ETSU Bureau of Business and Economic Research

 

Tri-Cities Labor Market Report

 

East Tennessee State University + Second Quarter 2010 + College of Business and Technology

 

THE METROPOLITAN AREA (CSA)

 

The Tri-Cities labor market showed signs of recovery during the second quarter.  Area employment increased for the first time since 2008, expanding by 0.4% to 224,688 for a gain of over 800 jobs compared to the same period in 2009.  Unemployment decreased for the first time since 2007, falling by 5% to 22,451 for a drop of over 1,100 in the jobless numbers.  Over the April to June period, the unemployment rate for the Tri-Cities area was 9.1%, compared to 9.6% a year ago.

Among the twelve local NAICS industry sectors, employment levels were higher in three sectors, lower in eight, and unchanged in one (compared to one, eleven, and zero in the first quarter).  Job growth occurred in government, education & health, and wholesale trade.  Major employment declines were concentrated in manufacturing, professional & business services, construction & mining, and retail trade.  Smaller job losses occurred in transport & utilities, leisure & hospitality, information, and finance.  Employment was unchanged in other services.

 

                  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    237,634   0.66   225,097   0.93    12,537  -3.89   5.28
         2006    242,076   1.87   230,568   2.43    11,508  -8.20   4.75
         2007    242,233   0.06   231,358   0.34    10,875  -5.51   4.49
         2008    247,307   2.10   232,913   0.67    14,394  32.37   5.82
         2009    246,412  -0.36   223,231  -4.16    23,181  61.04   9.41
         07:1    241,589   0.75   230,490   1.39    11,099 -10.97   4.59
         07:2    240,862  -0.39   230,770   0.31    10,092 -14.12   4.19
         07:3    242,354  -0.25   231,544  -0.03    10,810  -4.84   4.46
         07:4    244,125   0.17   232,628  -0.27    11,497   9.97   4.71
         08:1    245,315   1.54   232,469   0.86    12,846  15.75   5.24
         08:2    247,100   2.59   233,445   1.16    13,655  35.30   5.53
         08:3    248,032   2.34   232,887   0.58    15,144  40.10   6.11
         08:4    248,782   1.91   232,851   0.10    15,931  38.57   6.40
         09:1    247,433   0.86   225,336  -3.07    22,097  72.01   8.93
         09:2    247,512   0.17   223,874  -4.10    23,638  73.12   9.55
         09:3    246,317  -0.69   222,450  -4.48    23,866  57.59   9.69
         09:4    244,385  -1.77   221,263  -4.98    23,123  45.14   9.46
         10:1    243,351  -1.65   218,531  -3.02    24,821  12.33  10.20
         10:2    247,138  -0.15   224,688   0.36    22,451  -5.02   9.08

 

THE TRI-CITIES

 

               Compared to previous quarters, labor market conditions improved in all three cities.  Employment increased in Johnson City and Kingsport while job losses were very small in Bristol.  Unemployment declined in all three cities, reflecting both job creation and discouraged workers leaving the labor force.  The jobless rate was 9.0% in Bristol and Kingsport, and 9.1% in Johnson City.  In comparison, the regional rate was 9.1% and the national rate was 9.5%.

 

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     27,189   0.00    25,765   0.50     1,424  -8.25   5.24
         2006     27,714   1.93    26,445   2.64     1,269 -10.86   4.58
         2007     27,615  -0.36    26,387  -0.22     1,227  -3.30   4.44
         2008     28,086   1.71    26,549   0.61     1,536  25.17   5.47
         2009     28,038  -0.17    25,463  -4.09     2,574  67.57   9.18
         07:1     27,548   0.00    26,298   0.55     1,250 -10.25   4.54
         07:2     27,499  -0.90    26,337  -0.35     1,163 -11.96   4.23
         07:3     27,681  -0.67    26,473  -0.61     1,208  -1.97   4.36
         07:4     27,731   0.14    26,442  -0.44     1,289  13.91   4.65
         08:1     27,825   1.01    26,490   0.73     1,335   6.84   4.80
         08:2     28,083   2.12    26,639   1.15     1,444  24.21   5.14
         08:3     28,220   1.95    26,580   0.40     1,640  35.75   5.81
         08:4     28,215   1.75    26,489   0.18     1,726  33.88   6.12
         09:1     28,236   1.48    25,805  -2.59     2,431  82.09   8.61
         09:2     28,164   0.29    25,584  -3.96     2,580  78.62   9.16
         09:3     28,103  -0.41    25,400  -4.44     2,703  64.83   9.62
         09:4     27,648  -2.01    25,064  -5.38     2,584  49.70   9.34
         10:1     27,644  -2.09    24,926  -3.41     2,719  11.85   9.84
         10:2     28,065  -0.35    25,530  -0.21     2,535  -1.72   9.03

 

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     54,732   1.17    51,885   1.35     2,847  -1.88   5.20
         2006     55,731   1.83    53,112   2.36     2,619  -8.00   4.70
         2007     56,279   0.98    53,741   1.18     2,538  -3.10   4.51
         2008     57,345   1.89    53,878   0.26     3,467  36.60   6.05
         2009     56,880  -0.81    51,598  -4.23     5,282  52.35   9.29
         07:1     56,029   1.90    53,521   2.64     2,508 -11.77   4.48
         07:2     55,920   0.60    53,545   1.29     2,375 -12.87   4.25
         07:3     56,142   0.85    53,593   0.85     2,549   0.75   4.54
         07:4     57,023   0.60    54,302   0.00     2,721  14.39   4.77
         08:1     56,929   1.61    53,816   0.55     3,113  24.12   5.47
         08:2     57,214   2.31    53,911   0.68     3,303  39.05   5.77
         08:3     57,391   2.23    53,768   0.33     3,623  42.15   6.31
         08:4     57,846   1.44    54,017  -0.53     3,830  40.78   6.62
         09:1     56,859  -0.12    51,786  -3.77     5,073  62.97   8.92
         09:2     56,861  -0.62    51,604  -4.28     5,257  59.17   9.25
         09:3     56,808  -1.02    51,346  -4.51     5,462  50.76   9.62
         09:4     56,993  -1.48    51,656  -4.37     5,337  39.35   9.36
         10:1     56,172  -1.21    50,519  -2.45     5,653  11.43  10.06
         10:2     57,406   0.96    52,194   1.14     5,212  -0.86   9.08

 

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     45,323   0.51    42,890   0.84     2,433  -5.04   5.37
         2006     46,187   1.91    43,995   2.58     2,191  -9.92   4.74
         2007     45,811  -0.81    43,848  -0.33     1,963 -10.44   4.28
         2008     46,866   2.30    44,218   0.84     2,648  34.91   5.65
         2009     46,660  -0.44    42,323  -4.29     4,337  63.81   9.30
         07:1     45,638  -0.19    43,627   0.54     2,012 -13.70   4.41
         07:2     45,672  -1.36    43,829  -0.43     1,843 -19.32   4.04
         07:3     45,970  -1.20    43,966  -0.74     2,004 -10.26   4.36
         07:4     45,962  -0.49    43,971  -0.69     1,991   3.93   4.33
         08:1     46,352   1.56    44,033   0.93     2,319  15.25   5.00
         08:2     46,935   2.77    44,386   1.27     2,549  38.29   5.43
         08:3     47,131   2.52    44,288   0.73     2,843  41.87   6.03
         08:4     47,046   2.36    44,167   0.45     2,880  44.63   6.12
         09:1     46,812   0.99    42,834  -2.72     3,978  71.58   8.50
         09:2     47,086   0.32    42,512  -4.22     4,574  79.41   9.71
         09:3     46,649  -1.02    42,178  -4.76     4,471  57.23   9.58
         09:4     46,094  -2.02    41,767  -5.43     4,326  50.24   9.39
         10:1     46,096  -1.53    41,413  -3.32     4,683  17.72  10.16
         10:2     46,973  -0.24    42,719   0.49     4,253  -7.01   9.05

 

THE UNITED STATES

 

               In contrast to the Tri-Cities region, the national labor market picture continued to worsen during the second quarter.  However, the decline in market performance was very modest compared to previous periods.  Employment fell by 0.7% to 139.6 million -- a loss of 1.0 million jobs since the same period in 2009.  Unemployment was higher for the twelfth quarter in a row, rising by 3.7% to 14.6 million (an increase of 0.5 million compared to 2009).  The spring unemployment rate was 9.5%, compared to 9.1% a year ago.

               Among the twelve NAICS industry sectors, employment increased in three and decreased in nine sectors (compared to one and eleven in the first quarter).  Employment was higher in education & health services, government, and professional & business services.  The largest job losses occurred in the goods producing sectors of construction & mining, and manufacturing.  Smaller declines were reported by finance, transport & utilities, retail trade, information services, wholesale trade, other services, and leisure & hospitality.

 

                   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
          2009    154,142 -0.09    139,878 -3.77    14,265   59.84   9.25
          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
          09:3    154,923 -0.31    140,069 -4.08    14,854   58.52   9.59
          09:4    153,289 -0.89    138,724 -4.00    14,565   43.34   9.50
          10.1    153,270 -0.25    137,332 -1.99    15,939   17.76  10.40
          10.2    154,181 -0.33    139,560 -0.73    14,621    3.66   9.48
          Note: Data are in thousands.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The economy - national and local – remains in a painful and extended bottom point in the business cycle.  Production is increasing, consumer spending and retail activity are growing, and the stock market is higher.  The missing element has been job creation.  Until the labor market shows continuing and significant job growth, the economy remains mired in the Great Recession.

 

The second quarter labor market data are encouraging.  The regional labor market is improving and the decline in the national labor market may be ending.  This is the reverse of the expected pattern.  Rather than trailing the national economy, the recovery in the regional labor market is now leading the national recovery.

 

At the local level, we have the first positive news in over a year - employment is higher and unemployment is lower.  The job gains are modest and part of the lower unemployment is due to discouraged workers leaving the labor force.  But no one can deny that the local labor market picture is looking much better.

 

At the national level, the labor market appears to be at the end of the recessionary downturn.  The decline in employment has dropped from the nearly four percent annual rate of last year to a fraction of one percent.  The growth in unemployment has dropped from the sixty percent annual rate of last year to less than four percent.  At this rate, employment should be higher and unemployment lower in the third quarter.

 

The NAICS sector data show a larger number of sectors adding jobs in the second quarter.  However most sectors continue to reduce employment, especially manufacturing and construction.  Also some of the job gains in the quarter were due to the government hiring of temporary census workers.

 

The second quarter labor market conditions suggest that the recession may finally be ending, and that the true turnaround will be in the third quarter.  However, the business and economic news continues to be mixed.  Consumer confidence remains weak and some analysts are warning of a second recessionary downturn.  This is referred to as a “W” shaped business cycle.

 

The business outlook remains very unclear for both the region and the nation.  We could be (1) entering into another recessionary downturn with higher unemployment, (2) treading water with no change in the unemployment rate, (3) starting a feeble recovery with a show decline in unemployment, or (4) starting a strong recovery with a rapid decline in unemployment.  The consensus outlook is number three – a feeble recovery with a very slow fall in unemployment.  However the first and second scenarios are gaining support among analysts.  It may be time for additional fiscal stimulus.

 

Technical Note.  This report was prepared in August 2010, and is based upon the 2009 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.