beginning in the late

sixties, population growth in nonmetro areas

began to exceed growth in metro areas, and the

metro-nonmetro gap in per capita income narrowed {1, 2, 4). These positive changes apparently indicated that the persistent problems of low

income and sluggish economic growth in rural

areas were being solved.

During the late sixties and early seventies, nonmetro economic growth appeared to benefit from

a relatively attractive business climate and from

a plentiful labor supply which encouraged the decentralization of manufacturing, especially in the

low-wage, labor-intensive industries. A large influx of retirees with improved pensions substantially augmented spending in rural areas. And

finally, the tightening of environmental regulations in the early seventies may have dampened

growth more severely in metro areas than nonmetro areas.

However, a number of recent studies have

shown that between the end of the 1974-75 recession and 1982 the economic growth advantage of nonmetro over metro areas diminished

and may have disappeared entirely (5, 8,15).

There also was no further reduction in the income disparity between nonmetro and metro

families during this period.^

The competitive advantage that nonmetro areas

enjoyed in the late sixties and early seventies

appears to have been eroded by foreign competition and by labor concessions in metro areas on

wages and other benefits which held down production costs in the major urban manufacturing

centers (5, 10). The exodus of retirees from urban

areas to the countryside also may have slowed

because an increasing number of people found

that they could not afford to retire as early as

previously was possible (7). While the geographic effects of deregulation in energy, communications, credit, and transportation have not

been clearly identified, transportation deregulation may have benefited metro areas more than

nonmetro areas.

In the study we used selected labor force indicators to measure the economic performance

of regions as well as metro, nonmetro, and farm

areas since the 1974-75 recession. We attempted

to determine whether the relative slowdown in

economic growth in nonmetro areas that began

in the midseventies has continued or has been

reversed. Furthermore, we examined how metro,

nonmetro, and farm areas and regions fared during the 1976-79 period of economic expansion

and during the 1979-82 period of economic stagnation.^ In analyzing recent cyclical and secular

or longer term trends in the economic situation

of metro and nonmetro areas, we have emphasized changes rather than levels in three labor

*The authors are economists, Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

"•italicized numbers in parentheses refer to items in

the References section.

^During the 1973-82 period, median family income increased 94 percent in nonmetro areas compared with

96 percent in metro areas. Median family income in

nonmetro areas was 21 percent below median family

income in metro areas in 1982 compared with 19 percent below in 1973 {16, 17).

^Bednarzik and Tiller suggest a number of reasons

why the economy of one area or region might respond

differently than another to the national business cycle.

These reasons include differences in industry mix and

labor force composition (3).
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

market indicators: employment, labor force, and

the unemployment rate.

Change in the unemployment rate often provides

a good indication of the overall change in an

area's economy. But when used alone, it is not

always a foolproof measure. For example, take

two areas with the same increase in the unemployment rate. The first area has an increase in

both employment and labor force, and an increase in earnings. The unemployment rate increases because more people entered the labor

force than could be employed. In the second

area, both employment and the labor force decline, as does earnings. Thus, a more complete

picture of economic change can be obtained

when data on the change in the unemployment

rate are supplemented with data on employment

and labor force growth.

Data and Methodology

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) developed

the county estimates of labor force, employment,

and unemployment we used in this study (9, 24).

We used these county-level BLS data to investigate spatial changes in labor market conditions during the 1976-82 period. While we paid

attention to regional changes, we emphasized

changes in metro, nonmetro, and farm counties."^

We also paid special attention to the farm counties of the northern Plains (North Dakota, South

Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas) in order to determine whether labor market changes in an agricultural region some distance from major metropolitan areas differ from changes in agricultural

areas in closer proximity to urban areas. The

locations of the metro, nonmetro, and farm

counties used in this study are shown in map 1.

Farm counties have been identified as being

highly dependent on agriculture, and include

"consistently agricultural" counties and "farmloss" counties. Hoppe defined "consistently

agricultural" counties as those nonmetro counties (657 in number) in which 20 percent or more

of labor income was derived from agriculture

during the 1975-77 period (12). "Farm-loss" counties are those farm-oriented nonmetro counties

(124 in number) which incurred large farm income losses, primarily from livestock operations,

during the 1975-77 period. As of 1974, over 26

percent of all U.S. farms, accounting for 35 percent of all farm sales, were located in the "consistently agricultural" and "farm-loss" counties.

Metro counties are those designated by the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) as being

included in Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Areas as of 1974.^ The remaining counties are

defined as nonmetro.

The 1976-82 period provides a basis for studying

both secular and cyclical changes. According to

the National Bureau of Economic Research, the

agency which officially designates business cycle peaks and troughs, business activity reached

a trough in March 1975, a peak in January 1980,

"^See app. table 4 for the States in each region.

^This metro delineation, designated by the Office of

Management and Budget as of April 1974, was based

on population and commuting data from the 1970 Census of Population.

a trough in July 1980, a peak in July 1981, and a

trough in November 1982 (fig. 1) (20). Thus,

economic activity was near a cyclical low at the

beginning of 1976, and 1976-79 was a period in

which economic activity was expanding. After

1979 there were two recessions interrupted by a

short, weak recovery. Because the recovery was

too weak to appreciably reduce the annual average unemployment rate, we chose to treat the

entire 1979-82 period as one contraction and the

1976-82 period as a complete business cycle.

Secular Change, 1976-82

Civilian employment between 1976 and 1982 increased 12.1 percent, but this growth was not

rapid enough to absorb the 14.6-percent increase

in the number of civilians in the Nation's labor

force (fig. 2). As a result, the U.S. unemployment

rate increased 2 percentage points from an average of 7.7 percent in 1976 to an average of 9.7

percent in 1982 (app. table 1). The 1976-82

changes can be considered secular changes

because economic activity was cyclically depressed in both 1976 and 1982.

Regions

The North Central region and the South were

hurt most during the 1976-82 period—the North

Central region because of its large slow-growing

durable goods industries and the South because

of its heavy commitment to low-wage, laborintensive manufacturing which was battered by

foreign competition.

The unemployment rate increased 4.5 percentage points in the North Central region, 2.3
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

Map1

METROPOLITAN, NONMETROPOLITAN AND FARM COUNTIES

All counties in Alaska and Hawaii are

other nonmetropolitan except for

Honolulu and Anchorage which are

metropolitan.

Type of County

Metropolitan

Farm Nonmetropolitan

Other Nonmetropolitan

Office of Management and Budget

Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

S
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

-igure 1

U.S. LABOR FORCE INDICATORS DURING

PERIODS OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION AND DECLINE, 1975-83

—110

—100

— 90

Employment

Mar. Nov. I I I I Ja" •>"''/ -¡^'y I

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 ' 1983

White areas are periods of economic expansion and blue- shaded areas are periods of economic decline which have been

identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Source: (20).

80

percentage points in the South, and 1.2 percentage points in the West from 1976 to 1982 (fig. 3).

During the same period, the Northeast experienced a siight decrease in the unemployment rate. The 1982 rate of unemployment was

highest in the North Central region at 11.1 percent and lowest in the Northeast and South at 9

percent (app. table 1). The rate in the West was

9.8 percent.

The Northeast and the North Central regions

were alike in lagging behind the Nation as a

whole in labor force growth. However, they differed markedly in employment growth. In the

Northeast, employment growth slightly exceeded

labor force growth, leading to the nominal reduction in the unemployment rate from the relatively

high 9.4 percent in 1976. In the North Central

region, employment grew less than half as fast

as the labor force. As a result, the unemployment rate in the North Central region advanced

4.5 percentage points from 1.1 percentage points

below the U.S. average in 1976 to 1.4 percentage

points above the U.S. average in 1982. The North

Central region changed from being the region

with the lowest unemployment rate in 1976 to

the region with the highest rate in 1982.

The South and the West both experienced relatively rapid labor force and employment growth.

However, in the South employment growth

lagged further behind labor force growth than in

the West. Consequently, the South's unemployment rate increase was twice as large as that of

the West.

The North Centrai region's high unemployment

rate in 1982 did not completely reveal the seriousness of the region's unemployment problem.

As a result of the slow employment growth, the

proportion of the unemployed who had been out

of work for an extended period was greater in

the North Central region than in any other region. The percentage of the unemployed who had

been out of work for over 6 months in 1982 was

21.7 percent in the North Central region, 12.6

percent in the South, 17.2 percent in the Northeast, and 14.6 percent in the West {23).

In the North Central region, economic conditions

declined much more during the 1976-82 period in

the manufacturing belt of the East North Central

States than in the more farm-oriented counties

of the West North Central States. The unemployment rate increased more than the national average in 92.2 percent of all counties in the East

North Central States, compared with 52.1 percent in the West North Central States (app. table

3). In the East North Central States 23.4 percent

of the unemployed had been out of work for over

6 months in 1982, compared with 15.6 percent in

the West North Central States. However, only

small differences were observed in employment
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

change. The employment growth rate during the

6-year period exceeded the U.S. average growth

rate in only 21.6 percent of the counties in the

East North Central States, compared with 20.1

percent in the West North Central States.

In the South, the degree of economic adversity

also varied widely by subregion. In the East

South Central States, 98.4 percent of all counties had unemployment rate increases from 1976

to 1982 above the U.S. average, compared with

56.9 percent in the South Atlantic States and

38.7 percent in the West South Central States.

The employment growth rate exceeded the U.S.

average rate in 23.1 percent of all counties in the

East South Central States, 42.5 percent of those

in the South Atlantic States, and 58.1 percent of

those in the West South Central States. Unemployed workers who had been out of work for

over 6 months accounted for 16.3 percent of the

unemployed in the East South Central States,

14.1 percent in the South Atlantic States, and

only 6.8 percent in the West South Central

States.

Nonmetro versus Metro Areas

Labor market conditions worsened much more in

nonmetro than in metro areas during 1976-82.

While nonmetro areas almost kept pace with

metro areas in labor force growth, they lagged

far behind in employment growth. Employment

increased only 8.7 percent in nonmetro areas,

compared with 13.3 percent in metro areas (fig.

2). In 1976 the unemployment rate in nonmetro

areas averaged 7.2 percent, about one-half percentage point lower than in metro areas, but by

1982 the nonmetro rate had climbed to 11 perFigure 2

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN METRO AND NONMETRO

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, EMPLOYMENT, AND LABOR FORCE,

1976-82

Unemployment Employment Labor Force

Rate A

14,6 ^-"SO

United States

Metro

Nonmetro

13.3

3.8

2.0 1.5 1

12.1

8.7

A = Percentage point change. Source App. table 2.

cent, 1.7 percentage points above the metro rate

(app. table 1).

Labor force conditions declined more in nonmetro than metro areas in all census regions except the North Central region, where the nonmetro and metro changes were about the same.

However, the economic performance of nonmetro

areas fell far below the performance of metro *

areas only in the South and West. During the

1976-82 period, unemployment in the South increased 4.1 percentage points in nonmetro areas

compared with 1.3 percentage points in metro

areas. And employment in the South increased

only 9.6 percent in nonmetro areas, compared

with 19.8 percent in metro areas (app. table 2).

Nonmetro-metro differences in the West were

somewhat smaller. The nonmetro South, with its

heavy concentration of low-wage, labor-intensive

industries, has been vulnerable to increased

foreign competition.
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

Farm Areas

Within nonmetro America, labor force adjustments in farm and nonfarm areas differed. While

the unemployment rate in nonmetro America increased by 3.8 percentage points in both farm

and nonfarm counties, employment grew only

about half as fast—4.9 percent in farm counties

versus 9.4 percent in nonfarm counties (app.

table 2). In the sparsely settled farm counties of

the northern Plains the unemployment rate rose

by 1.7 percentage points and employment failed

to increase (fig. 4). Thus, farm counties in the

northern Plains appeared better off than other

farm counties in that they had a smaller increase in their unemployment rate but were

worse off in that they had less rapid employment growth. The small unemployment rate increase in the sparsely settled farm counties of

the northern Plains occurred because there was

relatively little growth in the labor force, indicating that many people may have given up

hope of finding work within the region.^ This pattern of adjustment is consistent with past trends

of agriculturally based economies where outmigration has been the response to declining job

opportunities. Population growth data also suggest that there may have been some outmigration

Figure 3

^Nllsen has argued that the unemployment rate in

farming areas tends to understate the underutillzation

of labor because a larger proportion of workers in these

areas are self-employed. This means a reduction in the

demand for labor tends to show up as underemployment rather than as unemployment. And, for the same

reason, the change in the unemployment rate in farm

areas may understate the change in labor utilization

(73).

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE,

EMPLOYMENT, AND LABOR FORCE, BY REGIONS, 1976-82

Unemployment

Rate A

Employment Labor Force

E3

23.8

Northeast

North Central

South

West

22.2

4.5

2,3

-0.4

/\ = Percentage point change. Source App. table 2.

of people of working age from the northern

Plains.'

Economic Expansion, 1976-79

Between 1976 and 1979, the Nation's economic

activity rose cyclically. Employment increased

11.5 percent and the number of civilians in the

^Between 1976 and 1982, total population increased

4.6 percent in the northern Plains, compared with 6.4

percent in the Nation as a whole {18, 19).

labor force increased 9.2 percent (fig. 5). Because

employment growth exceeded labor force growth,

as is typical during the expansionary phase of the

business cycle, the unemployment rate declined

from 7.7 percent in 1976 to 5.8 percent in 1979

-(app. table 1). Even so, much of the improvement

in labor force conditions was concentrated in a

relatively small number of counties. Employment

growth exceeded the U.S. average rate in only

37.5 percent of all counties, and the unemployment rate declined by more than the U.S.

average in only 26.4 percent (app. table 3).
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

Figure 4

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN FARM AND NONFARM AREA

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, EMPLOYMENT, AND LABOR FORCE,

1976-82

Unemployment

RateA

Employment Labor Force

H

14.0

Nonfarm nonmetro

Northern Plains farm

Other farm

9.4

3-8 i

5.8

10.6

A = Percentage point ctiange. Source App. table 2.

-0.1

Regions

While economic activity increased in each of the

four census regions, growth among regions in

employment and labor force varied considerably.

Growth rates were highest in the West and

South and lowest in the Northeast and North

Central regions (fig. 6). Employment growth exceeded labor force growth in all regions, but

the difference was greater in the Northeast and

West than in the South and the North Central

region. Consequently, the rate of unemployment

decreased twice as much in the Northeast and

West as in the other two regions.

County participation in rapid employment growth

was greater in the West than in other regions.

The percentage of counties with employment

growth above the U.S. average during 1976-79

was 55.6 percent in the West, 39.4 percent in the

South, 36.4 percent in the Northeast, and 27.4

percent in the North Central region (app. table 3).

On the other hand, the proportion of counties experiencing a substantial decline in their unemployment rate was highest in the Northeast and

lowest in the North Central region. Unemployment rates decreased by more than the national

average in 65.4 percent of all Northeast counties

but in only 15.7 percent of all North Central

counties.

In the North Central region, the proportion of

counties with above average reductions in the

rate of unemployment or above average growth

in employment was much larger in the East

North Central States than in the West North

Central States, indicating that the farm-oriented

West North Central States are less affected than

the East North Central States by changes in the

national economy. In the South, relatively fewer

counties fully participated in the economic recovery in the East South Central States

than in the South Atlantic and West South Central States, probably because low-wage, laborintensive manufacturing (the l<ind most vulnerable to foreign competition) is more important in

the East South Central States than in the rest of

the South (5, 10).

Nonmetro versus IVIetro Areas

Economic growth was less rapid in nonmetro than

metro areas between 1976 and 1979 (fig. 5). Employment during this 3-year period increased 9.8

percent in nonmetro areas and 12.1 percent in

metro areas. Also, employment growth exceeded

labor force growth by a narrower margin in nonmetro than in metro areas. As a result, the unemployment rate declined by 1 percentage point

in nonmetro areas, while declining by 2.1 percentage points in metro areas. Because of

slower employment growth in nonmetro than in
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

-igureS

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE,

EMPLOYMENT, AND LABOR FORCE, 1976-79 AND 1979-82

H

Unemployment

Rate A

Employment

12.1

Labor Force

1976-79

1979-82

11.5

4.8

3.9 3.6

-1.

0.5

9.8

1.1

9.2 9.5

-1.0 -1.0

4.9

8.6

5.1

^

-2.1

United States Metro Nonmetro United States Metro Nonmetro United States Metro Nonmetro

A = Percentage point change. Source App. table 2.

metro areas, the incidence of longer ternn

unemployment may have decreased less in

nonmetro than metro counties. The bulk of the

economic improvement also was restricted to

relatively fewer counties In nonmetro than in

metro areas. Employment growth was above the

U.S. average in only 32.5 percent of nonmetro

counties, but almost 57 percent of metro counties had employment growth rates greater than

the U.S. average (app. table 3).

Labor force and employment growth was slower

in the nonmetro counties than in metro counties

in all regions except the densely settled Northeast. The metro-nonmetro employment growth

difference was much larger in the South (4.6

percentage points) and in the West (3 percentage points) than in the North Central region (1

percentage point).

Farm Areas

In farm counties, employment and the labor

force increased only about half as fast as in

other nonmetro counties (app. table 2). Employment and the labor force grew at about the same

rate in farm counties, so there was little reduction in the farm-county unemployment rate between 1976 and 1979. However, the unemployment

rate in these counties was only 5.8 percent

going into the expansion. By contrast, in nonfarm-nonmetro counties the unemployment rate

dropped by 1.1 percentage points during this

3-year period. Only about a sixth of all farm

counties grew as fast as the Nation in employment, and about a tenth of the counties had unemployment rate declines as large as the national average. In general, the farm counties did

not appear to benefit appreciably from the
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

-igureS

Unemployment

Rate A

B

1976-79

1979-82

5.6

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE,

EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR FORCE BY REGION,

1976-79 AND 1979-82

Employment

F '

3.6 3.8

1.1 -1.3

-2.8 -2.6

North- North South West

east Central

/\ = Percentage point ctiange. Source App. table 2.

18.0

12.1

k

8.8 8.7

3.7 3.6

-0.4

Northeast

-4.6

North

Central

South West

Labor Force

14.7

10.4

7.4

5.5

2.2

1.4

7.9 7.9

North- North South West

east Central
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

Figure?

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN FARM AND NONFARM AREA

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, EMPLOYMENT, AND LABOR FORCE,

1976-79 AND 1979-82

Employment Labor Force

10.5

1976-79

Unemployment

Rate A

1979-82

9.1

5.9

4.5

2.6

M

-0.9

4.5

Nonfarm Northern Ottier Nonfarm Norttiern

nonmetro Plains farm farm Nonmetro Plains farm

¿\ = Percentage point change. Source App. table 2.

Nonfarm Norttiern Other

nonmetro Plains farm farm

1976-79 expansion In the national economy. The

farm counties in the agriculturally dominated

northern Plains, which are not closely tied to the

national economy, were less affected than farm

counties In other areas by the upturn in the Nation's economic activity. While the unemployment rate hovered around the irreduclbly low

level of 3 percent during the entire 3-year period

in the farm counties of the northern Plains, employment there Increased less than half as fast

as In all other farm counties (fig. 7).

Economic Stagnation, 1979-82

Between 1979 and 1982, the Nation's gross national product (GNP) (valued in 1972 dollars)

changed little, and employment growth almost

came to a halt. Employment growth during the

3-year period fell to a rate of 0.5 percent from

11.5 percent during the preceding 3 years. However, the number of civilians in the labor force

continued to expand, increasing 4.9 percent,

about half as much as during the 1976-79 period

(fig. 5). The labor force growth stemmed from

growth in the working-age population and from

the fuller participation of women in the labor

market (22). Because jobs did not increase

enough to absorb the expanding labor force, the

unemployment rate rose abruptly from a 1979 annual average of 5.8 percent to a 1982 annual

average of 9.7 percent. The 1982 unemployment

rate was the highest annual average rate since

World War II. From 1979 through 1982, the percentage of the unemployed out of work for 27

weeks or more increased from 8.7 percent to

16.6 percent {21, 22). The effect of the recession was geographically pervasive, with the

unemployment rate increasing in all except a

few scattered counties (maps 2 and 3). Most

10
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

severely affected by the recession were the 38.3

percent of all counties with unennployment rate

increases above the U.S. average and employment growth rates below the U.S. average (map 4

and app. table 4).

Regions

The North Central region, with its heavy

dependence on automobile, farm equipment, and

steel production, was the region most adversely

affected by the cyclical weakness in economic

activity. Employment in the durable goods industries declined 13 percent between 1979 and

1982 at the national level (6). Total employment declined by 4.6 percent in the North Central region, stayed about the same in the Northeast, and increased over 3.5 percent in both

the South and West (fig. 6). Unemployment rates

increased most in the North Central region and

least in the Northeast. Increases were 5.6 percentage points in the North Central region, 3.8

percentage points in the West, 3.6 percentage

points in the South, and 2.4 percentage points in

the Northeast. In the North Central region, the

severe deterioration in employment opportunities

also almost arrested labor force growth. Labor

force growth slowed to 1.4 percent from 7.4 percent in the North Central region, to 2.2 percent

from 5.5 percent in the Northeast, and to 7.9 percent from over 10 percent in the South and West.

Within the North Central region, economic distress was heavily concentrated in the densely

settled East North Central States, where the economic base is production of durable goods. Some

81.4 percent of all counties in the East North

Central States had larger than average increases

in the unemployment rate and lower than average

employment growth, compared with only 21.4 percent in the West North Central States (app. table

4). Within the South, labor force conditions were

most favorable in a large majority of the counties in energy-oriented Oklahoma and Texas, as

well as in Georgia and Florida, and least favorable in a majority of the counties in the East

South Central States, West Virginia, and South

Carolina (map 4). In the Northwest, many counties were economically depressed because of

reduced demand for wood and timber in the wood

products and construction industries. In the

Northeast, proportionately more counties in New

Hampshire and Pennsylvania were adversely affected by the recession than counties in other

States.

The counties with the highest unemployment

rates in 1982 were mostly those that experienced

large increases in the unemployment rate between

1979 and 1982 (maps 2 and 3). Unemployment rates

increased substantially in all areas except in

States along the eastern seaboard (excluding

Virginia and the Carolinas) and in a contiguous

tier of States extending from Montana and North

Dakota in the North to Texas in the South.

Nonmetro versus iVIetro Areas

Economic stagnation hit nonmetro areas much

harder than metro areas. Not only did the labor

force grow more slowly in nonmetro than metro

areas, but employment declined 1 percent in

nonmetro areas while increasing 1.1 percent in

metro areas (fig. 5). As a result, the rate of

unemployment increased 4.8 percentage points

in nonmetro areas compared with 3.6 percentage

points in metro areas. Some 39.6 percent of all

nonmetro counties had above average unemployment rate increases and below average employment gains, compared with 33.7 percent of metro

counties (app. table 4). Many of the hard-hit

nonmetro counties were the most populous

counties located in the East North Central

States (map 4).

Nonmetro areas fared worse than metro areas in

all regions except the North Central region.

Nonmetro areas lagged behind metro areas in

employment growth by 5 percentage points in

the South and 1.8 percentage points in the West.

In the Northeast, where employment declined,

the decline was 0.8 percentage point greater

in nonmetro than metro areas (app. table 2).

However, in the North Central region employment declined 0.6 of a percentage point less in

nonmetro areas than in metro areas.

These same kinds of metro-nonmetro differences

occurred in changes in the unemployment rate

between 1979 and 1982. The increase in the nonmetro unemployment rate exceeded the metro increase by 2 percentage points in the South, 1.2

percentage points in the Northeast, and 1 percentage point in the West. By contrast, in the

North Central region, the unemployment rate increased half a percentage point less in nonmetro than in metro areas.

Farm Areas

In general, farm counties fared only slightly better than other nonmetro counties between 1979 and

1982 (app. table 2). They had a little less increase in

labor force and a little less decline in employment.

However, labor force adjustments in farm counties in the northern Plains differed markedly

IT
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

Map 2

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

1979

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor

Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

12
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

Map 3

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

1982

Ë

^P

Cb

^„^

^

='<^»..<^^it£>"'

I"

1

Í

i 1^

V V' *• sr

\

I-i V

v%

ni I

*• #

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor

mm

O^

Percent

Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

13
Stan G. Daberkow and Herman Bluestone

14
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

from adjustments in all other farm counties. The

northern Plains counties are different in the

sense that agriculture dominates economic activity and few other employment alternatives exist. A sharp reduction in economic opportunities

in these counties during the 1979-82 period was

reflected in a 2.8-percent decline in employment

and a 0.9-percent decline in the labor force (fig.

7). By contrast, in other farm counties, employment declined only 0.4 percent and the labor

force, instead of declining, increased 4.5 percent.

Since the northern Plains farm economy is not

as closely tied to the national economy as are

the economies of other farm areas, the decline

in employment opportunities in the northern

Plains has to be attributed mostly to the decline

of the agribusiness sector between 1979 and

1982, which was brought on largely by stagnating or declining farm commodity prices and rising farm input prices.

Even though there was less economic growth in

northern Plains farm counties than in other farm

counties during the 1979-82 period, the unemployment rate increased only 1.8 percentage

points there compared with 4.4 percentage

points in other farm counties. Only 7.9 percent

of the northern Plains farm counties had an increase in the unemployment rate during the recession that exceeded the national average increase, compared with 33.8 percent for all farm

counties.

In the northern Plains, many persons who lost

their jobs apparently dropped out of the labor

force while others may have moved out of the

area in search of employment. And still others of

working age may have been discouraged from looking for work at all.

The relatively small increases in unemployment

rates in the northern Plains farm counties need

to be placed in perspective. Because a large proportion of workers in these counties are selfemployed, unemployment rates in the northern

Plains have traditionally been stable and extremely low, averaging around 3 percent.

Changes in the demand for labor in these counties frequently show up as reduced hours of

work—that is, underemployment—rather than as

changes in unemployment. This means that small

changes in the unemployment rate reflect far

greater changes in the use of labor in the northern Plains counties than they do in other areas.

Thus, it is particularly necessary to look at

several labor force indicators when evaluating

changes in economic conditions in the northern

Plains farm counties.

Conclusions

Labor force indicators reveal that nonmetro

areas did not participate as fully as metro areas

in the 1976-79 expansion in business activity.

And, nonmetro areas were harder hit than metro

areas by the 1979-82 recession. Employment has

been growing more slowly in nonmetro than metro

areas since the midseventies. By contrast, in the

late sixties and early seventies employment

grew faster in nonmetro than metro areas.

Nonmetro areas performed more poorly than

metro areas in all regions except the North

Central throughout the 1976-82 period. The nonmetro-metro performance gap was especially

wide in the South and West. Among nonmetro

areas, less economic growth occurred in farm

than in nonfarm counties. And, among farm

counties, those in the northern Plains fared

less well than did those in other areas. During

the 1976-82 period, the northern Plains farm

counties experienced no employment growth

while farm counties in other areas recorded a

4.5-percent increase in employment.

Changes in the unemployment rate did not fully

reflect the deterioration in economic conditions

in farm counties, especially those located in the

northern Plains. A more complete picture of economic adjustment in these counties emerges

when the changes in the unemployment rate are

supplemented by data on employment changes.

Differences in labor force performance varied

much more by region than by metro and nonmetro

status during the 1976-82 period. During the 6-

year period, economic conditions deteriorated

most in the North Central region and held up

best in the West. Labor force indicators for the

Northeast and South, however, were mixed, revealing the inadequacy of using a single labor

force indicator to assess economic change. Although the Northeast's employment growth

lagged behind growth in the Nation as a whole,

the Northeast was the only region in which the

unemployment rate declined during the 6-year

period. However, this decline may have resulted

from a large exodus of discouraged job seekers

from the labor force. On the other hand, the

South had above-average employment growth

but an above-average increase in the rate of

unemployment as more persons entered the

labor force than the employment growth could

accommodate. Labor market conditions in the

North Central region declined more in relation to

75
Stan G. Daberkowand Herman Bluestone

other regions during the 1979-82 period of portunities or on helping rural areas better adeconomic stagnation than during the 1976-79 up- just to slower growth,

turn. Nevertheless, signs of economic distress in

the North Central region emerged well before the

1979-82 cyclical decline. The eastern manufacturing belt of the North Central region, the East

North Central States, was much more severely

affected during the recession than the West

North Central States. And in the South, the East

South Central States were more seriously affected than the South Atlantic or the West South

Central States.

The study has two major implications for public

policy. First, during a cyclical decline in economic activity or during a period of slow secular

growth, larger disparities in economic well-being

are likely to develop among regions than between nonmetro and metro areas. Thus, changes

in national fiscal or monetary policy to counteract or smooth the business cycle may be more

effective in reducing economic inequities among

regions than between nonmetro and metro areas.

Labor force indicators in farm counties remote

from metropolitan influence may be less affected by changes in macroeconomic policy

than by climatic conditions, international trade,

and agricultural policy.

Second, the comparatively weak economic performance of nonmetro areas throughout the

1976-82 period raises the question of whether

the relatively strong nonmetro growth of the late

sixties and early seventies was just a temporary

phenomenon rather than the beginning of a longterm trend. If nonmetro areas have in fact reverted to their earlier pattern of relatively slow

growth, rural development policy may have to

focus more attention on expanding economic optó
Patterns of Change in the Metro and Nonmetro Labor Force, 1976-82

References

(1) Beale, Calvin L "Rural Development: Population and Settlement Prospects," Journal of Soil

and Water Conservation, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb.

1974), 23-27.

(2) . The Revival of Population Growth

in Nonmetropolitan America. ERS-605. U.S. Dept.

Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., June 1975.

(3) Bednarzik, Robert W., and Richard B. Tiller.

"Area Labor Market Response to National

Unemployment Patterns," Monthly Labor Review,

Vol. 105, No. 1 (Jan. 1982), 45-49.

(4) Bluestone, Herman. Income Growth in

Nonmetro America, 1968-75. RDRR-14. U.S. Dept.

Agr., Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., Aug. 1979.

(5) . Employment Growth in Metro and

Nonmetro America: A Change in the Pattern?

AER-492. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Nov.

1982.

(6) Council of Economic Advisors. Economic Indicators. Prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, June 1984, 14.

(7) Drucker, Peter F. Managing in Turbulent

Times. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,

1980.

(8) Garnick, Daniel H. "Shifting Patterns in the

Growth of Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan

Areas," Survey of Current Business, Vol. 39,

No. 5 (May 1983), 39-44.

(9) Goldstein, Harold. "State and Local Labor

Force Statistics" in Data Collection, Processing

and Presentation: National and Local. Appendix

Vol. 11: Counting the Labor Force. National Commission on Employment and Unemployment

Statistics, 1979, 412-464.

(10) Hansen, Niles. "The New International Division of Labor and Manufacturing Decentralization in the United States," Review of Regional

Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring 1979), 1-12.

(11) HInes, Fred K., David L. Brown, and John M.

Zimmer. Social and Economic Characteristics of

the Population in Metro and Nonmetro Counties,

1970. AER-272. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.,

Mar. 1975.

(12) Hoppe, Robert A. Sharply Fewer Counties

Depend on Farming. ESS-11. U.S. Dept. Agr.,

Econ. Stat. Serv., July 1981.

(13) Nilsen, Sigurd R. Assessment of Employment and Unemployment Statistics for Nonmetropolitan Areas. RDRR-18. U.S. Dept. Agr.,

Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., Dec. 1979.

(14) President's National Advisory Commission

on Rural Poverty. The People Left Behind. Sept.

1967.

(15) Richter, Kerry. Non-metropolitan Growth in

the Late 1970's: The End of the Turnaround?

CDE Working Paper 83-20. Center for

Demography and Ecology, University of

Wisconsin-Madison, 1983.

(16) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census. Money Income in 1973 of Families

and Persons in the United States. Series P-60,

No. 97. Jan. 1975, 46.

(17) . Money Income and Poverty Status

of Families and Persons in the United States,

1982. Series P-60, No. 140. July 1983, 6.

(18) . Preliminary Intercensal Estimates

of the Population of States: 1970 to 1980. June

1981.

(19) _. Estimates of the Population of

States: July 1, 1981 and 1982. Series P-25, No.

927. Feb. 1983, 2.

(20) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis. Business Conditions Digest,

various monthly issues, 1983.

(21) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Employment and Earnings. Vol. 27,

No. 1, Jan. 1980.

(22) Employment and Earnings. Vol. 30,

No. 1, Jan. 1983.

(23) . Geographic Profile of Employment

and Unemployment, 1982. Bui. 2170. May 1983,

17 and 28.

(24) . Local Area Unemployment

Statistics. Unpublished computer data tapes,

1976-82.

17
Appendix table 1—Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment rate by area and type of county

Area and type

of county

Number

of

counties

Civilian labor force Employment Unemployment rate^

1976 1979 1982 1976 1979 1982 1976 1979 1982

—Percent

United States 3,140 96,114 104,993 5.8

-—/noussnos —

110,117 88,741 98,912 99,435 7.7 9.7

Metro

Nonmetro

Farm

Northern Plains

Other

Nonfarm

647

2,493

781

212

569

1,712

70,713

25,400

3,759

583

3,175

21,642

77,418

27,575

3,960

599

3,361

23,615

81,343

28,774

4,105

593

3,512

24,669

65,170

23,571

3,540

566

2,974

20,031

73,039

25,873

3,740

581

3,158

22,134

73,816

25,619

3,712

565

3,147

21,907

7.8

7.2

5.8

3.0

6.3

7.4

5.7

6.2

5.6

2.9

6.0

6.3

9.3

11.0

9.6

4.7

10.4

11.2

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

217

101

116

21,829

18,812

3,017

23,019

19,777

3,243

23,514

20,183

3,331

19,770

17,039

2,731

21,500

18,486

3,014

21,407

18,427

2,980

9.4

9.4

9.5

6.6

6.5

7.1

9.0

8.7

i 0.5

North Central

Metro

Nonmetro

1,054

181

873

26,169

18,051

8,118

28,093

19,388

8,705

28,478

19,655

8,823

24,435

16,817

7,619

26,551

18,323

8,229

25,318

17,436

7,882

6.6

6.8

6.2

5.5

5.5

5.5

11.1

11.3

10.7

South

Metro

Nonmetro

1,425

300

1,125

30,483

19,740

10,743

33,659

22,047

11,612

36,302

23,993

12,309

28,427

18,425

10,003

31,857

20,948

10,910

33,030

22,071

10,459

6.7

6.7

6.9

5.4

5.0

6.0

9.0

8.0

11.0

West

Metro

Nonmetro

444

65

379

17,632

14,110

3,522

20,222

16,207

4,015

21,823

17,512

4,311

16,108

12,890

3,218

19,003

15,282

3,721

19,680

15,882

3,798

8.6

8.6

8.6

6.0

5.7

7.3

9.8

9.3

11.9

^Based on unrounded numbers.

Source: {24).

18
Appendix table 2—Change in civilian labor force, employment, and rate of unemployment by area and type of county

Percentage change Percentage point change

unemployment rate^

Ï in

Area and type

of county Civilian labor force Employment

1976-82 1976-79 1979-82 1976-82 1976-79 1979-82 1976-82 1976-79 1979-82

Percent - Percentage points -

United States 14.6 9.2 4.9 12.1 11.5 0.5 2.0 -1.9 3.9

Metro

Nonmetro

Farm

Northern Plains

Other

Nonfarnn

15.0

13.3

9.2

1.6

10.6

14.0

9.5

8.6

5.4

2.6

5.9

9.1

5.1

4.3

3.7

-.9

4.5

4.5

13.3

8.7

4.9

-.1

5.8

9.4

12.1

9.8

5.6

2.8

6.2

10.5

1.1

-1.0

-.7

-2.8

-.4

-1.0

1.5

3.8

3.8

1.7

4.1

3.8

-2.1

-1.0

-.2

-.1

-.3

-1.1

3.6

4.8

4.0

1.8

4.4

4.9

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

7.7

7.3

10.4

5.5

5.1

7.5

2.2

2.1

2.7

8.3

8.1

9.1

8.8

8.5

10.4

-.4

-.3

-1.1

-.4

-.7

1.0

-2.8

-2.9

-2.4

2.4

2.2

3.4

North Central

Metro

Nonmetro

8.8

8.9

8.7

7.4

7.4

7.2

1.4

1.4

1.4

3.6

3.7

3.5

8.7

9.0

8.0

-4.6

-4.8

-4.2

4.5

4.5

4.5

-1.1

-1.3

-.7

5.6

5.8

5.2

South

Metro

Nonmetro

19.1

21.5

14.6

10.4

11.7

8.1

7.9

8.8

6.0

16.2

19.8

9.6

12.1

13.7

9.1

3.7

5.4

.4

2.3

1.3

4.1

-1.3

-1.7

-.9

3.6

3.0

5.0

West

Metro

Nonmetro

23.8

24.1

22.4

14.7

14.9

14.0

7.9

8.0

7.4

22.2

23.2

18.0

18.0

18.6

15.6

3.6

3.9

2.1

1.2

.7

3.3

-2.6

-2.9

-1.3

3.8

3.6

4.6

^Computed from last three columns of app. table 1.

Source: (24).

19
Appendix table 3—Percentage of counties with unemployment rate changes and employment changes greater than the U.S. average change

Area and type

of county

United States

Metro

Nonmetro

Farm

Northern Plains

Nonfarm

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

North Central

East North Central

West North Central

Metro

Nonmetro

South

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Metro

Nonmetro

West

Metro

Nonmetro

Percentage of counties with

unemployment rate changes

larger than the U.S.

average^

1976-82

60.8

52.6

62.9

52.4

35.6

67.8

27.6

21.8

32.8

68.7

92.2

52.1

85.1

65.3

61.5

56.9

98.4

38.7

46.7

65.4

56.1

36.9

59.4

1976-79

26.4

39.1

23.1

10.8

2.8

28.7

65.4

68.3

62.9

15.7

25.0

9.2

32.0

12.4

26.0

41.3

7.7

21.1

31.0

24.7

33.6

50.8

30.6

1979-82

50.4

46.7

51.3

33.8

7.9

59.3

28.1

21.8

33.6

52.8

90.4

26.2

75.1

48.1

53.5

54.8

86.5

26.4

38.7

57.5

45.3

43.1

45.6

Percent

1976-82

36.8

58.0

31.3

20.1

16.1

36.4

37.2

41.6

33.6

20.7

21.6

20.1

39.2

16.8

42.5

42.0

23.1

58.1

69.0

35.4

56.5

84.6

51.7

Percentage of counties with

employment growth above the

U.S. average

1976-79

^Counties with above average increases in 1976-82 and 1979-82 and above average decreases in 1976-79.

Source: (24).

37.5

56.9

32.5

16.5

18-3

39.7

36.4

37.6

35.3

27.4

34.2

22.7

45.9

23.6

39.4

42.0

31.9

42.1

64.3

32.8

55.6

83.1

50.9

1979-82

41.4

52.9

38.4

39.7

33.4

37.9

33.2

39.6

27.6

25.4

14.9

32.8

21.5

26.2

49.6

46.5

26.4

71.5

70.3

44.1

57.0

80.0

53.0

20
Appendix table 4—Percentage of counties in which economic conditions deteriorated more than in the Nation as a whole, 1979-82

Region, State,

and type of

county

Unfavorable changes in Only unfavorable Only unfavorable

unemployment rate unemployment rate employment

and employment^ change^ change^

Percent

38.3 12.0 20.3

33.7 13.0 13.4

39.6 11.8 22.0

25.9 7.9 34.4

2.8 0 61.8

34.4 10.9 24.3

45.8 13.5 16.4

26.3 1.8 40.6

19.8 2.0 40.6

31.9 1.7 40.5

16.4 3.0 29.9

0 0 43.8

60.0 20.0 20.0

21.4 0 14.3

14.3 0 7.1

0 0 60.0

0 0 62.5

30.7 1.3 45.3

17.7 0 51.6

4.8 0 71.4

50.7 3.0 31.3

46.2 6.5 28.4

68.0 7.2 10.5

41.7 6.4 32.1

81.4 8.9 3.7

92.0 5.7 1.1

81.5 1.1 12.0

80.4 8.8 2.0

89.2 6.0 0

60.6 26.8 2.8

One or both

changes

unfavorable"*

United States

Metro

Nonmetro

Farm

Northern Plains

Other

Nonfarm

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

New England

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Middle Atlantic

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

North Central

Metro

Nonmetro

East North Central

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

West North Central 21.4 4.9 45.8

70.6

60.1

73.4

68.2

64.6

69.6

75.7

68.7

62.4

74.1

49.3

43.8

100.0

35.7

21.4

60.0

62.5

77.3

69.3

76.2

85.0

81.1

85.7

80.2

94.0

98.8

94.6

91.2

95.2

90.2

72.1

See footnotes at end of table. Continued

21
Appendix table 4—Percentage of counties in which economic conditions deteriorated more than in the Nation as a whole,

1979-82—Continued

Region, State,

and type of

county

Unfavorable changes in

unemploynnent rate

and employment^

Only unfavorable

unemployment rate

change^

Only unfavorable

employment

change^

One or both

changes

unfavorable"^

Percent

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

South

Metro

Nonmetro

South Atlantic

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia

Florida

District of

Columbia

East South Central

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

West South Central

Arkansas

Louisiana

Oklahoma

Texas

West

Metro

Nonmetro

Mountain

Montana

Idaho

See footnotes at end of table.

0

9.1

4.3

13.3

14.9

40.4

47.8

38.7

21.7

43.2

40.1

0

29.2

43.4

85.5

47.0

71.7

26.4

3.0

67.6

52.5

71.6

83.6

72.0

14.5

44.0

34.4

7.8

2.8

24.5

15.4

26.1

19.1

32.1

20.5

0

0

1.1

0

8.0

0

19.1

14.9

17.0

14.3

14.7

0

4.2

7.4

3.6

23.0

21.7

18.9

16.4

19.0

21.7

21.1

11.9

18.3

11.9

12.0

32.8

5.2

8.7

20.7

27.7

19.5

21.6

8.9

13.6

64.2

81.8

46.2

53.3

33.3

47.5

17.4

11.7

8.0

12.7

13.4

0

45.8

18.4

3.6

11.0

0

17.0

3.0

100.0

6.0

15.0

2.1

1.5

1.2

14.0

14.7

3.1

26.0

13.0

18.5

4.6

20.8

21.2

25.0

29.5

64.2

91.0

51.6

66.6

56.2

87.9

84.3

65.3

46.7

70.2

68.2

0

79.2

69.2

92.7

81.0

934

62.3

22.4

100.0

92.6

89.2

94.8

97.0

91.5

40.4

70.7

70.3

39.0

24.5

63.7

47.7

66.4

61.9

66.0

63.6

Continued

22
Appendix table 4—Percentage of counties in which economic conditions deteriorated more than in the Nation as a whole,

1979-82—Continued

Region, State,

and type of

county

Unfavorable changes in

unemployment rate

and employment^

Only unfavorable

unemployment rate

change^

Only unfavorable

employment

change^

One or both

changes

unfavorable"^

Percent

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Pacific

Washington

Oregon

California

Alaska

Hawaii

13.0

17.5

18.8

35.7

3.4

0

33.7

64.1

38.9

27.6

3.4

0

8.7

20.6

6.3

57.1

37.9

76.5

19.3

7.7

27.8

32.8

0

0

8.7

28.6

28.1

0

10.3

0

13.9

20.5

5.6

3.4

37.9

0

30.4

66.7

53.2

92.8

51.6

76.5

66.9

92.3

72.3

63.8

41.3

0

Note: During the 1979-82 period, the U.S. unemployment rate increased 3.91 percentage points, and employment increased 0.53 percent.

"•Counties in which the unemployment rate increase exceeded the U.S. increase, but the employment growth rate did not exceed the U.S. rate.

^Counties in which the unemployment rate increase exceeded the U.S. increase, and the employment growth rate exceeded the U.S. rate.

^Counties in which the unemployment rate increase did not exceed the U.S. increase, and the employment growth did not exceed the U.S. rate.

"^Sum of first three columns.

Source: (24).

23