ETSU Bureau of Business and Economic
Research
THE
METROPOLITAN AREA (CSA)
The pace of job
creation picked up during the fall months, marking the sixth quarter in a row
of strong improvement in regional labor market conditions. Employment increased by 2.1% to 233,109, for
a gain of 4,680 jobs over the same period in 2010. It should be noted that this job level
matches the pre-recession high points in 2008.
Driven by job gains, unemployment levels fell 9.2% to 18,540. Over the October to December period, the
unemployment rate for the Tri-Cities area was 7.4%, compared to 8.2% a year
earlier.
The annual data
for 2011 reflects the improving labor market picture during the year. Employment in the metro area increased to
230,909, or 2.0% above the 2010 levels.
Unemployment declined 4.8% to 20,922, but still remains well above
prerecession levels.
Among the
twelve local NAICS industry sectors, employment levels were higher in nine
sectors, lower in one, and unchanged in two (compared to seven, three, and two
in the third quarter). Job growth was
led by education & health services and professional & business
services. Smaller employment gains were
reported by manufacturing, transport & utilities, other services, leisure
& hospitality, information services, finance, and wholesale trade. Job losses occurred in the government
sector. Employment was unchanged in
construction and retail trade.
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 241,877 1.79 230,345 2.33 11,532 -8.02 4.77
2007 242,043 0.07 231,206 0.37 10,836 -6.03 4.48
2008 247,584 2.29 233,323 0.92 14,261 31.60 5.76
2009 248,595 0.41 225,393 -3.40 23,202 62.70 9.33
2010 248,325 -0.11 226,357 0.43 21,968 -5.32 8.85
2011 251,832 1.41 230,909 2.01 20,922 -4.76 8.31
08:1 245,216 1.60 232,489 0.98 12,727 14.57 5.19
08:2 247,225 2.76 233,651 1.34 13,574 35.22 5.49
08:3 248,504 2.58 233,514 0.86 14,990 39.60 6.03
08:4 249,389 2.22 233,637 0.48 15,752 37.44 6.32
09:1 248,469 1.33 226,332 -2.65 22,137 73.94 8.91
09:2 249,728 1.01 225,934 -3.30 23,795 75.30 9.53
09:3 248,821 0.13 224,943 -3.67 23,878 59.29 9.60
09:4 247,362 -0.81 224,365 -3.97 22,997 46.00 9.30
10:1 247,785 -0.28 223,191 -1.39 24,593 11.09 9.93
10:2 247,568 -0.86 225,891 -0.02 21,677 -8.90 8.76
10:3 249,112 0.12 227,922 1.32 21,191 -11.25 8.51
10:4 248,836 0.60 228,425 1.81 20,411 -11.24 8.20
11:1 248,840 0.43 226,960 1.69 21,880 -11.03 8.79
11:2 254,064 2.62 232,319 2.85 21,744 0.31 8.56
11:3 252,773 1.47 231,249 1.46 21,524 1.57 8.52
11:4 251,649 1.13 233,109 2.05 18,540 -9.17 7.37
THE
TRI-CITIES
During the autumn months, all
three cities enjoyed continued employment growth. On a year-to-year basis, job levels increased
2.6% in Bristol, 2.6% in Kingsport, and 1.2% in Johnson City. Matching the regional pattern, unemployment
fell in all three cities. The jobless
rate was 7.2% in Kingsport, 7.3% in Johnson City, and 7.8% in Bristol. Matching the regional pattern, employment
levels have improved during each of the past six quarters. The 2011 annual data for each city reflects
the regional trends, with strong growth in employment and a drop in
unemployment. The number of jobless
workers in each city is still much higher than prerecession levels.
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 27,672 1.78 26,400 2.47 1,272 -10.65 4.60
2007 27,579 -0.34 26,352 -0.18 1,227 -3.59 4.45
2008 28,098 1.88 26,571 0.83 1,528 24.54 5.44
2009 28,364 0.94 25,773 -3.00 2,591 69.60 9.13
2010 28,231 -0.47 25,756 -0.07 2,475 -4.48 8.77
2011 28,687 1.62 26,335 2.25 2,352 -4.96 8.20
08:1 27,800 1.07 26,471 0.84 1,328 5.96 4.78
08:2 28,082 2.28 26,641 1.32 1,441 24.11 5.13
08:3 28,252 2.17 26,623 0.65 1,629 35.39 5.76
08:4 28,260 2.02 26,547 0.52 1,713 32.88 6.06
09:1 28,429 2.26 25,989 -1.82 2,441 83.72 8.58
09:2 28,480 1.42 25,877 -2.87 2,603 80.71 9.14
09:3 28,469 0.77 25,748 -3.29 2,721 67.08 9.56
09:4 28,077 -0.65 25,478 -4.03 2,599 51.72 9.26
10:1 28,126 -1.07 25,426 -2.16 2,700 10.62 9.60
10:2 28,178 -1.06 25,719 -0.61 2,460 -5.51 8.73
10:3 28,428 -0.14 25,963 0.83 2,465 -9.41 8.67
10:4 28,190 0.40 25,915 1.71 2,275 -12.49 8.07
11:1 28,153 0.09 25,785 1.41 2,368 -12.29 8.41
11:2 28,801 2.21 26,502 3.04 2,299 -6.53 7.98
11:3 28,952 1.84 26,450 1.88 2,502 1.49 8.64
11:4 28,841 2.31 26,602 2.65 2,239 -1.56 7.76
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 53,107 2.36 2,624 -7.83 4.71
2007 56,272 0.97 53,750 1.21 2,521 -3.90 4.48
2008 57,460 2.11 54,037 0.53 3,424 35.78 5.96
2009 57,507 0.08 52,242 -3.32 5,265 53.79 9.16
2010 57,912 0.70 52,833 1.13 5,079 -3.53 8.77
2011 58,619 1.22 53,694 1.63 4,925 -3.04 8.40
08:1 56,943 1.67 53,872 0.69 3,071 22.61 5.39
08:2 57,285 2.49 54,012 0.89 3,273 39.06 5.71
08:3 57,561 2.49 53,895 0.65 3,576 41.58 6.21
08:4 58,053 1.81 54,279 -0.08 3,774 39.70 6.50
09:1 57,225 0.49 52,143 -3.21 5,082 65.49 8.88
09:2 57,527 0.42 52,244 -3.27 5,283 61.41 9.18
09:3 57,500 -0.10 52,060 -3.57 5,440 52.14 9.46
09:4 57,775 -0.48 52,520 -3.24 5,255 39.24 9.10
10:1 57,629 0.71 52,029 -0.22 5,600 10.20 9.72
10:2 57,676 0.26 52,668 0.81 5,008 -5.21 8.68
10:3 58,008 0.88 53,104 2.00 4,904 -9.85 8.45
10:4 58,334 0.97 53,530 1.92 4,804 -8.58 8.24
11:1 58,231 1.04 53,084 2.03 5,147 -8.10 8.84
11:2 59,192 2.63 53,979 2.49 5,212 4.08 8.81
11:3 58,611 1.04 53,553 0.85 5,058 3.14 8.63
11:4 58,442 0.18 54,159 1.18 4,282 -10.87 7.33
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 46,183 1.90 43,988 2.56 2,195 -9.76 4.75
2007 45,803 -0.82 43,853 -0.31 1,950 -11.16 4.26
2008 46,958 2.52 44,344 1.12 2,615 34.06 5.57
2009 47,260 0.64 42,929 -3.19 4,331 65.66 9.16
2010 47,052 -0.44 43,006 0.18 4,047 -6.57 8.60
2011 47,933 1.87 44,078 2.49 3,855 -4.73 8.04
08:1 46,364 1.63 44,076 1.07 2,288 13.86 4.94
08:2 46,992 2.95 44,465 1.47 2,527 38.30 5.38
08:3 47,268 2.79 44,460 1.05 2,807 41.33 5.94
08:4 47,210 2.72 44,375 0.89 2,835 43.36 6.01
09:1 47,199 1.80 43,213 -1.96 3,986 74.20 8.45
09:2 47,685 1.48 43,078 -3.12 4,607 82.30 9.66
09:3 47,333 0.14 42,870 -3.58 4,463 59.00 9.43
09:4 46,823 -0.82 42,554 -4.10 4,268 50.54 9.12
10:1 46,922 -0.59 42,280 -2.16 4,642 16.44 9.89
10:2 47,083 -1.26 42,984 -0.22 4,099 -11.02 8.71
10:3 47,185 -0.31 43,394 1.22 3,791 -15.07 8.03
10:4 47,018 0.42 43,364 1.90 3,654 -14.39 7.77
11:1 47,157 0.50 43,113 1.97 4,044 -12.87 8.58
11:2 48,492 2.99 44,494 3.51 3,998 -2.47 8.24
11:3 48,132 2.01 44,204 1.87 3,928 3.61 8.16
11:4 47,952 1.99 44,502 2.63 3,450 -5.59 7.19
THE
UNITED STATES
During the fourth quarter, the
pace of the recovery in the national labor market modestly improved. Employment levels increased for the fifth
quarter in a row, up 1.1% to 140.9 million.
Unemployment declined for the sixth quarter in a row, falling 8.9% to
12.8 million. But as in previous
periods, much of this statistical decline was due to discouraged workers
dropping out of the labor force. The
October to December unemployment rate was 8.3%, compared to 9.2% in 2010.
The annual data for 2011 reflects
the overall weak performance for the year.
Compared to 2010, employment in the nation increased by 0.6% pushing the
job count to 139.9 million, still well below the 146.0 million high point in
2007. Unemployment for the year was 13.7
million, or 7.3% below 2010 levels, but nearly twice the 2007 figure. The size of the labor force declined for the third
year in a row – it should be growing one percent a year in line with overall
population trends.
Among the twelve national NAICS
industry sectors, employment increased in ten and decreased in two sectors
(compared to nine and three in the third quarter). Job gains were led by
professional & business services, education & health services. leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and
manufacturing. Smaller employment
increases were reported in construction, transportation & utilities,
wholesale trade, other services, and finance.
Job losses occurred in the government and information sectors.
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 2010 153,889 -0.16 139,064 -0.58 14,825 3.93 9.63 2011 153,617 -0.18 139,869 0.58 13,747 -7.27 8.95 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 10:3 154,601 -0.21 139,923 -0.10 14,679 -1.18 9.49 10:4 153,502 0.14 139,441 0.52 14,061 -3.46 9.16 11:1 152,731 -0.35 138,218 0.65 14,513 -8.94 9.50 11:2 153,628 -0.36 139,939 0.27 13,689 -6.37 8.91 11:3 154,392 -0.14 140,407 0.35 13,985 -4.72 9.06 11:4 153,715 0.14 140,913 1.06 12,802 -8.95 8.33 Note: Data are in thousands.
ANALYSIS
The Tri-Cities and the United
States have had very different business conditions over the past five
years. In general, the regional economy
has performed much better. These
disparate trends have dominated these labor market reports.
In 2007, the national business
expansion reached its high point. The jobless
rate was 4.6% and employment was 146.0 million.
(Economists consider an unemployment rate around five percent as being
the “full employment” rate.) Based on
production levels, analysts set December as the peak month in the business
cycle. In the Tri-Cities, economic
growth continued without interruption.
In 2008, the national economy
plunged into the Great Recession.
Production and employment dropped sharply while unemployment
spiraled. In contrast, the Tri-Cities
economy continued to improve, setting records for employment and production
levels.
In 2009, the national economy
continued to contract. Production hit
bottom in the summer, and showed some growth in the second half of the
year. Analysts set June as the official
“trough” or end of the recessionary downturn.
But strong growth is needed to create jobs, and labor market conditions
continued to worsen during the year. In
the Tri-Cities, the recession finally arrived.
In 2010, production growth
remained feeble at the national level. The
number of jobs continued to decline and the unemployment rate exceeded ten
percent. (As often noted in these
reports, production must grow at a three percent rate for job creation to keep
up with the one percent growth in population and the labor force.) In happy contrast, the regional economy began
a strong recovery in the second half of 2010.
In 2011, the national economy
remained mired in slow growth, but finally began to create a few jobs. Significant numbers of discouraged workers
dropped out of the labor force, reducing the size of the labor force, and
ironically lowering the unemployment rate.
Employment levels stood at 139.9 million, or 6.1 million below the 2007
figure. Since 2007, population growth
has added over 6.0 million potential workers to the economy. Thus the current employment shortfall is over
12.0 million jobs. The Tri-Cities
economy could not be more different – by the end of the year employment levels
were back to prerecession levels.
In summary, the national economy
plunged into recession in 2008 and has remained there – especially in labor
market conditions. The Tri-Cities
entered the recession a year later in 2009, was in a recession for only six
quarters, and since mid-2010 has regained the jobs that had been lost. Our continuing risk is that the struggling national
economy will at some point impact local business conditions.
Technical Note. This report was prepared in February 2012,
and is based upon the 2010 benchmark of the Current Population Survey, U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor
markets for
Pending Data Revisions. Each year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics revises state, regional, and local labor market data. This process is known as benchmarking. In the pending 2011 benchmark, it is probable
that regional and local employment growth will be reduced in order to be more
in line with the employment figures for industry sectors.
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,