Job Growth During the Recovery
Released: 2012-10-16T00:00:00

Summary:
Congress in recent years passed a number of bills intended in part to jump-start a recovery in the labor market from the recession that began in December 2007. Members are interested in the labor market's response to these measures to help them decide how well the legislation has worked and whether additional job-creation legislation may be warranted in light of the pace and composition of job growth since the recession's end in June 2009. Accordingly, employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is analyzed in this report from December 2007 to September 2012 (the latest month for which data were available at the time of the report's preparation).
A "jobless recovery" prevailed across firms in the private nonfarm sector until March 2010. That is to say, the number of private-sector jobs generally continued to fall until nine months into the recovery. The recovery was jobless until October 2010, 16 months into the recovery, across all employers in the public and private sectors of the nonfarm economy. At that point, net job growth in the overall economy began not because public-sector employment started to rise but because it fell more slowly while private-sector employment continued to grow. Given the pace of job growth during the recovery, a few more years will likely elapse before the approximately 7.5 million jobs lost during the recession are recouped.
The two industries hardest hit by the recession—manufacturing and construction—have been recovering at very different rates. In 2011, manufacturing employment surpassed its level at the recession's end. In 2012, construction employment remains over 400,000 jobs below its level in June 2009. Some of the states with the most depressed housing markets as well as manufacturing-dependent states have been especially slow to recover (e.g., Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, and Ohio).
During the recession, women lost relatively fewer jobs than men in part because the construction and manufacturing industries predominantly employ men. During the recovery, women have gained relatively fewer jobs than men in part because women are a substantial presence in the occupations (e.g., teachers) that account for much of the local and state government workforces.
The oldest and youngest workers have fared quite differently since December 2007. Workers aged 55 and older experienced job growth during the recession and recovery. The youngest age group (16- to 19-year olds) experienced the largest percentage declines in employment during the recession and recovery.
The employment of Hispanic workers returned fairly quickly to its level at the recession's start, despite the ethnic group's concentration in the hard-hit construction industry. Hispanic employment also is concentrated in the leisure and hospitality industry group, which had recouped all its job losses by early 2012.
The lower a worker's educational attainment, the worse they typically fared. As of September 2012, workers with less than 12 years of schooling or with a high school diploma at most did not regain all the jobs they lost since the recession's onset. In contrast, employment among workers with postsecondary education was higher in September 2012 than in December 2007.

paragraphs: Congress passed several bills meant in part to promote and accelerate a recovery in the labor market from the Great (2007-2009) Recession. One of the bills, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ), required the Council of Economic Advisers and executive branch agencies to estimate the number of jobs dependent on some or all of the act's provisions. Although such estimates are available, the methodologies used to estimate the number of jobs created or maintained have been criticized.
In addition, ARRA was not the only job creation bill enacted into law in recent years. Congress did not include a requirement to estimate job growth associated with the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-147 ), for example.
Members of Congress nonetheless remain interested in the labor market's response to these measures to help them decide how well the legislation has worked and whether additional job creation as well as retraining legislation may be warranted in light of the pace and composition of job growth during the ongoing recovery. This report provides a snapshot of the current situation in the labor market to better inform policymakers with regard to further assisting the unemployed, such as workers laid off from industries that may have permanently downsized employment (e.g., construction).
One way to assess the extent and nature of the recovery in the labor market is to compare employment data from the recession's end in June 2009 (i.e., the trough of the business cycle) with more recent data gathered in surveys that the government regularly conducts. Accordingly, to determine the extent of job growth thus far in the recovery, this report examines the number of jobs from the trough of the business cycle to September 2012 (the latest month for which data were available at the time of the report's preparation). To provide historical context, the timing and strength of job growth during the current recovery is compared with the prior 10 recoveries. Data for September 2012 are compared with December 2007, as well, to discern how close the number of jobs has come to its level at the recession's onset (i.e., the peak of the business cycle). Lastly, employment data by job and individual characteristics for December 2007, June 2009, and September 2012 are analyzed to ascertain how different sectors and demographic groups have fared during the recession and recovery.
subsections: section_title: Slow Job Growth Overall, Led by the Private Sector
paragraphs: The Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research announced that the 11 th recession of the postwar period ended in June 2009, but job growth typically does not commence until a recovery has been underway for some time. Initially, some had hoped that the deep 2007-2009 recession would not be followed by a "jobless recovery" such as occurred after the immediately preceding recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001, when employers kept shedding jobs for a very long time after their end. The hope was instead for a quick and strong rebound such as occurred after the severe recessions of 1973-1975 and 1981-1982. Neither these nor the other U.S. recessions of the postwar period were precipitated by a financial crisis, however. The evidence from other countries that experienced recessions associated with financial crises instead suggests a slow recovery for the United States, and as discussed below, this has been the reality.
A jobless recovery prevailed until October 2010, 16 months into the recovery, across all employers in the nonfarm economy. At that point, net job growth began not because public-sector employment started to rise but because it fell more slowly while private-sector employment continued to grow. As shown in Figure 1 , the number of jobs on all employers' payrolls fell between June 2009 and March 2010. After briefly rising, it resumed declining through September 2010. Job growth during the first half of 2010 was fueled in part by the Census Bureau's temporarily hiring workers to help conduct the decennial count of the U.S. population. Since then, declining employment has occurred at state and local governments due to budget difficulties. (Additional discussion of employment trends in government and other industries appears later in the report.)
Although aggregate employment began to rise after September 2010, the monthly increase in jobs has been too small to have had much of an effect on the U.S. unemployment rate. A commonly cited rule-of-thumb is that in order to keep pace with population growth a net increase of roughly 125,000 jobs per month is needed to keep the unemployment rate unchanged. In 2011, about 150,000 net jobs per month were added on average, and in the first nine months of 2012, an average of about 130,000 private- and public-sector jobs were added each month.
A jobless recovery prevailed across firms in the private-nonfarm sector until March 2010. As shown in Figure 1 , sustained job growth did not begin until nine months from the latest recession's end in June 2009. Despite the number of jobs at private-sector firms in September 2012 being almost 3.1 million above its level at the recovery's start, the recent pace of job growth at these employers means a few more years will likely elapse before the almost 7.7 million private-sector jobs lost during the Great Recession are recouped.
Employment rebounded at firms in the private sector more quickly during all but two of the prior 10 recoveries of the postwar period. As noted above, private-sector employment began to steadily rise at nine months into the current recovery. In contrast, employment in the private sector did not start a sustained increase until 12 months into the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession, and until 21 months into the recovery from the 2001 recession.
Private-sector employment rebounded more strongly during all but one of the prior 10 recoveries. As shown in column 7 of Table 1 , employment at private-sector firms in September 2012 was 3.3% above its level at the recovery's start. In contrast, at a point comparable to September 2012 (39 months from the 2001 recession's end), private-sector employment was up only 1.3% from its level at the outset of the recovery from the 2001 recession.
Although total nonfarm employment started to steadily rise earlier (12 months) into the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession compared with the current recovery (16 months), it began to trend upward much later (22 months) into the recovery from the 2001 recession. As shown in column 7 of Table 1 , overall employment in September 2012 was 2.3% above its level at the recovery's start. In contrast, at 39 months after the 2001 recession's end, employment across all employers was only 1.4% higher than at the outset of the recovery. The less sluggish pace of job growth during the current recovery compared with the recovery from the 2001 recession may be partly related to differences in the stimulus legislation enacted to mitigate the two recessions.
The last two columns of Table 1 show how much employment must increase from its level in September 2012 to recoup all the jobs lost since the beginning of the Great Recession. In September 2012, total nonfarm employment was 4.5 million jobs below its level 57 months earlier at the recession's start and private-sector employment was 4.1 million jobs below its level in December 2007.
In contrast, total and private sector employment at 57 months from the start of all prior postwar recessions exceeded or more nearly approached their pre-recession levels. For example, compared with September 2012's 3.2% shortfall from total nonfarm employment in December 2007, overall employment at 57 months from the beginning of the 2001 recession was 1.7% above its level at the recession's outset. Compared with September 2012's 3.6% shortfall from private-sector employment in December 2007, private-sector employment at 57 months from the beginning of the 2001 recession was 1.2% higher than at the recession's outset.
Some had looked to the 2001 recession and subsequent jobless recovery, when the rate of increase in productivity growth also uncharacteristically rose, to gauge how long it might be before all jobs lost since December 2007 are recouped. The rate of increase in productivity growth usually does not rise during recessions, but it did so during and for some years after the 2001 recession; it did so again during and immediately after the 2007-2009 recession. (An increasing productivity growth rate enables businesses to produce the same amount of goods and services with fewer workers.) After the annual rate of change in nonfarm business productivity had diminished to a decade-low of 0.6% in 2006, it measured 2.3% in 2009 and 4.1% in 2010. Partly due to similarly high rates of increase it took 47 months (until February 2005) from the 2001 recession's start before all job losses were recouped and 50 months (until May 2005) before private sector job losses were recouped. However, in November 2011—47 months from the latest recession's start—all jobs lost during the 2007-2009 recession had not been recouped. Similarly, by February 2012 (50 months from the latest recession's start), the private sector had not fully recouped all the jobs lost during the latest recession. In light of the sharp drop in the rate of productivity growth in 2011 to 0.4%, the slowness of the employment rebound would be surprising but for the 2007-2009 recession's association with a financial crisis. The experiences of other countries suggest it takes longer for economies to fully recover from such recessions compared with recessions unrelated to financial crises.
Some within the public-policy community also believe that an increase in offshoring of jobs historically performed in the United States may be an additional factor sapping the strength of job growth. This perspective arguably contributed to Congress's support for a Buy America provision in the ARRA to increase demand for goods manufactured in the United States. Although not expressly intended to dampen offshoring, a tax provision in the HIRE Act encourages firms to maintain and expand their U.S. employment as well. However, the widespread nature of worker displacement during the recession and the fact that the jobs of workers in the especially hard hit construction industry do not possess characteristics making them vulnerable to offshoring suggests that offshoring has had a smaller effect than macroeconomic conditions on the pace of recovery.
section_title: Industry Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain
paragraphs: Saying that offshoring may have slowed the pace of U.S. job growth is different from saying that certain industries will not return to their shares of employment at the recession's outset. Some suggest that the Great Recession, like the 2001 recession, was accompanied by a substantial reallocation of labor across sectors as certain industries permanently downsized employment due to globalization and technological among other innovations. As a result, some of the workers displaced during the 2007-2009 recession may endure unusually long spells of unemployment while they search for new jobs in faster-growing industries. Most economists agree, however, that the majority of displacement during the latest recession is cyclical rather than structural in origin.
subsections: section_title: Manufacturing and Construction
paragraphs: As shown in Table 1 , the two cyclically sensitive industries that accounted for nearly one of every two jobs lost during the latest recession have had markedly different experiences during the recovery. Construction firms cut payrolls by almost 1.5 million jobs, and manufacturers by 2.0 million jobs, out of a total of 7.5 million nonfarm jobs lost between December 2007 and June 2009. (See column 4.) Manufacturing has been recovering much faster than construction. Manufacturers added 217,000 jobs (a 1.9% increase) during the recovery to date, whereas construction lost 484,000 jobs (an 8.1% decrease). (See columns 6 and 7.) Nonetheless, manufacturing would need to gain 1.8 million jobs to return to its employment level at the recession's outset. Construction, for its part, would need to gain 1.9 million jobs. (See column 8.)
The bursting of the housing bubble led those who worked for residential builders and for specialty trade contractors in residential construction to be the hardest-hit groups within the construction industry. Employment in residential building construction fell by 263,000 jobs (29.4%) during the recession and by an additional 64,000 jobs (10.1%) during the recovery thus far, according to BLS establishment survey data. Similarly, employment at specialty trade contractors in residential construction fell by 565,000 jobs (26.1%) during the recession and by an additional 131,000 jobs (8.2%) during the recovery.
Some of the states with the weakest housing markets have experienced comparatively large cutbacks in employment of the industry's mostly blue-collar work force. Employment declines in the construction industry (i.e., residential and nonresidential building construction, heavy and civil engineering construction, and specialty trades contractors) in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and California have been especially steep according to BLS establishment survey data.
Within manufacturing, the problems at General Motors, Chrysler, and motor vehicle parts suppliers were so grave during the recession that the Bush and Obama Administrations chose to provide them with financial assistance. The industry's employment has subsequently increased. After employment at motor vehicle and parts manufacturers fell by 335,000 jobs (34.9%) between December 2007 and June 2009, it then rose by 153,000 jobs (24.5%) through September 2012 according to BLS establishment survey data. Temporary programs enacted by Congress to increase demand for vehicles (e.g., "cash for clunkers," P.L. 111-32 , enacted in June 2009) likely led automakers and their parts suppliers to subsequently recall from layoff their predominantly blue-collar workforce to rebuild depleted inventories. Nonetheless, motor vehicle and parts manufacturers employed 182,000 fewer workers in September 2012 than at the recession's start.
Manufacturing-dependent states tend to be especially vulnerable to recessions, a time during which consumers and businesses usually postpone buying costly long-lasting products in particular (e.g., household appliances, cars, farm and construction machinery). Manufacturing industries also are sensitive to weakened global demand and impaired access to credit. More than 1 in 10 employees in Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, and Wisconsin worked for durable goods manufacturers in 2006, the last full year before the onset of the recession. Three of the five states—Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio—recorded among the largest percentage decreases in nonfarm employment during the recession.
section_title: Private-Service Sector Industries
paragraphs: A third industry group that incurred many of the recession's job losses is professional and business services. (See Table 1 .) More than one-fifth of all jobs lost during the recession were at firms that provide professional and business services (e.g., accounting, computer, other professional-technical services, and administrative support services). Temporary help agencies accounted for one-half of the 1.6 million decrease in employment at professional and business services providers between December 2007 and June 2009. Employment rebounded by 1.4 million jobs at professional and business services providers thus far into the recovery. This was due in large part to a 780,000 job gain at temporary help agencies. When companies are unsure of a recovery's robustness they typically prefer to temporarily hire employees from the help industry rather than commit themselves to hiring permanent employees.
Retail trade is another industry group in which many of the recession's job losses occurred. The decrease in employment at such firms as automobile dealers, clothing and accessories stores, department stores, furniture and home furnishings stores, and building material and garden supply stores accounted for 14% of all jobs lost between December 2007 and June 2009. Retail employment fell precipitously during the recession (by 1.0 million or 6.7%), as shown in columns 4 and 5 in Table 1 . Since the start of the recovery, retailers have added 241,000 jobs (a 1.7% increase), as shown in columns 6 and 7. Retail employment would have to expand by about 800,000 jobs (5.2%) to return to its cyclical peak. (See the last two columns in the table.)
Although the recession was precipitated by a financial crisis and housing market collapse, the industries that compose the financial activities industry group have been recovering at different rates.
Almost one of every five job losses in financial activities during the recession occurred among real estate agents and other employees of the real estate industry. Between December 2007 and June 2009, employment declined by 81,000 (5.4%). Housing conditions continued to be a drag on the economy during the recovery, and real estate employment fell further through early 2011. By September 2012, it had eked out a small gain (13,000 jobs or 0.9%) compared with the industry's employment at the recovery's start. Nonetheless, real estate employment at 39 months into the recovery was 68,000 (4.6%) below its level in December 2007. Almost one of every six job losses in financial activities during the recession occurred in the depository credit intermediation industry (e.g., commercial banks and savings institutions). Between December 2007 and June 2009, employment declined by 73,000 (4.0%). The industry cut additional jobs during the recovery, but in September 2012, bank employment was only 1,000 jobs (0.06%) below its level in June 2009. Nonetheless, employment in the deposit credit intermediation industry at 39 months into the recovery was 74,000 (4.1%) below its level at the recession's outset. Almost one of every 10 job losses in financial activities during the recession occurred at securities brokers, securities and commodity contracts brokers, and exchanges and other investment firms. Between December 2007 and June 2009, employment declined by 51,000 (6.0%). In September 2012, employment at securities brokers et al was only 5,000 jobs (0.06%) below its level in June 2009. Nonetheless, employment in this segment of financial activities at 39 months into the recovery was 56,000 (6.5%) below its level at the recession's outset.
section_title: Government
paragraphs: Government is the only industry group that gained jobs during the recession but has lost jobs during the recovery thus far. The increase in government employment during the recession occurred at the federal, state, and local levels.
The pattern of federal employment during the recovery has in part been affected by the Census Bureau hiring workers chiefly in the first half of 2010 to assist the agency while conducting the decennial population count. This source of job growth was eliminated once the temporary workers were let go. Federal employment has trended downward thereafter, falling to somewhat over 2.8 million. The Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P.L. 112-25 ) is estimated to lead to further declines in federal employment if sequestration comes to pass as scheduled in early January 2013.
The decrease in public-sector employment since the recovery began has occurred mainly in state and especially in local government. State government employment at 39 months into the recovery was 105,000 (2.0%) below its level in June 2009. Local government joss loss was even greater since June 2009, at 463,000 (3.2%). Congress was motivated by the budget problems of state and local governments to include assistance for them in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( P.L. 111-5 ) enacted in February 2009, and in the Education Jobs and Medicaid Funding bill ( P.L. 111-226 ) enacted in August 2010. President Obama's American Jobs Act ( H.R. 12 and S. 1549 ) includes additional assistance, as does the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act ( S. 1723 ) and the Fix America's Schools Today Act ( H.R. 2948 / S. 1597 ).
section_title: Individual Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain
paragraphs: This section analyzes the changes in employment by individual characteristics shown in Table 2 . The employment trends of women and men over the course of a business cycle differ in part due to their employment distributions by industry. During the Great Recession, women lost jobs to a lesser degree than men (2.4% and 5.9%, respectively, as shown in column 5) in part because men account for the majority (over 7 out of 10 employees) in the recession-wracked construction and manufacturing industries. But, women gained relatively fewer jobs than men during the recovery (1.4% and 2.8%, respectively, as shown in column 7). In this instance, the greater presence of women in the occupations that populate local governments in particular (e.g., teachers) likely worked against them. As noted earlier, employment in local government greatly decreased during the recovery.
The oldest and youngest workers have had very different employment experiences in the past several years. As shown in columns 4 through 7 of Table 2 , employment of persons aged 55 and older increased during the recession and the recovery. The seniority that usually comes with age appears to have worked to their advantage. In contrast, the employer practice of "last hired, first fired" likely operated to the disadvantage of the youngest workers. Employment decreased more precipitously among 16- to 19-year-olds than any other age group. Almost one in four teenagers employed at the start of the recession did not have jobs in September 2012, as shown in the last column of the table.
A larger share of black compared with white workers lost jobs during the recession, but their situation has reversed during the recovery. As shown in column 5 of Table 2 , employment of black workers fell by 5.9% whereas employment of white workers fell by 4.1% between December 2007 and June 2009. Since then, the employment of black workers has rebounded more strongly than that of white workers. (See columns 6 and 7.)
Hispanics, who can be of any race, have experienced comparatively strong job growth during the recovery (12.3%) after their employment fell by 4.1% during the recession. (See columns 7 and 5, respectively, in Table 2 .) In September 2012, the employment of Hispanics substantially exceeded its level at the recession's start, as shown in the table's last column. Some might regard this as surprising because, according to BLS data from the Current Population Survey, one in four workers in the construction industry were of Hispanic origin in 2006 (the last full year before the recession's onset). However, Hispanics also comprised over one in five workers in the accommodation and food services industry in that year. The industry is part of the leisure and hospitality group which, as of March 2012, had recouped all of the jobs it lost during the recession.
The lower a worker's educational attainment, the worse they typically fared between December 2007 and September 2012. As shown in the last column of Table 2 , employment over the 57-month period decreased by 12.3% among workers without a high school diploma and by 8.1% among those with a high school diploma. In contrast, employment increased by 0.6% among workers with some college or an associate's degree and by 6.7% among workers with a bachelor's or advanced diploma. (See columns 6 through 9.)