Monthly Labor Review • April 2009 19

Business Employment Dynamics

Business Employment Dynamics 

(BED) statistics from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) quantify the 

levels of quarterly gross job gains and gross 

job losses in the U.S. economy. In the second quarter of 2008, on a seasonally adjusted 

basis, 1.8 million establishments expanded 

or opened, creating 7.3 million jobs, and 2.0 

million establishments contracted or closed, 

eliminating 7.8 million jobs. The gross job 

gains figure of 7.3 million is just one statistic 

that summarizes the underlying distribution 

of jobs created from businesses that have 

opened or expanded; the gross job losses figure of 7.8 million is also a single statistic, and 

it summarizes the underlying distribution 

of jobs lost from businesses that have closed 

or contracted. To explore the distribution of 

gross job gains, it is necessary to ask questions such as the following: how many establishments have grown by 1–4 jobs, by 5–19 

jobs, and by 20 or more jobs? and how many 

total jobs have these establishments created? 

Analogous questions can explore the distribution of gross job losses.

In September 2008, BLS published new BED

data quantifying the distributions of gross 

job gains and losses. These data are referred 

to as “size-of-employment-change” statisSheryl L. Konigsberg, 

James R. Spletzer, and 

David M. Talan

Sheryl L. Konigsberg, James 

R. Spletzer, and David M. 

Talan are economists in the 

Office of Employment and 

Unemployment Statistics, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

E-mail: konigsberg.sheryl@

bls.gov, spletzer.jim@bls.

gov, talan.david@bls.gov

Business employment dynamics: 

tabulations by size of employment change

Business Employment Dynamics data are quarterly series 

of gross job gain and loss statistics for the U.S. economy;

 in autumn 2008, for the first time BLS published 

BED data that display gross job gain and loss statistics 

grouped by the number of jobs that were gained or lost 

tics.1 This article documents these data and 

explains how they add to people’s knowledge 

of U.S. labor market dynamics.

There are three reasons to produce and analyze size-of-employment-change statistics. 

The first, as noted above, is to explore the 

distributions of gross job gains and gross job 

losses. If 1.8 million expanding and opening 

establishments created 7.3 million jobs, this 

implies that the average growing establishment created 4.1 jobs. Is the distribution of 

gross job gains fairly tight around this average, or is the distribution of gross job gains 

spread out, with many establishments gaining 

1 or 2 jobs and some establishments gaining 

100 or more jobs? The BED size-of-employment-change data show that a large number 

of establishments changed their employment 

levels by just a few jobs, while relatively few 

establishments changed their employment 

levels by a large number of jobs.

The second reason for producing and analyzing size-of-employment-change statistics 

is to better understand the cyclicality of the 

labor market. BED statistics show that the 

sharp declines in employment that occurred 

during the 2001 recession are characterized 

by substantial drops in gross job gains and 

dramatic increases in gross job losses. Is the 
Business Employment Dynamics

20 Monthly Labor Review • April 2009

increase in gross job losses during the recession the result 

of a large number of establishments reducing their size by 

one or two employees? or is there a small number of establishments that had large layoffs? The BED size-of-employment-change data show that, during the 2001 recession, 

strong cyclical movements in gross job gains and gross job 

losses occurred predominantly in a small number of establishments that gained or lost a large number of jobs.

The third reason for producing and analyzing size-ofemployment-change statistics is to better understand 

the more moderate labor market dynamics found to 

exist from the end of the 2001 recession to mid-2008, 

in comparison with most of the 1990s. BED data show 

that the amount of gross job gains and gross job losses 

following the 2001 recession is noticeably lower than prior 

to the 2001 recession. BED size-of-employment-change 

statistics indicate that this reduction in establishmentlevel employment change is concentrated in the relatively 

few establishments that increased or decreased their 

employment levels by 20 or more jobs in a quarter.

Business Employment Dynamics

BED data are quarterly gross job gain and gross job 

loss statistics that are tabulated by linking business 

establishments from the BLS Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages (QCEW) across quarters. The 

BED data indicate the number of jobs that are created 

by establishments that open or expand and the number 

of jobs lost from establishments that contract or close. 

The sum of employment increases at opening and 

expanding establishments is defined as gross job gains. 

The sum of employment losses at closing and contracting 

establishments is defined as gross job losses. The difference 

between gross jobs gains and gross job losses is the net 

employment change.2

The basic products of the BLS Business Employment 

Dynamics program are statistics measuring quarterly 

gross job gains and gross job losses at the national NAICS 

super-sector level, at the State total private level, and by 

firm size for the Nation. According to BED statistics, 

the U.S. economy lost 1⁄2 million net jobs (seasonally 

adjusted) between March 2008 and June 2008. The gross 

job gain and gross job loss statistics indicate that this net 

employment loss is the result of 7.3 million jobs added at 

1.8 million opening and expanding establishments, and 

7.8 million jobs lost at 2.0 million contracting and closing 

establishments. These gross job gains and gross job losses 

exemplify the sizable number of jobs and establishments 

that typically appear and disappear within the short 

timeframe of 3 months.

The historical BED series start in the third quarter of 

1992 and currently run through the second quarter of 

2008. (Statistics for the third quarter of 2008 will be 

released in May 2009.) The seasonally adjusted time 

series of quarterly net employment growth is shown in 

chart 1. The 2001 recession (which was determined by the 

National Bureau of Economic Research to have occurred 

from March 2001 to November 2001) is evident in this 

chart. Prior to the recession, between the third quarter 

of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, net employment 

growth had been positive every quarter and had been 

averaging 639,000 net new jobs per quarter. During the 

recession, net employment growth was negative for all 

quarters of 2001, hitting a trough in the third quarter of 

2001 with 1.2 million net jobs lost.

Chart 2 shows the time series of seasonally adjusted 

gross job gains and losses. The 2001 recession is apparent 

in this chart, as it was in chart 1. Between 1992 and 1999, 

both the gross job gain and the gross job loss series were 

climbing at relatively constant rates. Gross job gains 

dropped substantially in 2001, and gross job losses climbed 

dramatically in 2001. Thus the large net employment 

declines during the first three quarters of 2001 can be 

attributed to both falling gross job gains (a slowdown 

in the jobs created by establishment expansions and 

openings) and rising gross job losses (an increase in the 

jobs lost from establishment contractions and closings).

Size of employment change

Concepts and Definitions. The gross job gains of 7.3 

million in the second quarter of 2008 are the sum of all 

jobs gained by the 1.8 million expanding and opening 

establishments. Some of these 1.8 million establishments 

gained 1 job, some of the establishments gained 2 jobs, and 

so forth. While it is conceptually possible to determine the 

number of establishments and the total number of jobs 

gained for every possible size of change, doing so would 

be impractical; at some point, it is best to combine gross 

job gain and loss statistics into a manageable number of 

categories organized by the size of the gain or loss. BLS 

has calculated and published gross job gains and losses 

for the following 19 categories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11–14, 15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–74, 

75–99, and 100+. These categories were chosen after an 

extensive analysis of the data. The categories afford a 

good representation of the distributions of gross job gains 

and losses. Data for the 19 categories are available from 

the BLS website.3
Monthly Labor Review • April 2009 21

Chart 2. Gross job gains and gross job losses, third quarter 1992 through second quarter 2008,

 seasonally adjusted

 

Gross job gains 

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

Chart 1. Net employment change, third quarter 1992 through second quarter 2008, seasonally adjusted 

 

1,500

750

0

–750

–1,500

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1,500

750

0

–750

–1,500 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

Gross job losses 

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.

Thousands of jobs Thousands of jobs

Thousands of jobs Thousands of jobs

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.
Business Employment Dynamics

22 Monthly Labor Review • April 2009

In order to simplify the discussion, this article uses fewer 

than 19 categories. Statistics are presented using the 

following three categories of size of employment change: 

1–4, 5–19, and 20+.

Results. Table 1 shows size-of-employment-change 

statistics for the second quarter of 2008, using the three 

categories mentioned previously. Gross job gains during 

the quarter were 7.3 million. Of these gains, 34.2 percent 

were created by the 1.5 million establishments that added 

1–4 jobs, and 36.6 percent were created by the 41,000 

establishments that added 20 or more jobs. Gross job losses 

totaled 7.8 million. Of these losses, 35.5 percent occurred 

in the 1.7 million establishments that lost 1 to 4 jobs, 

and 34.1 percent occurred in the 50,000 establishments 

that lost 20 or more jobs. Not reported in table 1 are the 

3.5 million establishments that had no change in their 

employment level between the first and second quarters 

of 2008.

These size-of-employment-change data show that a 

large number of establishments changed their level of 

employment by a few employees, while relatively few 

establishments changed their level of employment by 

a large number of employees. The resulting gross job 

gains and gross job losses from these two groups of 

establishments are similar in magnitude. Chart 3 shows 

gross job gains for each of the three employment-change 

categories, and it also shows the number of establishments 

responsible for creating the gross job gains. Chart 4 does 

the same for gross job losses. These two charts illustrate 

that the levels of gross job gains and gross job losses 

are similar for the three size-of-employment-change 

categories (the gains and losses are above 2 million jobs 

in all three categories), notwithstanding the number of 

establishments declines rapidly as the size of employment 

change increases. These facts demonstrate that a relatively 

small number of establishments (41,000 to 50,000) 

changing their employment levels by 20 or more jobs has 

been sufficient to create or lose approximately as many 

jobs as the more than 1.5 million establishments that 

changed their employment levels by just a few jobs.

Turning to the time series, one must ask whether the 

decline in gross job gains and the rise in gross job losses 

that occurred during the 2001 recession are spread evenly 

across the size-of–employment-change categories, or 

whether the gains and losses are concentrated in one 

particular size-of-employment-change category. The 

answer to this question is depicted in charts 5 and 6. 

The number of jobs gained and the number lost by the 

establishments that changed their level of employment by 

just a few jobs exhibit little if any movement across the 

business cycle. However, the amount of jobs gained and 

the amount lost by the establishments that altered their 

level of employment by 20 or more jobs exhibit strong 

cyclical variation. This leads one to conclude that the 

decline in gross job gains and the increase in gross job 

losses that occurred during the 2001 recession are most 

pronounced among the establishments that gained or lost 

20 or more jobs.

To quantify this conclusion, note that seasonally adjusted 

quarterly gross job gains fell from 8.5 million in the first 

quarter of 2001 to 7.6 million in the fourth quarter of 

2001. Slightly less than two-thirds of this decline (61 

percent) is attributable to establishments that gained 20 

Table 1. Gross job gains and gross job losses and numbers of establishments gaining and losing jobs, by size of employment change, second quarter 2008, seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thouands)

Gross job gains Gross job losses

Number Percent Number Percent

Total...................................................... 7,275 100.0 7,771 100.0

1–4 jobs................................................... 2,490 34.2 2,755 35.5

5–19 jobs................................................. 2,125 29.2 2,365 30.4

20 or more jobs..................................... 2,660 36.6 2,651 34.1

Establishments gaining jobs Establishments losing jobs

Number Percent Number Percent

Total...................................................... 1,827 100.0 2,023 100.0

1–4 jobs................................................... 1,535 84.0 1,691 83.6

5–19 jobs................................................. 251 13.7 282 13.9

20 or more jobs..................................... 41 2.2 50 2.5
Monthly Labor Review • April 2009 23

Chart 3. Gross job gains and number of establishments gaining jobs, by size of employment change, 

 second quarter 2008, seasonally adjusted

(In thousands) (In thousands)

1–4 jobs 5–19 jobs 20 or more jobs

Gross job gains Establishments gaining jobs

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Chart 4. Gross job losses and number of establishments losing jobs, by size of employment change, 

 second quarter 2008, seasonally adjusted

(In thousands) (In thousands)

1–4 jobs 5–19 jobs 20 or more jobs

Gross job losses Establishments losing jobs

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
Business Employment Dynamics

24 Monthly Labor Review • April 2009

Chart 5. Gross job gains by size of employment change, third quarter 1992 through second quarter 2008,

 seasonally adjusted

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Chart 6. Gross job losses by size of employment change, third quarter 1992 through second quarter 2008,

 seasonally adjusted

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

1–4 jobs

20 or more jobs

 5–19 jobs 

1–4 jobs

5–19 jobs

20 or more jobs 

Thousands of jobs Thousands of jobs

Thousands of jobs Thousands of jobs

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.
Monthly Labor Review • April 2009 25

or more jobs. Similarly, the number of seasonally adjusted 

quarterly gross job losses rose from 8.1 million in the 

fourth quarter of 2000 to 8.8 million in the third quarter 

of 2001. Roughly two-thirds of this increase (65 percent) is 

attributable to establishments that lost 20 or more jobs.

Further analysis. Although this article focuses mainly 

on the three size-of-employment-change categories 

mentioned previously, the authors did take a closer 

look at each of the 19 original categories. The group of 

establishments that gained or lost exactly one job during a 

quarter exhibits some intriguing properties that appear to 

be relevant to the business cycle. The data reveal that prior 

to the most recent recession (which began in December 

2007, as determined by the National Bureau of Economic 

Research), the category of establishments that gained 

or lost exactly one job during a quarter was the first 

group to experience a net employment loss; specifically, 

losses occurred during the second and third quarters 

of 2006, as well as all four quarters of 2007. No other 

size-of-employment-change category had this pattern 

of losses. All the other categories had net gains in the 

second quarter of 2006 and all had at least two quarters 

of positive net gains in 2007. This timing pattern of net 

losses also occurred heading into the 2001 recession. The 

establishments that gained or lost one job over the quarter 

had their last positive net growth in the second quarter 

of 2000; all other size-of-employment-change categories 

did not experience their first net loss until sometime in 

2001. It is possible that the establishments that gain or 

lose exactly one job over the quarter are more sensitive 

than other establishments to early downward pressures as 

economic expansions begin to lose their momentum.

Moderation in gross job flows

In comparing the economic expansion of the 1990s with 

the period from after the 2001 recession to late 2007 and 

early 2008, the gross job gain and gross job loss data from 

the BED program exhibit what appears to have been a notable change. The levels of gross job gains and gross job 

losses prior to the 2001 recession are noticeably higher 

than the levels following the 2001 recession.4 This is apparent in chart 2 and even more obvious in chart 7 where 

seasonally adjusted time series of rates of gross job gains 

and gross job losses are presented. The chart presents rates 

rather than levels to control for an increasing employment 

base over time. From the third quarter of 1992 to the first 

quarter of 2000, the average gross job gain and gross job 

loss rates were 8.1 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. 

Average gains

Chart 7. Gross job gains and losses as a percent of employment, third quarter 1992 through second 

 quarter 2008, seasonally adjusted

9

8

7

6

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

9

8

7

6

 Average gains

 Average losses

Gross job losses

Gross job gains

 Average losses

Percent Percent

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.
Business Employment Dynamics

26 Monthly Labor Review • April 2009

From the third quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 

2007, the rates were much lower: the average gross job 

gain and gross job loss rates were 6.9 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively.5

Therefore, there was less establishment-level employment change from mid-2003 through 2007 than there 

was during the 1990s. On a quarterly basis, relative to the 

1990s, fewer jobs were created in the later period from 

establishments increasing their level of employment, and 

fewer jobs were lost from establishments decreasing their 

level of employment. BED statistics suggest that this decrease is due not to fewer establishments changing their 

employment level, but rather to a smaller average size of 

change for the establishments that have changed their 

level of employment. Chart 8 shows the number of establishments gaining jobs and the number of establishments 

losing jobs, and chart 9 depicts the average size of gains 

and losses.6 Chart 8 shows that the number of establishments gaining or losing jobs rose at a steady rate during 

the 1990s, fell sometime during or immediately following 

the 2001 recession, and then rose between 2004 and 2007. 

One may infer from chart 9 that the average quarterly 

employment gain or employment loss of an establishment 

changing its employment level was 41⁄2 jobs during the 

1990s and fell fairly steadily following the 2001 recession. 

In every quarter in 2007 and the first half of 2008, the average quarterly gain or loss of an establishment changing 

its employment level was less than four jobs.

The size-of-employment-change statistics in charts 5 and 

6 strongly suggest where this recent decline in gross job 

gains and gross job losses has occurred. Concerning data 

from before and after the 2001 recession, the relatively 

few establishments that increased or decreased their 

employment levels by 20 or more jobs in a quarter show a 

substantial change in gross job gains and gross job losses. 

In contrast, the jobs gained and lost by the large number 

of establishments that changed their employment level by 

just a few jobs have little if any break in trend from before 

the 2001 recession to after it. Thus, any explanations for 

the reduced levels of establishment-level employment 

change in the 2000s relative to the 1990s should focus 

on the establishments with large quarterly changes in 

employment.

Table 2 provides further analysis of size-of-employment-

 Establishments losing jobs

Chart 8. Numbers of establishments gaining and losing jobs, third quarter 1992 through second quarter 2008,

 seasonally adjusted

2,200

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Establishments gaining jobs 

2,200

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

Thousands of 

establishments

Thousands of 

establishments

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.
Monthly Labor Review • April 2009 27

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

Chart 9. Average size of gain for establishments gaining jobs, and average size of loss for establishments 

 losing jobs, third quarter 1992 through second quarter 2008, seasonally adjusted

Average size of gain

Average size of loss

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of jobs Number of jobs

change statistics in an attempt to determine the source of 

the moderation in gross job gains and gross job losses.7 One 

goal is to learn whether the reduced levels of employment 

change are found in the group of establishments that are 

gaining or losing 20–49 jobs, in the establishments that 

are gaining or losing 50–99 jobs, or in the establishments 

that are gaining or losing 100 or more jobs. Moreover, if 

the reduced levels are concentrated in one of these sizeof-employment-change categories, this raises the question 

of whether the reduction originates from establishments 

that are expanding and contracting or from establishments 

that are opening and closing.

Table 2 shows empirically that the recent moderation 

in gross job gains has occurred primarily amongst those 

establishments gaining 20 or more jobs in a given quarter. 

From the second quarter of 1995 to the first quarter of 

2000, establishments gaining 20 or more jobs added an 

average of 3.6 million jobs per quarter, whereas from 

the third quarter of 2003 to the second quarter of 2008, 

establishments gaining 20 or more jobs added an average 

of 2.8 million jobs per quarter.8 The difference between 

these two statistics is 767,000 jobs, which is much higher 

than the difference of 79,000 for establishments gaining 

5–19 jobs and also much higher than the difference for 

establishments gaining 1–4 jobs. Table 2 also specifically 

considers the establishments gaining 20 or more jobs and 

decomposes the trend difference into that attributable 

to establishments gaining 20–49 jobs, establishments 

gaining 50–99 jobs, and establishments gaining 100 or 

more jobs. Almost two-thirds of the difference (63.8 

percent) results from the establishments gaining 100 or 

more jobs in a quarter. Thus, much of the moderation in 

gross job gains is due to decreased gross job gains for the 

establishments that gained 100 or more jobs in a quarter. 

From the second quarter of 1995 to the first quarter of 

2000, these establishments gained 1.5 million jobs in the 

average quarter, whereas from the third quarter of 2003 to 

the second quarter of 2008, these establishments gained 

1.0 million jobs in the average quarter.

Statistics for the largest size-of-employment-change 

category are decomposed further into the gross job gains 

attributable to expansions and those attributable to 

openings. In the average quarter prior to the 2001 recession, 

establishments that expanded by 100 or more employees 

gained 1.1 million jobs, and establishments that opened 

with 100 or more employees gained 416,000 jobs. (See 

Note: The first quarter of each year ends in March, and the first quarter’s endpoint is represented by the year’s long tick mark. The 

shorter tick marks represent the endpoints of the second, third, and fourth quarters. The shaded bars denote National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER)-designated recessions, one running March 2001–November 2001 and the other beginning in December 

2007. An endpoint for the more recent recession has yet to be designated.
Business Employment Dynamics

28 Monthly Labor Review • April 2009

Table 2. Gross job gains and gross job losses, by size of employment change and by timespan, seasonally adjusted

 

(Numbers in thousands)

Average gross job Average gross job 

gains prior to the gains after the Size of employment change Percent of total 2001 recession 2001 recession Difference

difference (1995 quarter ll– (2003 quarter lll–

2000 quarter l) 2008 quarter ll)

 Total...................................................................... 8,339 7,627 713 100.0 

1–4 jobs............................................................................ 2,441 2,574 –133 –18.6 

5–19 jobs.......................................................................... 2,348 2,269 79 11.0 

20 or more jobs.............................................................. 3,550 2,783 767 107.6 

 20–49 jobs................................................................... 1,274 1,125 150 21.0 

 50–99 jobs................................................................... 758 631 127 17.8 

100 or more jobs........................................................ 1,518 1,028 490 68.7 

 Job gains from expansions............................... 1,101 864 238 33.4 

 Job gains from openings................................... 416 164 252 35.3

Average gross job Average gross job 

losses prior to the losses after the Percent of total Size of employment change 2001 recession 2001 recession Difference

difference (1995 quarter ll– (2003 quarter lll–

2000 quarter l) 2008 quarter ll)

 Total...................................................................... 7,668 7,305 363 100.0 

1–4 jobs............................................................................ 2,312 2,543 –231 –63.7 

5–19 jobs.......................................................................... 2,151 2,180 –29 –8.1 

20 or more jobs.............................................................. 3,205 2,582 624 171.8 

 20–49 jobs................................................................... 1,161 1,068 92 25.3 

 50–99 jobs................................................................... 677 576 101 27.8 

 100 or more jobs....................................................... 1,368 938 430 118.5 

 Job losses from contractions........................... 1,011 776 235 64.7 

 Job losses from closings.................................... 356 162 195 53.7 

table 2.) Both of these gross job gain statistics were lower 

in the average quarter following the recession: the number 

of jobs resulting from expansions fell from 1.1 million to 

864,000, and the number of jobs resulting from openings 

fell from 416,000 to 164,000. Thus, the moderation in 

gross job gains is mostly due to establishments that gained 

100 or more jobs in a quarter; amongst this group of 

establishments, the decline is almost equally attributable 

to a decline in job gains at expanding establishments 

and a decline in job gains at opening establishments. 

(Expanding establishments and opening establishments 

were responsible for 48.5 percent and 51.4 percent of the 

decline, respectively.)

 A similar conclusion holds for gross job losses. (See 

table 2.) Much of the moderation in gross job losses is 

attributable to establishments that lost more than 100 

jobs in a quarter. Among this group of establishments, the 

decline is attributable to both a decrease in job losses at 

contracting establishments and a decrease in the number 

of jobs lost at establishments that closed.

 It must be asked whether the moderation amongst the 

establishments that gained or lost 100 or more jobs in a 

quarter represents a true economic change or whether any 

of the moderation is the result of increased data quality. 

The data-quality hypothesis appears particularly plausible 

with regard to the declines in the large openings and closings. The QCEW program, which is the source of BED data, 

is continually improving the quality of its microdata. The 

BED program also has made several recent improvements 

in microdata linkages. After a thorough review, the authors of this article have determined that the timing of 

recent data improvement initiatives is not related to the 

timing of the moderation in the BED statistics. Thus, it 

appears that the recent moderation in gross job gain and 

gross job loss statistics is an economic phenomenon. There 

is literature that attempts to explain a related phenom-
Monthly Labor Review • April 2009 29

enon, which some call “the great moderation”; the hypotheses put forward for the great moderation might also 

help explain the moderation in gross job gains and gross 

losses that is evident in chart 7.9 Although any empirical 

analysis that attempts to distinguish amongst these hypotheses is beyond the scope of this article, BED size-ofemployment-change data can serve as an additional tool 

to help economists analyze the moderation along with 

other changes in the macroeconomy.

bed size-of-employment-change data quantify the 

distributions of quarterly gross job gains and gross job 

losses by the size of the change in employment. The data 

show that approximately one-third of gross job gains and 

gross job losses originate from a large number of establishments that changed their employment level by 1–4 

employees, while approximately one-third of gross job 

gains and gross job losses originate from a relatively small 

number of establishments that changed their level of 

employment by 20 or more jobs. The seasonally adjusted 

time series data show that the increase in gross job losses 

that came about during the 2001 recession did not occur 

because many establishments had small declines in employment, but rather because a relatively small number of 

establishments experienced sizeable declines in employment. Similarly, the substantial decline in gross job gains 

that transpired during the 2001 recession did not occur 

because many establishments made small cutbacks to hiring, but rather because relatively few establishments cut 

back significantly on their hiring. BED size-of-employment-change data also show that the moderation in gross 

job gains and gross job losses that occurred from the end 

of the 2001 recession to mid-2008 (as compared with the 

gains and losses of the economic expansion of the 1990s) 

is primarily due to the small number of establishments 

that gained or lost a large number of jobs in a quarter. It is 

expected that BED size-of-employment-change data will 

continue to be valuable for economists and policymakers interested in understanding the dynamics of the U.S. 

labor market.

NOTES

1

 Size-of-employment-change statistics are available at the BED website at 

www.bls.gov/bdm/bdsoc.htm (visited April 9, 2009).

2

 For a more thorough description of the concepts and definitions, the source 

data, and the longitudinal linkages in the BED program, see James R. Spletzer, 

R. Jason Faberman, Akbar Sadeghi, David M. Talan, and Richard L. Clayton, 

“Business employment dynamics: new data on gross job gains and losses,” 

Monthly Labor Review, April 2004, pp. 29–42.

3

 The data for the 19 categories are available from the BED website: www.bls.

gov/bdm/bdsoc.htm. Both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted data are available 

for jobs gained and lost and for the numbers of establishments gaining and 

losing jobs. Data on expansions, openings, total gross job gains, contractions, 

closings, and total gross job losses are available. For a mathematical derivation 

of size-of-employment-change statistics, see Richard L. Clayton and James R. 

Spletzer, “Business employment dynamics,” in Timothy Dunne, J. Bradford 

Jensen, and Mark J. Roberts, ed., Producer Dynamics, (Chicago, University of 

Chicago Press, 2009), chapter 4.

4

 This finding has not been altered by the entry of the economy into recession 

in 2008. The finding is based upon BED data going through the second quarter 

of 2008, which are the most current data as of this writing.

5

 The authors acknowledge that the periods chosen (third quarter 1992 to first 

quarter 2000 and third quarter 2003 to fourth quarter 2007) do not correspond 

to the NBER-determined starting points and endpoints for recessionary periods. 

The authors chose the aforementioned quarters on the basis of an analysis of 

charts 2 and 7. In chart 2, for example, gross job gains rise steadily through 

the first quarter of 2000. The second quarter of 2000 exhibits a sharp decline in 

gross job gains, and the third and fourth quarters of 2000 do not revert to the 

1990s trend of rising gross job gains. Thus, there was an obvious break in the 

series between the first quarter and the second quarter of 2000. Bearing in mind 

that it is desirable to calculate an average gross job gains rate that summarizes 

the expansionary period of the 1990s, the data in charts 2 and 7 suggest that 

the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2000 should not be included in the 

calculation.

6

 In Chart 9, the average size of gains for establishments gaining jobs is 

computed by dividing the total gross job gains in a given quarter by the number 

of expanding and opening establishments in that quarter. Similarly, the average 

size of losses for establishments losing jobs is computed by dividing the total 

gross job losses by the number of contracting and closing establishments.

7

 The statistics in table 2 are tabulated from data downloaded from the BED 

website at www.bls.gov/bdm/bdsoc.htm.

8

 See endnote 5 for an explanation of why the first quarter of 2000 was chosen 

as the endpoint of the earlier period used for comparison. Using the same line of 

reasoning, the third quarter of 2003 was chosen as the starting point of the later 

period used for comparison. The most recent statistics go through mid-2008, 

creating a 5-year window of data. To construct a comparable 5-year period, the 

second quarter of 1995 was chosen as the beginning of the earlier period.

9

 The great moderation refers to the decline in variability of output and 

inflation that began in the mid-1980s. For a summary of the literature, see 

Ben S. Bernanke, “The Great Moderation.” Speech given at the Meetings of 

the Eastern Economic Association, Washington, DC, Feb. 20, 2004. Available 

online at www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2004/20040220/

default.htm (visited April 9, 2009).