ETSU Bureau of Business and Economic Research

Tri-Cities Labor Market Report

East Tennessee State University + Second Quarter 2009 + College of Business and Technology

THE METROPOLITAN AREA (CSA)

The spring months marked the second quarter of severe contraction in the Tri-Cities regional labor market.  Again linked to large losses in manufacturing and construction, employment fell a stunning 4.3% to 223,411 -- a loss of over 10,000 jobs compared to the same period in 2008.  Unemployment increased by 76% to 23,403 on a year-to-year basis – a jump of 10,000 in the jobless numbers.  The unemployment rate for the Tri-Cities area is now 9.5%, compared to only 5.4% a year ago.

In the fourteen NAICS industry sectors, employment levels were higher in four, lower in eight, and unchanged in two (compared to four, nine, and one in the first quarter).  Job growth occurred in government, education & health, professional & business services, and retail trade.  Large employment declines were reported by construction, durable manufacturing, and nondurable manufacturing.  Smaller job losses occurred in wholesale trade, other services, information, finance, and transport & utilities.  Employment was unchanged in leisure & hospitality, and mining.

                  Labor Force      Employment           Unemployment
        Period    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch   Rate_
         2001    232,340   0.25   221,186  -0.47    11,155  17.23   4.80
         2002    233,364   0.44   220,150  -0.47    13,214  18.46   5.66
         2003    237,051   1.58   223,288   1.43    13,763   4.16   5.81
         2004    236,077  -0.41   223,032  -0.11    13,044  -5.22   5.53
         2005    237,273   0.51   224,768   0.78    12,506  -4.13   5.27
         2006    241,502   1.78   230,068   2.36    11,434  -8.57   4.73
         2007    241,720   0.09   230,988   0.40    10,732  -6.15   4.44
         2008    246,607   2.02   232,706   0.74    13,901  29.53   5.64
         07:1    240,990   0.72   230,021   1.39    10,970 -11.48   4.55
         07:2    240,182  -0.40   230,277   0.33     9,905 -14.80   4.12
         07:3    241,822  -0.22   231,144   0.04    10,678  -5.60   4.42
         07:4    243,885   0.26   232,511  -0.14    11,374   9.27   4.66
         08:1    244,886   1.62   232,229   0.96    12,657  15.38   5.17
         08:2    246,803   2.76   233,485   1.39    13,319  34.46   5.40
         08:3    247,668   2.42   233,017   0.81    14,650  37.20   5.92
         08:4    247,073   1.31   232,094  -0.18    14,979  31.70   6.06
         09:1    245,135   0.10   224,139  -3.48    20,997  65.89   8.57
         09:2    246,813   0.00   223,411  -4.31    23,403  75.71   9.48

THE TRI-CITIES

All of the three cities were hard hit by the dismal labor market situation during the second quarter.  Job losses exceeded 40% in each city, while unemployment jumped by 60% to 80%.  The jobless rate was 9.0% in Johnson City, 9.2% in Bristol, and 9.6% in Kingsport.  This compares to the 9.5% rate in the region and 9.1% in the nation as a whole.  Several counties in the region are now seeing unemployment rates above ten percent.

Bristol TN-VA Urbanized Area Labor Market

                  Labor Force      Employment           Unemployment
        Period    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch   Rate_
         2001     27,153   0.37    25,981  -0.37     1,172  20.28   4.31
         2002     27,194   0.15    25,775  -0.79     1,419  21.14   5.22
         2003     27,691   1.83    26,071   1.15     1,620  14.15   5.85
         2004     27,188  -1.82    25,636  -1.67     1,552  -4.20   5.71
         2005     27,171  -0.06    25,751   0.45     1,420  -8.48   5.23
         2006     27,671   1.84    26,409   2.56     1,262 -11.14   4.56
         2007     27,572  -0.36    26,356  -0.20     1,215  -3.69   4.41
         2008     28,133   2.04    26,626   1.02     1,507  24.02   5.36
         07:1     27,503  -0.04    26,266   0.53     1,237 -10.65   4.50
         07:2     27,442  -0.93    26,296  -0.36     1,146 -12.44   4.18
         07:3     27,635  -0.66    26,436  -0.58     1,199  -2.41   4.34
         07:4     27,708   0.20    26,428  -0.37     1,280  13.63   4.62
         08:1     27,906   1.47    26,575   1.18     1,331   7.59   4.77
         08:2     28,180   2.69    26,754   1.74     1,426  24.43   5.06
         08:3     28,310   2.45    26,698   0.99     1,612  34.50   5.70
         08:4     28,137   1.55    26,476   0.18     1,660  29.72   5.90
         09:1     28,028   0.44    25,654  -3.47     2,374  78.35   8.47
         09:2     28,143  -0.13    25,562  -4.45     2,580  80.92   9.17

Johnson City Urbanized Area Labor Market

                  Labor Force      Employment           Unemployment
        Period    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch   Rate_
         2001     51,885  -0.23    49,322  -0.84     2,563  13.36   4.94
         2002     52,147   0.50    49,107  -0.44     3,040  18.59   5.83
         2003     53,200   2.02    50,204   2.23     2,996  -1.44   5.63
         2004     54,097   1.69    51,196   1.98     2,901  -3.17   5.36
         2005     54,598   0.91    51,749   1.08     2,840  -2.12   5.20
         2006     55,544   1.75    52,943   2.31     2,601  -8.43   4.68
         2007     56,123   1.04    53,628   1.29     2,496  -4.03   4.45
         2008     57,112   1.76    53,807   0.33     3,305  32.43   5.79
         07:1     55,834   1.90    53,360   2.67     2,474 -12.42   4.43
         07:2     55,713   0.62    53,392   1.36     2,321 -13.81   4.17
         07:3     55,987   0.92    53,479   0.98     2,507  -0.34   4.48
         07:4     56,959   0.75    54,278   0.20     2,681  13.19   4.71
         08:1     56,746   1.63    53,704   0.64     3,042  22.94   5.36
         08:2     57,055   2.41    53,866   0.89     3,189  37.39   5.59
         08:3     57,221   2.20    53,763   0.53     3,458  37.90   6.04
         08:4     57,427   0.82    53,895  -0.71     3,533  31.77   6.15
         09:1     56,509  -0.42    51,807  -3.53     4,702  54.59   8.32
         09:2     56,784  -0.47    51,657  -4.10     5,128  60.81   9.03

Kingsport Urbanized Area Labor Market

                  Labor Force      Employment           Unemployment
        Period    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch   Rate_
         2001     45,468   0.25    43,413  -0.42     2,056  16.99   4.52
         2002     45,401  -0.15    42,967  -1.03     2,435  18.44   5.36
         2003     45,901   1.10    43,209   0.56     2,692  10.57   5.86
         2004     45,093  -1.76    42,532  -1.57     2,562  -4.85   5.68
         2005     45,209   0.26    42,783   0.59     2,426  -5.29   5.37
         2006     46,036   1.83    43,860   2.52     2,176 -10.31   4.73
         2007     45,688  -0.75    43,758  -0.23     1,931 -11.26   4.23
         2008     46,722   2.26    44,187   0.98     2,535  31.29   5.43
         07:1     45,485  -0.19    43,499   0.57     1,985 -14.31   4.36
         07:2     45,508  -1.34    43,706  -0.37     1,802 -20.16   3.96
         07:3     45,847  -1.13    43,874  -0.62     1,972 -11.21   4.30
         07:4     45,914  -0.35    43,951  -0.49     1,963   2.91   4.28
         08:1     46,259   1.70    43,982   1.11     2,277  14.70   4.92
         08:2     46,896   3.05    44,442   1.64     2,474  37.27   5.28
         08:3     47,065   2.65    44,339   1.06     2,726  38.20   5.79
         08:4     46,670   1.65    44,007   0.13     2,663  35.63   5.71
         09:1     46,237  -0.05    42,539  -3.28     3,698  62.40   8.00
         09:2     46,908   0.03    42,427  -4.49     4,481  81.13   9.55

THE UNITED STATES

The recession  worsened in the United States during the second quarter.  Employment fell by 3.8% to 140.6 million -- a loss of nearly 5.6 million jobs since the same period in 2008.  Unemployment was higher for the eighth quarter in a row, jumping by 74% to 14.1 million (an increase of 6.0 million compared to 2008).  The spring quarter unemployment rate was 9.1%, compared to 5.3% a year ago.

In the fourteen NAICS industry sectors, employment levels were higher in two, and lower in twelve (compared to three and eleven in the first quarter).  Employment was up in only education & health, and government.  Large job declines were reported in durable manufacturing, professional & business services, construction, and retail trade.  Smaller employment decreases were in finance, nondurable manufacturing, leisure & hospitality, wholesale trade, transport & utilities, information services, other services, and mining.

                   Labor Force      Employment           Unemployment
         Period    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch    Level  Y-Y%Ch   Rate_
          2001    143,734  0.81    136,933  0.03     6,801   19.48   4.73
          2002    144,863  0.79    136,485 -0.33     8,378   23.19   5.78
          2003    146,510  1.14    137,736  0.92     8,774    4.73   5.99
          2004    147,401  0.61    139,252  1.10     8,149   -7.12   5.53
          2005    149,320  1.30    141,730  1.78     7,591   -6.86   5.08
          2006    151,428  1.41    144,427  1.90     7,001   -7.77   4.62
          2007    153,124  1.12    146,047  1.12     7,078    1.10   4.62
          2008    154,287  0.76    145,362 -0.47     8,924   26.09   5.78
          07:1    152,013  1.61    144,692  1.84     7,321   -2.63   4.82
          07:2    152,811  1.10    146,040  1.26     6,771   -2.34   4.43
          07:3    153,922  0.97    146,723  0.96     7,199    1.33   4.68
          07:4    153,752  0.81    146,732  0.45     7,020    8.90   4.57
          08:1    152,822  0.53    144,755  0.04     8,067   10.19   5.28
          08:2    154,264  0.95    146,165  0.09     8,099   19.61   5.25
          08:3    155,399  0.96    146,029 -0.47     9,370   30.17   6.03
          08:4    154,662  0.59    144,501 -1.52    10,161   44.74   6.57
          09:1    153,659  0.55    140,125 -3.20    13,534   67.77   8.81
          09:2    154,697  0.28    140,592 -3.81    14,105   74.17   9.12
          Note: Data are in thousands.

ANALYSIS

As expected, labor market conditions became worse during the second quarter, on top of a very dismal first quarter.  The question now is whether this trend will continue, or will the labor markets see some relief in the third quarter?

There are spreading “green shoots” of encouraging signs that the end of the recession may be close.  The national unemployment rate has held steady for the past two months at a little above nine percent.  The decline in production (as measured by real GDP) is very small in the second quarter, after six months of substantial decline.  In a matching pattern, the monthly losses in payroll jobs are becoming smaller.  This is not the end of the recession, but we may be nearing the end.

Many analysts now expect the end of the recession to occur in the third quarter.  This will mark a low point or “trough” in economic activity.  After a trough, comes the recovery phase of the business cycle.  Based on the feeble recoveries after the 1990-91 and 2001 recessions, most analysts are forecasting a slow recovery.  And if the recovery is slow, then unemployment rates may go up even further.  The economy needs to create new jobs at a brisk pace to put the unemployed back to work, and to provide jobs for the natural growth of the labor force.

But there is another factor at work.  To offset the severity of the recession and the collapse of the financial system, the federal government and the central bank have provided a level of fiscal and monetary stimulus unseen since World War II.  The spending by the federal government (the fiscal stimulus) has not really begun yet!  The main fiscal stimulus is spread across the next three quarters, and will peak next winter.  And as the economy turns around, the banking system is awash in liquidity to make new loans to further stimulate business activity.

So what does the future look like for the nation?  The consensus outlook is for a weak recovery to begin in the third quarter, and for the unemployment rate to rise to the ten percent level in 2010.  But there is also a very good chance that the recovery will be  much more vigorous than expected, leading to lower unemployment rates in the near future.  Since regional business conditions are now linked to the national business cycle, the level of recovery in the nation will set the course of recovery in the Tri-Cities.

Technical Note.  This report was prepared in August 2009, and is based upon the 2008 benchmark of the Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor.  The labor markets for Bristol, Johnson City, and Kingsport are presented in terms of the U.S. Census Bureau concept of the "urbanized area" which includes the core city and the contiguous urban fringe.  The urbanized area for each city is based upon demographic patterns from the 2000 Census of Population.  The data in this report are not adjusted for seasonality, so comparisons should be made on a year-to-year basis.

More information.  This report was prepared by Dr. F. Steb Hipple, Professor of Economics, and Research Associate, BBER.  For more information, please contact Dr. Hipple c/o Department of Economics and Finance, Box 70686, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee 37614.  Phone/Voicemail: 423-439-5304.  Fax: 423-439-8583.  E-Mail: hipples@etsu.edu .  Website: http://faculty.etsu.edu/hipples.