Individual Companies/Multicorporations 

Employment dynamics of individual 

companies versus multicorporations 

Individual companies dominated employment growth during the

recent expansion; in contrast, multicorporations were

responsible for all the job losses during the recent contraction

Shail Butani, 

George Werking, 

and 

Vinod Kapani 

Shail Butani is chief of 

Statistical Methods 

Staff, George Werking 

is assistant 

commissioner, and 

Vinod Kapani is a 

supervisory 

mathematical 

statistician, Office of 

Employment and 

Unemployment 

Statistics, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 

J

OBS! JOBS! JOBS! The U.S. economy had 

tremendous job growth during most of the 

1990s. Between March 1992 and March 2001,1 

the private sector added 21.5 million jobs, an 

average gain of 2.4 million jobs per year, and 

unemployment rates slid to about 4 percent. In 

contrast, between March 2001 and March 2003,2 

the economy entered a contraction period, losing 

approximately 3.5 million jobs, that is, an average 

loss of 1.75 million jobs per year, with unemployment rates edging upwards to about 6 percent. 

Subsequently, the job market rebounded, with a 

gain of 786,000 jobs between March 2003 and 

March 2004, while the unemployment rate ticked 

to just below 6 percent. 

The sharp contrast from the prolonged expansion period to the contraction period has left 

many questions to consider, such as: What kind 

of employers created the jobs that led to the job 

boom and extremely low unemployment rates in 

the 1990’s? Were these single establishment 

employers or parts of large nationwide multiestablishment companies? Were the employers 

who led the expansion also leading the downturn 

of jobs from March 2001 through March 2003? 

Who were the employers leading the growth in 

jobs during the turning point period from March 

2003 through March 2004? This research 

provides answers to these and other questions. 

This article classifies employers as singleversus multi-establishment firms, which are 

further broken down into continuous establishments—those in existence during the past and 

current year in March—and newly opened or 

closed establishments. All measures are 

disaggregated by major industrial sectors. The 

analysis uses traditional measures of net job 

gains and net job losses to profile the employment contribution by type of employer during 

the expansion period, March 1992 through 

March 2001; the contraction period, March 2001 

through March 2003; and the recent postcontraction period, March 2003 through March 

2004. 

The analysis uses over-the-year measures of 

change from March to March to eliminate any large 

seasonal variations. We have selected the month 

of March because it is the traditional reference 

month for anchoring employment numbers for 

many Bureau of Labor Statistics programs to the 

universe counts from the Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages (QCEW). Finally, we 

discuss the difference between longitudinal and 

cross-sectional analyses and the importance of 

using longitudinal analysis to answer the types of 

questions posed earlier. 

The database of employers 

The data used for this study are from the BLS 

longitudinal database (commonly known as the 

LDB) for the March 1992 through March 2004 

period.The primary data source for the longitudinal database is the quarterly contributions 

reports filed by employers with their State’s 

unemployment insurance agency. Data for both 

private and public sector workers and establishments are reported to BLS after the data 

go through several stages of refinement by the 

State agencies as part of the BLS QCEW program. 

BLS and the States have instituted many quality 

control procedures, but ultimately, the accuracy 

Monthly Labor Review December 2005 3 
Individual Companies/Multicorporations 

of the longitudinal database is, to a great extent, a function of 

the quality of microdata being reported to the States. 

Employment reported by these sources is covered by 

unemployment insurance laws and these data provide a virtual 

census (98 percent) of employees on nonfarm payrolls. In an 

average quarter, this rich and comprehensive database 

includes about 8 million records. 

Among other data elements, the longitudinal database has 

information about establishments’ State, county, industry code, 

single- or multi-establishment employer status, employment for 

each month of the quarter, and total quarterly wages. 

The quarterly unemployment insurance files are generally 

transmitted by the States to BLS 5 months after the end of the 

quarter. BLS processes these files through various edits and 

links records to previous quarters. The purpose of record 

linkage is to match, to the extent possible, worksites or 

establishments that were in continuous operations from one 

quarter to another, thereby separating them from the worksites 

that have opened or closed during the quarter.3 Record linkage 

is an important step for longitudinal analysis. 

When studying the effects of establishment openings and 

closings on employment change, we have used the net of 

openings minus closings rather than examining openings and 

closings separately.4 Business employment dynamics data 

from BLS show that, although both openings and closings 

individually contribute large employment changes, the net 

effect is small because the employment from openings and 

closings mostly offset each other. 

Concepts and definitions 

For the most part, the terms and concepts used in this article 

are the same as those used in the quarterly publication of BLS 

Business Employment Dynamics (BED) data.5 For ease of 

reading, we include some definitions as well as define some 

new terms and concepts. (See box.) 

Definitions and concepts 

Establishment or reporting unit. An economic unit, such 

as a farm, mine, factory, or store, which provides goods or 

services. It is typically at a single physical location and engaged in one, or predominantly one, type of economic activity for which a single industrial code may be applied. 

Continuous establishments. Establishments that have 

positive employment in March during 2 consecutive years. 

Openings. Employment generated by establishments that 

had zero employment in Marcht-1 and positive employment 

in Marcht. 

Closings. Employment loss by establishments that had 

positive employment in Marcht-1 and zero employment in 

Marcht

. 

Net openings minus closings of establishments. Net 

employment change from openings minus closings of 

establishments from Marcht-1 to Marcht. 

Employer Identification Number (EIN). A number assigned 

by the Federal Government for Federal income tax purposes. 

An employer identification number covers one or more 

establishments within or across States. 

Single establishment employers. Employers that operate from 

one location nationwide or, specifically, employer identification 

numbers that report having one location nationwide. 

Multi-establishment employers. Employers that operate 

from more than one business location nationwide or, more 

specifically, employer identification numbers that report 

having more than one location nationwide. 

Employers and firms. These terms are synonymous. 

Longitudinal analysis time periods. The longitudinal 

analysis is based on over-the-year employment changes 

from one March to the next; results of the analysis may 

change if measurements are taken over a 2- or 5-year period. 

Expansion period. March 1992 through March 2001. 

Contraction period. March 2001 through March 2003. 

Combined period. March 1992 through March 2003. 

Turning point year. First positive over-the-year 

employment growth following the contraction period. Note: 

This is not the official period for business cycles established 

by the National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Recent turning point year. March 2003 through March 

2004. 

Previous turning point year. March 1992 through March 

1993. 

4 Monthly Labor Review December 2005 
One main concept is that all employers are classified by 

employer identification numbers (EIN) rather than by 

establishment. Moreover, all employers are reclassified or 

realigned at the beginning of each annual period in their 

appropriate categories. The single- versus multi-status code 

is retained to the end of that period for measuring over-theyear change. For example, a single account number in March 

1994 became a multi-account number by March 1995. Then, 

for the March 1994 through March 1995 period, the employer 

identification number is treated as a single account for 

measuring over-the-year change. In the March 1995 through 

March 1996 period, it is treated as a multi-account. Conceptually, the growth or decline of an account should be 

attributable to its initial classification. Thus in the example, it 

is the single employer identification number account that has 

experienced a change and became a multi-account number, 

and vice versa in other cases. It is important to note that the 

annual realignment process moves substantial employment 

between single- and multi-employer identification number 

accounts. 

Job dynamics: single versus multi-firms 

During the March 1992 through March 2003 period, single 

establishment employers made up an average 43 percent of 

all employment while multi-establishment employers 

represented 57 percent of employment. (See chart 1.) However, 

over the entire period, the contribution to employment growth 

from these two categories is far different from their 

proportional share of employment, with single establishment 

firms accounting for 75 percent of the job growth and multiestablishment firms accounting for 25 percent. 

Differences between single and multi-firms or employers 

become even more pronounced as we examine job dynamics 

during the expansion and contraction periods.6 During the 

expansion period, both single and multi-establishment 

employers contributed to employment growth. Single establishment employers contributed 61 percent of the growth, whereas 

multi-establishment employers contributed 39 percent of the 

growth. The contraction period, however, presents a very 

different picture of how the U.S. job market operated. Somewhat surprisingly, the single establishment employers 

continued to show some job growth even during the contraction period. Only multi-establishment firms experienced 

overall job loss. 

Next, we consider whether employment change during 

expansions and contractions comes from continuous 

establishments or whether it comes from the net of openings 

minus closings of establishments.7 

Single establishment firms. During the expansion and 

contraction periods, both single continuous establishments 

and net of openings minus closings of single establishments 

showed consistent growth. (See chart 2.) The single continuous establishments contributed about 51 percent of the 

total employment growth during the expansion period and a 

gain of about 5 percent during the contraction period. For the 

combined period, single continuous establishments contributed about 62 percent of total private employment growth. 

This growth is even more noteworthy given that single 

continuous establishments represent only about 41 percent 

of total private employment. 

The contribution of employment growth from single net 

openings minus closings of establishments was also positive 

during both periods. During the expansion period, these 

establishments contributed about 10 percent to employment 

growth, and during the contraction period, their contribution 

was 5 percent. Over the combined period, employment from 

single net openings minus closings of establishments 

contributed 13 percent of total growth. 

Multi-establishment firms. Multi-establishment employers 

appear to have operated quite differently from single 

establishment employers. Many large multicompanies have a 

number of identical (same size, same product) establishments 

and they expand by opening new locations, with the 

continuous establishments maintaining employment levels 

within a fixed range. 

Unlike single firms, during the expansion period, multiestablishment firms had approximately equal growth between 

the multi-continuous establishments and the net openings 

minus closings of establishments (chart 2). The multicontinuous establishments contributed about 21 percent to 

the growth during the expansion period. In contrast, they 

contributed 96 percent of the total job decline during the 

contraction period. During the combined period, the multicontinuous establishments account for less than 7 percent of 

total gain in employment. 

Correspondingly, employment growth from net openings 

minus closings among multi-establishment firms was 18 

percent during the expansion period. The employment loss 

from closings of their less profitable establishments exceeded 

the employment gains from openings during the contraction 

period. This loss was about 15 percent. For the combined 

period, the growth from net openings minus closings of multiestablishment firms accounted for 19 percent of the gain. 

Thus far, the analysis of employment dynamics among 

single and multi-establishment employers reveals that single 

continuous establishments dominated employment growth 

during the expansion period and continued to grow even 

during the contraction period. In contrast, multi-continuous 

establishments show a much stronger cyclical pattern and 

were responsible for virtually all of the net job losses during 

the contraction period. The next section examines these 

dynamics over the 2003–04 recovery as the U.S. economy 

begins to enter a period of employment growth. 

Monthly Labor Review December 2005 5 
6 Monthly Labor Review December 2005

Individual Companies/Multicorporations

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

Single continuous establishments

Single net opening-closing establishments

Multi-continuous establishments

Multi-net opening-closing establishments

Components of employment change as a percentage of total change for single and

multi-establishments, total private industry, March 1992–March 2003

Chart 1.

Expansion period

 March 1992–2001

Contraction period

 March 2001–2003

Entire period: single

 and multi-establishment

 employment as percent

 of total employment

Entire period

 March 1992–2003

Percent of total

employment

Percent of total

employment

Components of employment change for single and multi-establishments

as a percentage of total change in total private industry, March 1992–March 2003

Chart 2.

Expansion period

 March 1992–2001

Contraction period

 March 2001–2003

Entire period

 March 1992–2003

Entire period:

 establishment employment

 as percent of total

 employment

Percent of total

employment

Percent of total

employment

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

Single establishments

Multi-establishments
Job dynamics: the turning point year 

To understand the differences between the recent recovery 

period and the recovery period following the 1991 recession, 

we compare the turning point years following the two 

contraction periods. Chart 3 shows the details of over-theyear employment changes from March 1992 through March 

2004. During the March 2003 through March 2004 turning 

point year, job growth is less than that of any of the years 

during the expansion period. The total employment gain 

(786,000) for this recent turning point year is about half the 

employment gains (1.5 million) during the previous turning 

point year, March 1992 through March 1993. 

Growth from the single continuous establishments (750,000) 

for the recent turning point year is in line with the corresponding growth (878,000) during the previous turning point 

year, as is the growth from net openings minus closings of 

establishments. Thus, single establishment firms exhibited 

similar patterns during each of the turning point years. The 

major difference in total job growth arose from the behavior of 

the multi-establishment firms. 

For the recent turning point year, net openings minus 

closings of multi-establishment firms had a gain (936,000) 

almost three times the size of the previous turning point year 

(349,000) and twice the size of the average gain during the 

expansion period. The openings component returned to the 

highs of the expansion period, whereas the closings component tapered, following the large losses during the 

contraction period. (See chart 4.) 

The most striking difference between the two turning point 

periods, however, is in the behavior of the multi-continuous 

establishment component as shown in chart 3. During the 

previous turning point year, the continuous establishment 

component was essentially flat following the 1991 recession. 

In the recent turning point year, however, this component 

continued with large losses (that is, 1.1 million jobs) even 

while the other components turned positive. These persistent 

contractures of continuous multi-establishments have 

significantly hampered the current economic recovery. 

Job dynamics: industrial sector 

Description of data. To better understand how job gains 

and losses in industries are affected, we examine data by 

industrial sector, which are also broken down by single- or 

multi-establishments employers. Within each category, the 

data are further broken into continuous establishments and 

net of openings minus closings of establishments for the 

expansion, contraction, and combined period. Chart 5 shows 

the average yearly employment change during expansion and 

contraction periods for major industry sectors and table A–1 

provides additional data. Chart 6 shows the percent of total 

private employment by major industry sector, providing a 

frame of reference from which to measure employment change. 

Single establishment firms. During the expansion period, 

the single continuous establishments had modest to healthy 

growth in all sectors. Net openings minus closings resulted in 

strong gains in professional and business services and leisure 

and hospitality sectors, but there were also small losses due 

to closings in the manufacturing sector and the trade and 

transportation sector. During the contraction period, most 

sectors experienced losses—especially manufacturing. These 

losses were, however, more than offset by continued strong 

growth in financial activities; education and health services; the 

remaining components of the service sector; and firms that 

initially do not have an industrial code or are unclassified (table 

A–1). For the combined period, all sectors except nondurable 

manufacturing had modest to healthy gains. All components of 

the service sector and construction had very strong gains. 

Multi-establishment firms. During the expansion period, the 

multi-establishment employers experienced solid growth in 

all sectors except in natural resources and mining and in 

manufacturing. During the contraction period, the three major 

sectors with the heaviest job losses from multi-continuous 

establishments were manufacturing; trade and transportation; 

and professional and business services. Not surprisingly, 

these sectors also had a high concentration of multi-establishment employment. (See chart 6.) Also during the contraction 

period, multi-continuous establishments in all sectors 

experienced employment loss; the major exception was the 

education and health services sector, which had a gain of 

about 300,000 jobs. 

Longitudinal versus cross-sectional 

Thus far we have based our analysis on a longitudinal methodology; that is, an employer is classified at the beginning of 

the period, and its over-the-year employment change is 

measured using the beginning period classification. At the 

beginning of the next year, the employer is “reclassified” 

according to its new status and another over-the-year change 

is measured; these over-the-year changes are then aggregated over the entire economic period. 

For comparison, we examine a cross-sectional analysis that 

provides a snapshot of the economy at the beginning of a 

time period (for example, March 1992) and another snapshot 

at the end of the time period (for example, March 1993), and 

then a change is calculated. The primary difference between 

the two measures is that under longitudinal analysis, the 

employment change is calculated “before” the firms are 

reclassified, whereas under cross-sectional analysis, the 

employment change is calculated “after” the reclassification 

Monthly Labor Review December 2005 7 
8 Monthly Labor Review December 2005

Individual Companies/Multicorporations

Components of over-the-year employment change for single and multi-establishments,

total private industry, March 1992–March 2004

Chart 3.

Employment change

 (in thousands)

Employment change

 (in thousands)

Employment change

 (in thousands)

Employment change

 (in thousands)

Over-the-year employment change for multi-establishments, total private industry,

March 1992–March 2004

Chart 4.

Recent

 turning

 point

 year

Contraction

 period, March

 2001–03

Previous

 turning

 point

 year

NOTE: Each year of data starts in March and ends in March of the following year.

(4,000)

(3,000)

(2,000)

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

(4,000)

(3,000)

(2,000)

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Total employment change

Single continuous establishments

Single net opening-closing establishments

Multi-continuous establishments

Multi-net opening-closing establishments

92–93 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99 99–2000 00–01 01–02 02–03 03–04

(4,000)

(3,000)

(2,000)

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

(4,000)

(3,000)

(2,000)

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Multi-establishment-level openings

Multi-establishment-level closings

92–93 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99 99–2000 00–01 01–02 02–03 03–04

Expansion period
Monthly Labor Review December 2005 9

Average yearly employment change for selected supersectors, expansion and contraction

periods during March 1992–March 2003

Average yearly change (in thousands)

Expansion period: March 1992–March 2001

Chart 5.

Professional and business services

Construction

Manufacturing

Information

Financial activities

Leisure and hospitality

Education and health services

Average yearly change (in thousands)

Contraction period: March 2001–March 2003

Trade and transportation

Construction

Manufacturing

Trade and transportation

Information

Financial activities

Professional and business services

Leisure and hospitality

Education and health services

Average yearly change (in thousands)

Average yearly change (in thousands)

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 0

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Continuous, singles

Net opening-closing, singles

Continuous, multi-firms

Net opening-closing multi-firms

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 0

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Continuous, singles

Net opening-closing, singles

Continuous, multi-firms

Net opening-closing multi-firms
 

 

Table 6. Industry employment as a percentage of total private employment, March 1992–March 2003 

Percent of total employment

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Natural resources and mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Trade and transportation

Information

Financial activities

Professional and business services

Education and health services

Leisure and hospitality

Other services

Unclassified

Single establishments

Multi-establishments

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Percent of total employment

Individual Companies/Multicorporations 

has taken place. Although this may seem like a subtle distinction, it can lead to substantially different results. 

On the one hand, the longitudinal analysis indicates that 

single firms created most of the jobs over the combined period. 

From March 1992 through March 2003, single establishment 

employers contributed about 13.5 million jobs, and multiemployers contributed 4.6 million jobs. (See appendix table 

A–2.) A cross-sectional analysis, on the other hand, shows 

that single-firms employment grew by about 4.4 million, 

whereas multi-firms grew by 13.7 million. Thus, the two 

different analytical approaches produce opposite conclusions 

as to who created the most jobs. 

The reason for the large discrepancy between the measures 

of change is that the longitudinal analysis measures of change 

reflect only the individual firm employment change (that is, 

economic change), whereas the cross-sectional analysis 

measures of change reflect both the individual firm employment change and the firm’s annual reclassification change. 

Consider, for example, a tabulation cell that had only a 

single establishment employer with employment of 100 in 

March 1994 that became a multi-establishment employer by 

opening another location during the course of the year, and in 

March 1995, it had 140 employees. Then, under longitudinal 

analysis for the cell, the single employer category would show 

10 Monthly Labor Review December 2005 
an employment growth of 40 employees and the multiestablishment cell would show no change. Under crosssectional analysis, however, the single establishment 

employer cell would show a loss of 100 employees (due to the 

firm’s reclassification from single- to multi-establishment 

employer) and the multi-establishment employer cell would 

show a gain of 140 employees coming again from the 

reclassification shift. 

The reclassification changes occur for various reasons,8 

but these classification change units (that is, units moving 

from single- to multi-status or from multi- to single status) 

generally have very small employment changes over the year 

and contribute very little to the annual total economic change 

measures (chart 7). Their effect comes as they are reclassified 

each year and total employment is moved out of one cell and 

into the other. The employment shift from single- to multistatus establishment employers is always much larger than 

the shift from multi-establishment to single establishment 

employers. Over the combined period, a net of 9.0 million jobs 

shifted out of singles and into the multi-establishment 

employer category (chart 8, table A–2). 

Looking at the apparent contradictory results between 

longitudinal versus cross-sectional analysis, we see from 

chart 8 that this is because of the 9.0 million net employment 

shift due to reclassification. From an economic change perspective, longitudinal analysis indicates that single establishment firms grew by 13.5 million over the combined period and 

multi-establishment firms grew by 4.6 million. However, when 

the reclassification change is added to the economic change 

under cross-sectional analysis, the result is reversed. Thus, 

when attempting to answer the question—Who creates the 

most jobs?—the longitudinal analysis is the proper method 

because its measures include only economic change and are 

unaffected by reclassification change. 

Summary of results 

• Single establishment employers compose approximately 43 percent of total employment and, over the 

combined period, contributed about 75 percent of the 

total growth. Of this growth, about 62 percent came 

from continuous establishments and about 13 percent 

from net openings minus closings of establishments. 

During the expansion period, single continuous 

establishments contributed more than 50 percent of 

the total growth. Even during the contraction period, 

single firms contributed to employment growth. 

• Multi-establishment employers compose 57 percent 

of the total employment. Over the combined period, 

they contributed only 25 percent of the total growth. 

During the contraction period, multi-continuous 

establishments contributed virtually all (down 96 

percent) of the employment loss. 

• Total job growth during the recent turning point year 

(March 2003 through March 2004) was about onehalf of the previous turning point year (March 1992 

through March 1993). The job gains from single 

continuous establishments and the net openings 

minus closings of establishments were about the 

same level for the 2 turning point years. 

• Multi-continuous establishments had substantial 

job losses of 1.1 million jobs for the current turning 

year, compared with nearly 0 in the previous turning 

point year. In contrast, the gains from net openings 

minus closings of multi-establishment employers 

were at a very high level and three times the level in 

the previous turning point year with openings 

reaching a peak and closings, although substantial, 

remaining relatively low. 

• During the expansion period, single firms had modest 

to healthy growth in all industrial sectors coming 

from the continuous establishments and strong 

gains in the service sector from net openings minus 

closings of establishments. 

• For the contraction period, the most significant 

observation is that the single continuous establishments posted strong growth in the education and 

health sector, as well as some growth in the financial 

activity sector. 

• Multi-establishment employers experienced solid 

growth in most industrial sectors during the expansion period. Employment growth during this 

period was split almost evenly between continuous 

establishments and openings minus closings of 

establishments. During the contraction period, the 

employment loss in all sectors except education and 

health services was mostly generated by multicontinuous establishment operations. 

• Longitudinal analysis shows that, over the combined period, the growth from single establishment 

employers accounted for 13.5 million jobs, and the 

growth from multi-establishment employers contributed 4.6 million jobs. 

Future directions 

BLS recently established a longitudinal database that allows 

researchers to understand better the U.S. labor market. Several 

ideas for further research have emerged from this study. For 

example, a micro-level longitudinal analysis of multicontinuous establishments could provide a detailed profile of 

Monthly Labor Review December 2005 11 
 

 

 

(( )

Crossover employers' contribution to the total employment change, total private industry, 

March 1992–March 2003 

Chart 7. 

Employment change Employment change

(in thousands) (in thousands)

92–93 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99 99–2000 00–01 01–02 02–03

NOTE: “Crossover employers” are those that are classified as a single-firm in one year and are reclassified as a multi-firm

employer in the next year, or vice versa.

Each year includes March of one year through March of the following year.

(4,000)

(3,000)

(2,000)

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

0

(4,000)

(3,000)

(2,000)

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Total change

Single-to-multi-firm crossover

Multi- to-single-firm crossover

Contraction

period

Expansion period

Single establishments Multi-establishments

(10,000)

(8,000)

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0

(10,000)

(8,000)

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Economic change

Reclassification change

Economic and reclassification

changes

Employment change

in thousands

Employment change 

in thousands

Chart 8. Comparison of longitudinal versus cross-sectional results, total private industry,

 March 1992–March 2003

( )) ( ))

Individual Companies/Multicorporations 

12 Monthly Labor Review December 2005 
multi-establishment employers, including their pattern of 

employment changes, especially the steep decline during the 

contraction period. 

An analysis of the data by size of employer, broken down 

by single and multi-employers would be valuable. It is likely 

Notes 

that the growth pattern differs for the two employer types by 

size class. 

Also of interest would be an analysis by growth or decline 

in employment by age of firm and by size class for single and 

multi-employers, separately as well as combined. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors would like to thank many 

persons in the BLS Office of Employment and Unemployment 

Statistics for contributing their thoughts and ideas. The authors would 

like to acknowledge especially Paul Grden and Jenny Lin for their 

valuable contributions towards programming and processing the data 

and for the visual displays of the data in chart and table formats. 

1 During the expansion period, total change for single establishment 

firms is 13.1 million and 8.4 million for multi-establishment firms, or 

a total growth of 21.5 million for the private sector. See appendix 

table A–1. 

2 During the, contraction period, total change for single establishment firms is 362,000 and a loss of 3,827,000 for multi-establishment 

firms, or a total loss of 3.5 million jobs in the private sector. See 

appendix table A–1. 

3 For an in-depth description of the record linkage methodology, 

see K. Robertson, L. Huff, G. Mikkelson, T. Pivetz, and A. Winkler, 

“Improvements in Record Linkage Processes for the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Business Establishment List,” Proceedings for the 1997

Record Linkage Workshop and Exposition (Office of Management 

and Budget, 1997). 

4 Data for various types of openings and closings were tabulated 

separately and then appropriate subtraction was done to obtain net 

openings minus closings statistics. 

5 For additional details about definitions, see Richard Clayton, Jason 

Faberman, Akbar Sadeghi, James Spletzer, and David Talan, “Business 

Employment Dynamics,” Monthly Labor Review, April 2004, pp. 29– 

42. Also, quarterly Business Employment Dynamics data are available 

on the Internet at www.bls.gov/bdm/home.htm. 

6 When referring to data for all years within a period, the statistics 

are derived by summing the annual employment or employment 

changes within that economic period and domain and then performing 

appropriate arithmetic operations. 

7 The employment generated by openings that occur in the recent 

time period becomes part of either the continuous or closings 

population in the subsequent time period. For example: The 

employment generated by openings in the March 1994–March 1995 

period becomes either part of the continuous population or 

employment loss from closings for the March 1995–March 1996 

period. Thus, statistics on the change from the continuous population 

and net employment from openings minus closings are dependent 

upon the time period over which the change is measured. For example: 

The employment gains from single continuous establishments over 

the entire expansion period of 9 years (same establishments with 

positive employment in March 1992 and in March 2001) is expected 

to be different than the sum of the nine annual employment changes. 

8 There are three major reasons for the movement between single 

and multi-employers. They are: 1) business expansion or contraction; 

2) business mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations; and 3) business 

changes in reporting practices, such as when a multi-establishment 

employer that used to report all of its operations from one location 

has started to provide data by breaking out its operations into two or 

more locations. Similarly, contracting firms might close or sell 

establishments. 

Monthly Labor Review December 2005 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A–1. Comparison of employment change in single companies and multicorporations 

Single companies Multicorporations 

NAICS Industry Beginning Change in Net Beginning Change in Net Code Total Total

employment continuous opened– employment change continuous opened– change level establishments closed level establishments closed 

Expansion period:

 March 1992–March 2001 

... Total private ............................... 39,940,056

11, 21 Natural resources and mining .. 931,620

23 Construction ........................... 3,006,560

321, 327, 33 Durable manufacturing ........... 3,132,210

31, 322, 323, Nondurable manufacturing ...... 2,157,383

324, 325,

326

321, 327, Durable and nondurable

33: 31, 322, manufacturing ...................... 5,289,593

323, 324,

325, 326

42 Wholesale trade ...................... 2,003,434

44, 45 Retail trade .............................. 5,018,616

48, 49, 22 Transportation, warehousing,

and utilities .......................... 1,067,002

51 Information .............................. 655,689

52, 53 Financial activities .................. 2,255,742

54, 55, 56 Professional and business

services ................................ 4,391,047

61, 62 Education and health

services ................................ 7,641,099

71, 72 Leisure and hospitality ............ 5,392,370

81 Other services ........................ 2,252,055

54, 55, 56, Total services .......................... 19,676,571

61, 62, 71,

72, 81

99 Unclassified ............................ 35,229

Contraction period:

 March 2001–March 2003 

... Total private ............................... 45,191,561

11, 21 Natural resources and mining ... 948,319

23 Construction ............................ 4,524,179

321, 327, 33 Durable manufacturing ............ 3,426,672

31, 322, 323, Nondurable manufacturing ...... 1,801,879

324, 325, 326

321, 327, Durable and nondurable

33: 31, 322, manufacturing ...................... 5,228,551

323, 324,

 325, 326

42 Wholesale trade ...................... 1,994,512

44, 45 Retail trade .............................. 5,094,396

48, 49, 22 Transportation, warehousing,

and utilities ........................... 1,258,539

51 Information .............................. 710,977

52, 53 Financial activities .................. 2,175,215

54, 55, 56 Professional and business

services ................................ 5,767,764

61, 62 Education and health services 8,210,111

71, 72 Leisure and hospitality ............ 6,420,460

81 Other services ........................ 2,519,317

54, 55, 56, Total services ........................... 22,917,652

61, 62, 71,

72, 81

99 Unclassified ............................ 339,221

13,101,400

89,272

1,797,441

911,544

21,149

932,693

456,113

719,273

379,671

318,162

576,657

2,910,494

2,330,290

1,776,568

498,111

7,515,463

316,655

362,751

–8,131

–117,386

–464,664

–205,381

–670,045

–64,890

–91,043

–57,105

–82,585

142,818

62,737

563,227

11,947

7,908

645,819

665,299

10,946,698

68,351

1,533,168

1,018,209

281,462

1,299,671

554,191

961,500

382,295

269,036

561,393

2,188,376

2,021,444

676,087

420,872

5,306,779

10,314

188,725

–1,733

–38,055

–323,275

–91438

–414,713

–5,978

13,319

–10,239

–34,020

147,379

103,704

499,486

–153,209

13,211

463,192

69,573

2,154,702

20,921

264,273

–106,665

–260,313

–366,978

–98,078

–242,227

-2,624

49,126

15,264

722,118

308,846

1,100,481

77,239

2,208,684

306,341

174,026

–6,398

–79,331

–141,389

–113,943

–255,332

–58,912

–104,362

–46,866

–48,565

–4,561

–40,967

63,741

165,156

–5,303

182,627

595,726

47,084,051

602,126

1,187,792

6,766,181

4,564,473

11,330,654

2,881,405

7,530,806

2,802,873

2,010,801

4,251,953

6,181,098

3,769,302

3,658,353

862,269

14,471,022

14,619

63,369,516

614,786

1,941,041

7,186,529

4,369,943

11,556,472

3,778,200

9,910,358

3,489,140

2,978,481

5,433,424

10,709,843

6,492,804

5,148,711

1,222,951

23,574,309

93,305

8,435,570 4,542,174 3,893,396

–62,462 –34,956 –27,506

481,109 366,471 114,638

–175,466 –221,040 45,574

–568230 –385,543 –182,687

–743,696 –606,583 –137,113

505,478 509,005 –3,527

1,680,328 282,052 1,398,276

461,333 400,868 60,465

733,544 500,642 232,902

538,655 421,496 117,159

2,964,019 2,138,556 825,463

958,911 650,379 308,532

696,220 –147,181 843,401

131,891 62,778 69,113

4,751,041 2,704,532 2,046,509

90,240 -1,353 91,593

–3,827,008 –3,318,005 –509,003

–32,871 –15,069 –17,802

–203,826 –159,436 –44,390

–1,224,007 –1,021,041 –202,966

–425,305 –321,912 –103,393

–1,649,312 –1,342,953 –306,359

–179,879 –94,089 –85,790

–286,518 –450,594 164,076

–239,107 –166,994 –72,113

–457,331 –364,277 –93,054

–44,430 –15,595 –28,835

–1,114,167 –837,135 –277,032

256,710 299,929 –43,219

–81,328 –205,584 124,256

–24,042 –15,584 –8,458

–962,827 –758,374 –204,453

229,093 49,376 179,717

Individual Companies/Multicorporations 

14 Monthly Labor Review December 2005 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Continued—Comparison of employment change in single companies and multicorporations

 Combined period: 

March 1992–March 2003 

... Total private ............................. 39,940,056 13,464,151 11,135,423 2,328,728 47,084,051 4,608,562 1,224,169 3,384,393

11, 21 Natural resources and mining . 931,620 81,141 66,618 14,523 602,126 –95,333 –50,025 –45,308

23 Construction .......................... 3,006,560 1,680,055 1,495,113 184,942 1,187,792 277,283 207,035 70,248

321, 327, 33 Durable manufacturing .......... 3,132,210 446,880 694,934 –248,054 6,766,181 –1,399,473 –1,242,081 –157,392

31, 322, 323, Nondurable manufacturing..... 2,157,383 –184,232 190,024 –374,256 4,564,473 –993,535 –707,455 –286,080

324, 325,

326

321, 327, Durable and nondurable

33: 31, manufacturing .................... 5,289,593 262,648 884,958 –622,310 11,330,654 –2,393,008 –1,949,536 –443,472

322, 323,

324, 325,

326

42 Wholesale trade .................... 2,003,434 391,223 548,213 –156,990 2,881,405 325,599 414,916 –89,317

44, 45 Retail trade ............................ 5,018,616 628,230 974,819 –346,589 7,530,806 1,393,810 –168,542 1,562,352

48, 49, 22 Transportation, warehousing,

and utilities ......................... 1,067,002 322,566 372,056 –49,490 2,802,873 222,226 233,874 –11,648

51 Information ............................ 655,689 235,577 235,016 561 2,010,801 276,213 136,365 139,848

52, 53 Financial activities ................ 2,255,742 719,475 708,772 10,703 4,251,953 494,225 405,901 88,324

54, 55, 56 Professional and business

services .............................. 4,391,047 2,973,231 2,292,080 681,151 6,181,098 1,849,852 1,301,421 548,431

61, 62 Education and health

services .............................. 7,641,099 2,893,517 2,520,930 372,587 3,769,302 1,215,621 950,308 265,313

71, 72 Leisure and hospitality .......... 5,392,370 1,788,515 522,878 1,265,637 3,658,353 614,892 –352,765 967,657

81 Other services ...................... 2,252,055 506,019 434,083 71,936 862,269 107,849 47,194 60,655

54, 55, 56, Total services ........................ 19,676,571 8,161,282 5,769,971 2,391,311 14,471,022 3,788,214 1,946,158 1,842,056

61, 62, 71,

72, 81

99 Unclassified .......................... 35,229 981,954 79,887 902,067 14,619 319,333 48,023 271,310

Single companies 

NAICS 

Code 

Multi-corporations 

Industry Beginning 

employment 

level

 Total 

change 

Change in 

continuous 

establishments 

Net 

opened– 

closed 

Beginning 

employment 

level

 Total 

change 

Change in 

continuous 

establishments 

Net 

opened– 

closed 

Table A–1. 

Table A–2. Over-the-year employment change and annual shifts in employment in private single and multi-firms, 

March 1992–March 2003 

Period 

Single firms1 Multi-firms2 

Beginning 

employment 

level 

Change 

within 

1-year 

period 

Ending 

employment 

level 

Net 

employment 

shift from 

singles in 

the current 

period 

Beginning 

level of 

next 

period 

Beginning 

employment 

level 

Change 

within 

1-year 

period 

Ending 

employment 

level 

Net 

employment 

shift from 

singles in 

the current 

period 

Beginning 

level of 

next 

period 

1-year period 

March: ..............

1992–93 ......... 39,940,056 1,189,307 41,129,363 –1,303,759 39,825,604 47,084,051 316,757 47,400,808 1,303,759 48,704,567

1993-94 ......... 39,825,604 1,821,767 41,647,371 –1,163,574 40,483,797 48,704,567 862,554 49,567,121 1,163,574 50,730,695

1994–95 ......... 40,483,797 2,018,566 42,502,363 –988,673 41,513,690 50,730,695 1,327,548 52,058,243 988,673 53,046,916

1995–96 ......... 41,513,690 1,358,907 42,872,597 –882,881 41,989,716 53,046,916 611,457 53,658,373 882,881 54,541,254

1996–97 ......... 41,989,716 1,600,113 43,589,829 –990,609 42,599,220 54,541,254 1,269,297 55,810,551 990,609 56,801,160

1997–98 ......... 42,599,220 1,388,657 43,987,877 –601,591 43,386,286 56,801,160 1,412,519 58,213,679 601,591 58,815,270

1998–99 ......... 43,386,286 1,436,374 44,822,660 –669,756 44,152,904 58,815,270 999,226 59,814,496 669,756 60,484,252

1999–2000 ..... 44,152,904 1,685,648 45,838,552 –750,739 45,087,813 60,484,252 1,349,423 61,833,675 750,739 62,584,414

2000–01 ......... 45,087,813 602,061 45,689,874 -498,313 45,191,561 62,584,414 286,789 62,871,203 498,313 63,369,516

2001–02 ......... 45,191,561 –195,287 44,996,274 –597,160 44,399,114 63,369,516 –2,555,751 60,813,765 597,160 61,410,925

2002–03 ......... 44,399,114 558,038 44,957,152 –595,973 44,361,179 61,410,925 –1,271,257 60,139,668 595,973 60,735,641

 11-year period 

March:

1992–2003 ..... 39,940,056 13,464,151 ... –9,043,028 44,361,179 47,084,051 4,608,562 ... 9,043,028 60,735,641

1 Longitudinal analysis: gain = 13.5 million; cross-sectional analysis: gain = 4.4 million. 2 Longitudinal analysis: gain = 4.6 million; cross-sectional analysis: gain = 13.7 million.

Monthly Labor Review December 2005 15