I S S U E S I N L A B O R S T A T I S T I C S

Local employment

trends in residential

framing contractors:

Five counties

May 2008
Summary 08-04 / May 2008 • U.S. Department of Labor • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Local Employment Trends in Residential Framing

Contractors: Five Counties

The recent decline in the U.S. housing market is 

refl ected by distinct job losses 

in select local areas and specifi c industries. By far the 

largest losses in residential 

specialty trade contractors 

were in residential framing 

contractors, which lost 32,143

jobs (–22.4%) between March 

2006 and March 2007. Almost 

half of the national loss came 

from fi ve counties in the West 

and South. 

The residential framing 

industry is particularly vulnerable to fl uctuations in the 

housing market, because demand for their work is directly 

infl uenced by demand for new 

homes. Framing is one of the 

fi rst phases in new-home construction. The limited framing work done in remodeling 

is often conducted by general contractors rather than by 

framing subcontractors.

The largest employment 

losses in the residential framing industry were concentrated in the Southwest. The top 

three counties in the Nation 

with the highest employment 

losses in residential framing were Maricopa County, 

Arizona, with a drop of 4,251 

(–29.6%); Clark County, Nevada, with a decline of 4,247 

jobs (–42.1%); and Riverside 

County, California, with a loss 

of 3,807 jobs (–35.6%). As a 

result of these losses, framing employment in the three 

counties cited is returning to 

levels more in line with longterm trends. Counties with the 

fourth- and fi fth-largest losses 

in residential framing were San 

Bernardino County, California, 

with 1,850 jobs lost (–52.1%), 

and Broward County, Florida, 

with a decline of 1,172 jobs

(–52.0%). The employment 

drops in these two counties 

were relatively less pronounced, 

refl ecting their slower growth 

during the housing boom. With 

the exception of San Bernardino County, framing employment in the fi ve counties is still 

higher than it was before the 

housing boom in 2002.

Gains in framing employment were much less pronounced. Less than a third of the 

largest 329 counties gained employment between March 2006 

and March 2007. Counties with 

the top 10 employment gains 

in the industry yielded a total

increase of only 1,371 jobs. 

Salt Lake County, Utah, had the 

highest gain: 276. 

Although residential framing contractors had the largest 

decrease, other major industries 

in residential construction had 

substantial losses as well. Residential drywall contractors had 

the second-largest loss in employment between March 2006 

and March 2007: 20,826 jobs 

lost (a 12.4-percent decline). 

The third-largest decline, 9.0 

percent, was in residential 

poured foundation contractors, which lost 11,324 jobs. 

The fourth-largest decline, 

6.9 percent, was in residential masonry contractors, with 

8,510 jobs lost. Employment 

in residential plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors declined by a lesser 

1.8 percent, but the industry 

still lost 8,493 jobs. In contrast, the largest gain occurred 

in the category of other residential building contractors, 

which increased by 15.7 percent, a gain of 2,287 jobs.

The data presented are 

from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Quarterly Census 

Continued on back

Residential framing contractors employment, United States and

selected counties, 2002—2007

Selected employment National employment

Five selected counties

National

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

160,000

150,000

140,000

130,000

120,000

110,000

100,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year
National and Selected County Employment, 2002–2007 

Residential framing contractors

March 2002 March 2006 March 2007

 Change between March 2006

 

Employment Employment Employment

 and March 2007

 

 Over-the-year Over-the-year

 employment percent

 change change

U.S. total ............................................................ 95,886 143,523 111,380 –32,143 –22.4

Maricopa County, Arizona .................................. 4,757 14,379 10,128 –4,251 –29.6

Clark County, Nevada ........................................ 5,098 10,079 5,832 –4,247 –42.1

Riverside County, California .............................. 5,146 10,705 6,898 –3,807 –35.6

San Bernardino County, California .................... 2,489 3,550 1,700 –1,850 –52.1

Broward County, Florida .................................... 989 2,253 1,081 –1,172 –-52.0

of Employment and Wages 

(QCEW). This report is just of 

one of the many possible data 

compilations available for 

analysis using QCEW data, 

which cover 1,175 industries 

in more than 3,241 countyequivalent jurisdictions. Data 

presented here are for all workers covered by State and Federal unemployment insurance 

programs. The term “large 

counties” refers to those counties with employment levels of 

75,000 or more in 2006. For 

additional information, contact 

Masa Shirako, an economist in 

the Division of Administrative 

Statistics and Labor Turnover, 

Offi ce of Employment and Unemployment Statistics. E-mail: 

shirako.masa@bls.gov. Telephone: 202-691-6489.

Information in this summary will be made available 

to sensory-impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 

(202) 691–5200. Federal Relay Service: 1–800–877–8339. 

This report is in the public

domain and may be reproduced without permission.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Postal Square Building, Rm. 2850

2 Massachusetts Ave., NE

Washington, DC 20212-0001

Offi cial Business

Address Service Requested