Monthly Labor Review • August 2010 3

JOLTS Annual Story

Katherine Bauer 

Klemmer and 

Robert Lazaneo

ob Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data showed only slight 

improvement since June 2009, the end 

of the most recent recession.1 The seasonally-adjusted number of job openings—a 

measure of labor demand—increased from 

2.4 million in June 2009 to 2.9 million in 

December 2010. While the level shows improvement, it is still well below the 4.4 million posted for December 2007, the onset of 

the recession. The hires level—a measure of 

worker flows—increased from 3.6 million 

at the end of the recession to 3.9 million in 

December 2010. The separations level, another worker-flow measure, decreased from 

4.1 million in June 2009 to 3.8 million in 

December 2010. (See table 1.)

The JOLTS program measures job openings, hires, and separations on a monthly 

basis by industry2

 and geographic region. 

JOLTS gauges labor demand by collecting 

data monthly from a sample of approximately 16,000 nonfarm business establishments. Published JOLTS data are available 

from December 2000 forward. Unless otherwise noted, JOLTS data used in this report 

are seasonally adjusted.

Job openings

Job openings reflected a contraction in labor 

demand during the most recent recession. 

Total private job openings leveled off and 

then began to decline in advance of the JanKatherine Bauer Klemmer 

and Robert Lazaneo are 

economists in the Division 

of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover in the 

Office of Employment and 

Unemployment Statistics 

at the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Email: klemmer.

katherine@bls.gov or 

lazaneo.robert@bls.gov

Job openings and hires show little 

postrecession improvement

JOLTS data show only modest labor market gains since the end of the 2007–

2009 recession; the job openings and hires levels have been rising since mid2009 but, at the end of 2010, were well below their prerecession levels

uary 2008 peak in the Current Establishment Statistics3

 (CES) total private employment estimates and before the official start 

of the recession.4

 The rate of decrease in job 

openings accelerated at the start of the recession. The decline in job openings then 

slowed in the spring of 2009. In July 2009, 

the total private job openings level dropped 

to a series low of 1.8 million, which was 2.5 

million below the March 2007 peak of 4.3 

million. Since July 2009, job openings have 

climbed steadily. Job openings and employment tend to move in a similar pattern. 

Fluctuations or irregularities in the JOLTS

data are generally attributable to its relatively small sample size and resultant sampling error. (See chart 1 for a comparison of 

JOLTS job openings and CES employment.) 

Census effect. Job openings attributable to 

the 2010 decennial census are reflected in 

the JOLTS total nonfarm job openings estimates, while JOLTS total private job openings 

exclude government job openings. In chart 

2, the number of government job openings 

is measured on the right axis and the total 

nonfarm and total private job openings are 

measured on the left axis. Some census-related job openings became available in late 

2008. Then, in the spring of 2009, job openings for the first major hiring of the 2010 

census became available. In spring 2010, the 

need for door-to-door follow-up interviews 

with households that hadn’t responded to 

J
JOLTS Annual Story

4 Monthly Labor Review • August 2011

Table 1. Job openings, hires, and separations, selected

 months, seasonally adjusted

[In millions]

Category

December

 2007 

(recession 

start)

 June 

2009

(recession 

end)

Trough (T) 

or 

series low (L)

December

 2010

Job openings 4.4 2.4 2.1 

(T= July 2009)

2.9

Hires 5.0 3.6 3.6

 (T= Oct 2009)

3.9

Separations 4.9 4.1 3.5 

(L= Jan 2010)

3.8

the mailed census form or had not received one in the 

mail resulted in the posting of additional job openings for 

census workers.5

Job openings by region. Regional job openings showed 

trends similar to those for the nonfarm total. Job openings 

in each of the four regions trended downward before the 

beginning of the most recent recession. The West, South, 

and Northeast each experienced series troughs in July 

2009, and the Midwest experienced its trough in April 

2009. Job openings in each region trended upwards from 

the summer of 2009 through 2010. Job openings data for 

each region commenced downturns before downturns began in each region’s CES employment data.6

 (See chart 3.)

Job openings and unemployment. Job openings generally 

move inversely to unemployment. An economic expansion 

typically is characterized by low unemployment and 

a high level of job openings. An economic contraction 

is likely to be marked by high unemployment and a 

low number of job openings. Since the end of the most 

recent recession, the gap between the unemployment 

rate and the job openings rate has narrowed slightly. The 

difference between the unemployment rate and the job 

openings rate was 7.2 percent in December 2010, down 

from a high of 8.3 percent in October 2009. (See chart 4.)

Dividing the level of unemployment by the number of 

job openings results in a ratio which shows the number of 

job openings per unemployed person. This ratio reached 

its most recent low in late 2006 through early 2007. The 

ratio then began to climb from the onset of the 2007–

2009 recession until July 2009 when it reached a high 

of almost 7 unemployed persons per job opening. From 

July 2009 through April 2010, the ratio declined to 5 

unemployed persons per job opening before leveling off 

throughout the remainder of 2010. (See chart 5.) 

The Beveridge curve examines the inverse relationship 

between labor demand (as measured by the number of job 

openings) and labor supply (as measured by the number 

of unemployed people). Plotting the intersection of the 

job openings rate and the unemployment rate over time 

produces the Beveridge curve. The curve is downward 

sloping and reflects the state of the economy through comovement of these measures along their individual axes; 

there can be movements along the curve as well as shifts 

in the curve toward or away from the origin, which is at 

the intersection of the axes. (See chart 6.) High job openings and low unemployment result in a position high and 

to the left on the curve, and generally indicate a period 

of economic expansion. Low job openings and high unemployment result in a position low and to the right on 

the curve, and generally indicate a period of economic 

contraction.

Not only can points move along the curve, the curve 

itself can shift towards or away from its origin. Greater 

mismatch between available jobs and the unemployed 

because of skills mismatch or geographic disparity can 

cause the curve to shift away from the origin. Decreased 

job-matching efficiency results in both high unemployment and unfilled job openings. Improved matching of 

available jobs to unemployed people can cause the curve 

to shift towards the origin. Increased job-matching efficiency results in both lower unemployment and fewer 

unfilled job openings. 

From the start of the recent recession in December 2007 

through the middle of 2009, the economy’s position along 

the Beveridge curve moved lower and farther to the right 

as the job openings rate declined and the unemployment 

rate rose. The lowest points on the curve reflect the JOLTS

job openings series lows during the spring and summer 

JOLTS program developments

The following important developments took place in the JOLTS 

program in 2010:

•	 As of the publication of November 2010 estimates, the JOLTS

program reached its tenth anniversary.

•	The Bureau of Labor Statistics sponsored a JOLTS Symposium on

December 10, 2010. Bringing together leading academic and policy users of JOLTS data, the symposium included the presentation 

of five research papers and concluded with a roundtable discussion 

of the program’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as recommendations for the future of the JOLTS program.1

•	The JOLTS program began producing experimental estimates by

size of nonfarm business establishment as the result of an initial 

request from the Department of Treasury. Experimental size class 

estimates are now available upon request by establishment size and 

data element.2

 1Richard L. Clayton, James R. Spletzer, and John C. Wohlford, “Conference Report: JOLTS Symposium,” Monthly Labor Review, February 

2011, pp. 41–47, http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/02/art4full.pdf

(visited June 9, 2011).

For more information, see “Experimental JOLTS Estimates by Establishment Size Class,” (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 11, 

2011), http://stats.bls.gov/jlt/sizeclassmethodology.htm (visited July 

21, 2011).
Monthly Labor Review • August 2011 5

Chart 1. JOLTS total private job openings rate and CES total private employment, seasonally adjusted, December 2000–December 2010

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

120,000

118,000

116,000

114,000

112,000

110,000

108,000

106,000

104,000

102,000

100,000

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

Employment

(in thousands) Job openings 

(in thousands)

Job openings

Employment

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chart 2. JOLTS total nonfarm, total private, and government job openings, seasonally adjusted, 

December 2000–December 2010

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Nonfarm job openings

Private job openings

Government job openings

Total job openings 

(in thousands)

Government 

job openings

(in thousands)

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
JOLTS Annual Story

6 Monthly Labor Review • August 2011

Chart 3. Job openings and CES employment by region, seasonally adjusted, December 2000–December 2010

Job openings

(in thousands)

Employment

South (in thousands)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Job

openings

Employment

 Dec 00 Dec 02 Dec 04 Dec 06 Dec 08 Dec 10

50,000

49,000

48,000

47,000

46,000

45,000

44,000

43,000

Northeast

Job openings

(in thousands)

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Job 

openings

Employment

Employment

(in thousands)

 Dec 00 Dec 02 Dec 04 Dec 06 Dec 08 Dec 10

Midwest

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Employment

(in thousands)

Job 

openings

Employment

Job openings

(in thousands)

 Dec 00 Dec 02 Dec 04 Dec 06 Dec 08 Dec 10

Employment West (in thousands)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Job

openings

Employment

Job openings

(in thousands)

 Dec 00 Dec 02 Dec 04 Dec 06 Dec 08 Dec 10

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

of 2009 in combination with high unemployment rates. 

During most of 2010, the points on the curve moved vertically as the job openings rate increased and the unemployment rate changed very little. Since mid-2010, however, the curve has moved erratically towards the left.

Analysis of the Beveridge curve has resulted in different 

theories about what the recent movements of the curve 

represent. The questions being asked are: Does the shape 

of the current Beveridge curve reflect structural changes 

or cyclical changes? Or, could these movements be a combination of both?

According to the cyclical viewpoint, movement of the 

economy along the Beveridge curve may have entered a 

circular pattern during the economic recovery. An article 

by Murat Tasci and John Lindner states that the economy 

may take time to adjust to changes in job openings and 

unemployment as it may take longer for unemployment to 

decline than for job openings to increase. This will cause 

the curve to shift outward temporarily, as it has done during other recovery periods. The delay in the response of 

unemployment to an improving economy could in part be 

due to reentry into the labor force of jobseekers who had 

left when the economy was in decline. This could mean 

the Beveridge curve may appear to undergo a structural 

shift when the movement is actually a cyclical one.7

Those who interpret the movement as a structural shift 

in the Beveridge curve note that there are increasing levels of both job openings and unemployment.8

 Structural 

shifts can be industry-related or geography-related. For 

example, with an industry-based structural mismatch, 

32,500

32,000

31,500

31,000

30,500

30,000

29,500

29,000

28,500

26,000

25,600

25,200

24,800

24,400

24,000

31,000

30,500

30,000

29,500

29,000

28,500

28,000

27,500

27,000

26,500

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Monthly Labor Review • August 2011 7

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

Chart 5. Unemployed persons per job opening, seasonally adjusted, December 2000–December 2010

Ratio

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

Ratio

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

Chart 4. JOLTS job openings rate and CPS unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, December 2000– 

 December 2010

3.8

1.1

Percent Percent

 Job openings rate 

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0

8.3

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

^

^

^

^

^

^

 Unemployment rate

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
JOLTS Annual Story

8 Monthly Labor Review • August 2011

there may be high unemployment in the construction 

sector but high demand for workers in the health care 

sector. The inability of jobseekers to sell a house in order to relocate to take a job could, on a large scale, create 

a geographic disparity; hence, high unemployment may 

persist because potential employees cannot move to fill 

positions.9

Rather than attribute the potential shift in the Beveridge curve to a skill mismatch at the sector level caused 

by oversupply (e.g., construction) or undersupply (e.g., 

health care), Dave Altig of the Federal Reserve Bank of 

Atlanta proposes that the potential shift may have been 

caused by changing needs at the business and individual 

industry level. While noting that substantiating data are 

scarce, Altig points to the possibility that productivity 

gains, which took place during the recession and into the 

recovery, have led to changes in business processes and 

hence the need for different skill sets.10

Alternatively, an article by Regis Barnichon, Michael 

Elsby, Bart Hobijn, and Aysegul Sahin suggests that vacancy yield deficits—that is, the relatively low level of 

hires per vacancy—are contributing to the possible shift 

in the Beveridge curve. While deficits in the vacancy 

yield were found across all industries, there are several 

industries that have particularly low yields. These industries are construction, transportation, trade, utilities, and 

leisure and hospitality, with construction as the greatest 

contributor.11 Possible explanations of the shortfall in the 

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Job openings rate

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5

Dec 2000

Dec 2007

Nov 2001

June 2011

June 2009

Chart 6. The Beveridge curve (job openings rate versus unemployment rate), seasonally adjusted, December 2000–June 2011

Job openings rate

Unemployment rate

 Dec 2000–Feb 2001 Mar–Nov 2001 Dec 2001–Nov 2007 Dec 2007–June 2009 July 2009–June 2011

(recession) (recession)

Mar 2001

Definitions of JOLTS terms

Job openings. Monthly job openings are defined as the number of openings on the last business day of the reference month. 

Hires. Monthly hires are all additions of personnel to the payroll during the reference month, and annual hires are all additions to the payroll 

during a given year. The annual hires rate is calculated by dividing the 

total number of hires for the year by the average monthly employment 

for the year, and then multiplying the result by 100.

Total separations. Monthly total separations are defined as the number of employees separated from the payroll during the reference month, 

and annual total separations is the number separated during a given year. 

Separations are classified as quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations. The annual total separations rate is calculated by dividing the 

number of total separations for the year by the average monthly employment for the year, and then multiplying the result by 100. 

Quits. These are cases in which people left a job voluntarily but did not 

retire or transfer.

Layoffs and discharges. These are involuntary separations initiated by 

employers. 

Other separations. These are defined as retirements, transfers, deaths, 

and separations caused by disability.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Monthly Labor Review • August 2011 9

Chart 7. Job openings by size of establishment, December 2000–December 2010

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

Job openings

(in thousands) Job openings

(in thousands)

Fewer than 50 employees

50–249 employees

More than 250 employees

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

vacancy yield for these industries, according to the authors, are that there is a greater mismatch of occupation 

and location of the unemployed than in the past and firms 

may be recruiting less intensively to fill vacancies.

While some analysts cite cyclical movements and others 

cite structural shifts in the economy, it may be possible 

that the economy is moving from cyclical movement to 

structural mismatch,12 or is experiencing a combination 

of both. If the economy were to move from cyclical movement to structural mismatch, it could be due to the lack 

of applicability of the skills within the unemployed labor 

pool. Cyclical movements on the Beveridge curve may 

also coincide with structural shifts in some sectors of the 

economy.13

Experimental estimates by size of establishment. The JOLTS

program currently is generating an experimental size class 

series for research purposes. Following the approach used 

by Alan Krueger, job openings were aggregated into three 

categories: establishments with fewer than 50 employees, 

establishments with 50 to 249 employees, and establishments with greater than 249 employees.14 The job openings data, aggregated by size class, can be used to gauge 

the differing impact of economic cycles on small, medium, 

and large establishments.15 Chart 7 compares job openings through the use of the experimental size-class time 

series. Krueger notes that while job openings started to 

fall in early 2007, the job openings level for the largest 

establishments experienced its greatest drop at the onset 

of the financial crisis in 2008.16

Industry data. At the sector level, all seasonally adjusted 

job openings trended down from the beginning of the recession and dropped to series lows in 2009.As shown in 

chart 8, every sector except construction and education 

and health services ended December 2010 with more job 

openings than at the end of December 2009. By December 2010, job openings had not reached the levels seen in 

December 2007 in any sector, although professional and 

business services, as well as arts, entertainment, and recreation, regained the most ground. Government job openings, which had experienced a relatively modest decline, 

were almost back to their December 2007 level. 

Hires

The level of monthly hires hit a series low of 3.6 million in October 2009 before trending upward to reach 

4.3 million in May 2010, its highest level in almost two 

years. Hires then declined and remained flat at 3.9 million during each month of the second half of the year. In 

contrast, at the onset of the recession in December 2007, 

the level was 5.0 million. 

The annual hires rate in 2010 increased in all regions 

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400
JOLTS Annual Story

10 Monthly Labor Review • August 2011

Chart 8. December job openings rate by sector, 2007–2010, seasonally adjusted

Percent Percent

Construction Manufacturing Retail 

trade

Professional

and business

services

Educational

and health

services

Arts,

entertainment,

and recreation

Accommodation

and food

services

Government

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0

 Dec 2007

 Dec 2008

 Dec 2009

 Dec 2010

except the West, where it was unchanged at 36.1 percent. 

Annual total hires increased from 45.4 million in 2009 to 

47.2 million in 2010 after three straight years of decline. 

As shown in chart 9, the hiring of temporary workers for 

the decennial census caused the largest over-the-month 

spike in government hires since the data series began. The 

sharp decline in government hires the following month 

was primarily the result of discontinuing the hiring of 

temporary census workers. 

The number of total private hires and the average weekly 

hours of private employees both declined during the recession and have remained well below their prerecession 

levels.17 Total private average weekly hours have trended 

upwards since hitting a series low in June 2009. In contrast, total private hires remained practically flat in 2010, 

hovering between 3.3 million and 3.8 million. (See chart 

10.) The reluctance of private companies to hire may have 

been due to weak demand in the economy. Weak demand 

may also have resulted in lower average weekly hours than 

before the recession.18

Hires by industry. Hires at the sector level show trends 

similar to the trend at the national level. Monthly data 

show that hires in most sectors increased during the first 

half of 2010. Hires in construction and retail trade rebounded in March 2010 to 382,000 and 618,000, respectively, their highest levels in more than a year. The upsurge 

in construction hires in March 2010 may be attributable 

to weather-related postponement of construction projects 

from the previous month. The increase in retail hires may 

reflect an increase in demand for workers in online sales.19

Education and health services peaked at 594,000 in January 2008 and reached a series low of 409,000 in January 

2010. Annual hires data showed an almost even split of 

industries that experienced either a decline or an increase 

in hires for the year 2010.

Experimental estimates by size of establishment. Chart 11 

compares hires by size of establishment. According to 

Alan Krueger, the divergence in hiring levels between 

large and small establishments was affected by the financial crisis in 2008. Smaller establishments initially reacted 

with layoffs and business closings. The first response of 

larger establishments was to freeze hiring.20

Total Separations

Following the end of the recession in June 2009, the level 

of total separations continued its steep drop throughout 

the rest of the year. In 2010, monthly total separations 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Monthly Labor Review • August 2011 11

Chart 9. Month-to-month change in seasonally adjusted government hires, January 2001–December 2010

Change from

previous month

(in thousands)

Change from

previous month

(in thousands)

400

300

200

100

0

–100

–200

–300

–400

–500

400

300

200

100

0

–100

–200

–300

–400

–500

Jan 01 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chart 10. JOLTS total private hires and CES total private average weekly hours, seasonally adjusted, December 2000–December 2010

34.8

34.5

34.2

33.9

33.6

33.3

33.0

6,200

5,400

4,600

3,800

3,000

2,200

1,400

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

Hires

(in thousands) Hours

Hires

Average 

weekly hours

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
JOLTS Annual Story

12 Monthly Labor Review • August 2011

Chart 11. Hires by size of establishment, December 2000–December 2010

Hires

(in thousands)

 Hires

(in thousands)

2,400

2,200

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

 Fewer than 50 employees

 50–249 employees 

 More than 249 employees 

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

2,400

2,200

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

rollercoastered from a series low of 3.5 million in January to a high of 4.2 million in June, but decreased to 3.8 

million at the end of the year. The annual total separations 

rate declined for the fifth straight year, ending 2010 at 

35.7 percent. Total separations in government reached a 

series high of 554,000 in June 2010 as employment of 

census temporary workers declined considerably.

Components of total separations. Total separations are 

composed of quits, layoffs and discharges, and other 

separations. The gap between total private quits and total 

private layoffs and discharges consistently narrowed since 

the start of the recession until, by November 2008, there 

were fewer total private quits than total private layoffs 

and discharges for the first time ever in the JOLTS series. 

Total private quits again exceeded total private layoffs and 

discharges from February 2010 through the remainder of 

2010 except for July, although the gap between the two 

series was minimal. (See chart 12.) By the end of 2010, 

total private quits had not yet returned to prerecession 

levels.

Experimental estimates by size of establishment. The trend 

of quits and of layoffs and discharges from establishments 

with fewer than 50 employees is quite similar to the trend 

on the total private level. After the financial crisis that 

started in late 2008, layoffs and discharges for total private establishments as well as for those with fewer than 

50 employees reached series highs during the first half of 

2009 and declined steadily through 2010. Total private 

quits trended downward during the most recent recession, spiked briefly when the recession ended, and then 

remained practically flat throughout 2010. (See chart 13.)

The ratio of quits to layoffs and discharges can serve as 

a reflection of the general health of the labor market. The 

quits-to-layoffs ratio shown in chart 14 has trended with 

the job openings level for the duration of the JOLTS series. The ratio reached a series high of 1.9 in March 2006, 

the same time that job openings were near a series high. 

As more jobs began opening up, more people may have 

felt encouraged about quitting their job and finding a 

new one—in fact, the ratio indicates that almost twice as 

many people quit their jobs as were laid off. Conversely, 

as job openings plunged to new lows during the recession, 

the ratio decreased precipitously until reaching a series 

low of 0.7 in April 2009. With fewer job openings, more 

people may have tried to hang onto their jobs; this helped 

push the ratio to its lowest point ever. Both the ratio and 

job openings have trended upwards since then, but neither reached prerecession levels in 2010. 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Monthly Labor Review • August 2011 13

Chart 12. Total private quits and layoffs and discharges, seasonally adjusted, December 2000–December 2010

(In thousands) (In thousands)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

Quits

Layoffs and discharges

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chart 13. Quits and layoffs and discharges among establishments with fewer than 50 employees, December

 2000–December 2010

(In thousands) (In thousands)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Layoffs and discharges

 Quits

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10 

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
JOLTS Annual Story

14 Monthly Labor Review • August 2011

Dec 00 Dec 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10

Chart 14. Job openings and ratio of quits to layoffs and discharges, seasonally adjusted, December 2000–

 December 2010 

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

Job openings

(in thousands)

Ratio

Ratio of quits 

to layoffs and

 discharges

Job openings

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

After most sectors experienced an increase in the annual number of layoffs and discharges from 2008 to 2009, 

the annual number decreased in each sector from 2009 to 

2010. In contrast, layoffs and discharges in government 

more than doubled from May to June 2010, primarily because the services of most of the temporary census workers were no longer needed. Posting a 25 percent increase, 

finance and insurance had the largest growth in the annual number of quits; information showed the largest decrease, 11 percent. All industries except for retail trade and 

education and health services ended December 2010 with 

more quits than a year earlier. As with job openings and 

hires, quits in every sector had yet to reach prerecession 

levels by year end.

j

has improved since the most recent recessi

have been small. Both the number of job openings and 

the number of hires declined from the months before the 

recession through the first half of 2009 and have since 

been climbing steadily but slowly. Total separations 

reached a series low at the onset of 2010 and, despite a 

brief upswing during the following months, ended the 

year at practically the same level as twelve months earlier. 

Levels for job openings, hires, and total separations did 

not meet prerecession levels through 2010 and have not 

met those levels as of the writing of this article. The impact of the 2010 decennial census on job openings, hires, 

and total separations was notable but brief.

Notes

1 See the September 20, 2010, report of the Business Cycle Dating 

Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, in which 

June 2009 was announced as a business cycle trough and the end of the 

recession that had begun in December 2007, http://www.nber.org/

cycles/sept2010.html (visited June 9, 2011).

2 The term “industry” can refer to a supersector, sector, or subsector, 

depending on the context. In analyzing “industries,” the JOLTS program follows the North American Industrial Classification System.

3 Data on total private employment are available from the Current 

Employment Statistics program at http://www.bls.gov/ces/ (visited 

June 23, 2011).

4 Richard L. Clayton, James R. Spletzer, and John C. Wohlford, 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Monthly Labor Review • August 2011 15

“Conference Report: JOLTS Symposium,” Monthly Labor Review, 

February 2011, pp. 41–47, http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/02/

art4full.pdf (visited June 9, 2011). See section on page 44 entitled 

“Evaluating and comparing leading indicators for employment.”

5 Emily Richards, “The 2010 Census: the employment impact of 

counting the Nation,” Monthly Labor Review, March 2011, pp. 33–38, 

 (visited June 14, 2011).

6 Census region employment levels were derived by aggregating 

employment data for states within their respective Census regions. 

For state and area data, go to http://stats.bls.gov/sae/ (visited May 

27, 2011).

7 Murat Tasci and John Lindner, “Has the Beveridge Curve Shifted?” 

Economic Trends, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, August 10, 2010, 

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2010/0810/02labmar.

cfm (visited April 27, 2011).

8 Menbere Shiferaw and John Robertson, “Another view of the 

structural versus cyclical unemployment question” Federal Reserve 

Bank of Atlanta, June 11, 2010, http://macroblog.typepad.com/

macroblog/2010/06/another-view-of-the-structural-versus-cy 

clical-unemployment-question.html (visited August 29, 2011).

9 Rob Valetta and Katherine Kuang, “Is Structural Unemployment

on the Rise?” Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 

November 8, 2010, http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/

letter/2010/el2010-34.html (visited April 27, 2011).

10 Dave Altig, “A curious unemployment picture gets more curious,” Macroblog, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, July 16, 2010, 

http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2010/07/a-curiousunemployment-picture-gets-more-curious.html (visited June 20, 

2011).

11 Regis Barnichon, Michael Elsby, Bart Hobijn, and Aysegul Sahin, 

“Which Industries are Shifting the Beveridge Curve?” December 21, 

2010 version, Working Paper Series, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/

wp10-32bk.pdf (visited August 4, 2011), presented at the December 

2010 JOLTS symposium.

12 Brad DeLong, “A response to: Is America facing an increase in 

structural unemployment?” The Economist July 23, 2010, http://www.

economist.com/economics/by-invitation/guest-contributions/yes_

there_still_time_prevent_big_rise (visited April 27, 2011).

13 Valetta and Kuang, “Is Structural Unemployment on the Rise

14 “Written Statement by Alan B. Krueger, Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Policy and Chief Economist, U. S. Department of the Treasury, before the Joint Economic Committee, May 5, 2010,” http://jec.

senate.gov/public//?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6f298a71-cac8-44fa95cb-7a47fcae63ee (visited June 21, 2011). 

15 For more information, see Alan B. Krueger and Sarah Charnes, 

“JOLTS as a timely source of data by establishment size,” Monthly 

Labor Review, May 2011, pp. 16–24, http://www.bls.gov/opub/

mlr/2011/05/art2full.pdf (visited August 4, 2011).

16 Idem.

17 Data on average weekly hours of total private employees are available from the Current Employment Statistics program at http://data.

bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_

name=CE_cesbref2 (visited June 27, 2011).

18 John Shipman and Paul Vigna, “Hiring in the U.S. Still Trails

Corporate-Profit Gains,” The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2011, http://

online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036554045762933015

28822030.html (visited June 20, 2011).

19 Christopher Rugaber, “Hiring jumps, while job openings edge up 

slightly,” The Boston Globe, May 11, 2010, http://www.boston.com/

business/articles/2010/05/11/hiring_jumps_while_job_openings_

edge_up_slightly/ (visited May 26, 2011).

20 “Written Statement by Alan B. Krueger, Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Policy and Chief Economist, U. S. Department of the Treasury, before the Joint Economic Committee, May 5, 2010,” http://jec.

senate.gov/public//?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6f298a71-cac8-44fa95cb-7a47fcae63ee (visited June 21, 2011).