![\"\"](\"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/blslogo.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWashington, DC…The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 6.3 percent in January, while nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+49,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The labor market continued to reflect the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. In January, notable job gains in professional and business services and in both public and private education were offset by losses in leisure and hospitality, in retail trade, in health care, and in transportation and warehousing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
\nmeasures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The
\nestablishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For
\nmore information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two
\nsurveys, see the Technical Note.<\/p>\n
Household Survey Data<\/p>\n
In January, the unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 6.3 percent, and the
\nnumber of unemployed persons decreased to 10.1 million. Although both measures are much
\nlower than their April 2020 highs, they remain well above their pre-pandemic levels in
\nFebruary 2020 (3.5 percent and 5.7 million, respectively). (See table A-1. See the note
\nat the end of the news release and tables B and C for information about annual
\npopulation adjustments to the household survey estimates. See the box note at the end
\nof this news release for more information about how the household survey and its
\nmeasures were affected by the coronavirus pandemic.)<\/p>\n
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates declined over the month for adult
\nmen (6.0 percent), adult women (6.0 percent), Whites (5.7 percent), and Hispanics (8.6
\npercent). The jobless rates changed little for teenagers (14.8 percent), Blacks (9.2
\npercent), and Asians (6.6 percent). (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)<\/p>\n
Among the unemployed, the number of persons on temporary layoff decreased in January
\nto 2.7 million. This measure is down considerably from the recent high of 18.0 million
\nin April but is 2.0 million higher than its February level. The number of permanent
\njob losers, at 3.5 million, changed little in January but is 2.2 million higher than
\nin February. The number of reentrants to the labor force decreased in January to 2.0
\nmillion. (Reentrants are persons who previously worked but were not in the labor force
\nprior to beginning their job search.) (See table A-11.)<\/p>\n
In January, the number of persons jobless less than 5 weeks decreased to 2.3 million.
\nThe number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 4.0
\nmillion, was about unchanged in January and accounted for 39.5 percent of the total
\nunemployed. (See table A-12.)<\/p>\n
After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, both the
\ncivilian labor force and the number of employed persons changed little in January. At
\n61.4 percent, the labor force participation rate was about unchanged over the month
\nbut is 1.9 percentage points lower than its February level. The employment-population
\nratio, at 57.5 percent in January, changed little over the month but is 3.6 percentage
\npoints lower than in February. (See table A-1. For additional information about the
\neffects of the population adjustments, see table C.)<\/p>\n
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 6.0 million,
\nchanged little in January. This measure is 1.6 million higher than the February level.
\nThese individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part
\ntime because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.
\n(See table A-8.)<\/p>\n
The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job, at 7.0 million,
\nedged down in January but is 1.9 million higher than in February. These individuals
\nwere not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during
\nthe last 4 weeks or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)<\/p>\n
The number of persons marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.9 million,
\ndecreased in January. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had
\nlooked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4
\nweeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a subset of the
\nmarginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, was little
\nchanged over the month at 624,000. (See Summary table A.)<\/p>\n
Household Survey Supplemental Data<\/p>\n
In January, the share of employed persons who teleworked because of the coronavirus
\npandemic edged down to 23.2 percent. These data refer to employed persons who
\nteleworked or worked at home for pay at some point in the last 4 weeks specifically
\nbecause of the pandemic.<\/p>\n
In January, 14.8 million persons reported that they had been unable to work because
\ntheir employer closed or lost business due to the pandemic–that is, they did not
\nwork at all or worked fewer hours at some point in the last 4 weeks due to the
\npandemic. This measure is 1.1 million lower than in December. Among those who
\nreported in January that they were unable to work because of pandemic-related
\nclosures or lost business, 12.7 percent received at least some pay from their
\nemployer for the hours not worked, little changed from the previous month.<\/p>\n
Among those not in the labor force in January, 4.7 million persons were prevented
\nfrom looking for work due to the pandemic; this measure is little changed from
\nDecember. (To be counted as unemployed, by definition, individuals must be either
\nactively looking for work or on temporary layoff.)<\/p>\n
These supplemental data come from questions added to the household survey beginning
\nin May 2020 to help gauge the effects of the pandemic on the labor market. The data
\nare not seasonally adjusted. Tables with estimates from the supplemental questions
\nfor all months are available online at
\nwww.bls.gov\/cps\/effects-of-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic.htm.<\/p>\n
Establishment Survey Data<\/p>\n
Total nonfarm payroll employment changed little in January (+49,000) but is below its
\nFebruary 2020 level by 9.9 million, or 6.5 percent. In January, notable job gains in
\nprofessional and business services and in both public and private education were
\noffset by losses in leisure and hospitality, in retail trade, in health care, and in
\ntransportation and warehousing. (See table B-1. See the note at the end of this news
\nrelease and table A for information about the annual benchmark process. See the box
\nnote at the end of this news release for more information about how the establishment
\nsurvey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus pandemic.)<\/p>\n
In January, employment in professional and business services rose by 97,000, with
\ntemporary help services accounting for most of the gain (+81,000). Job growth also
\noccurred in management and technical consulting services (+16,000), computer systems
\ndesign and related services (+11,000), and scientific research and development
\nservices (+10,000). These gains were partially offset by job losses in services to
\nbuildings and dwellings (-14,000) and in advertising and related services (-6,000).
\nSince February, employment in professional and business services is down by 825,000.<\/p>\n
In January, employment increased in local government education (+49,000), state
\ngovernment education (+36,000), and private education (+34,000). In both public and
\nprivate education, pandemic-related employment declines in 2020 distorted the normal
\nseasonal buildup and layoff patterns. This likely contributed to the job gains in
\nJanuary (after seasonal adjustment). <\/p>\n
Wholesale trade continued to add jobs in January (+14,000). However, employment in
\nthe industry is 263,000 below its February level.<\/p>\n
In January, employment in mining increased by 9,000, with a gain of 8,000 in support
\nactivities for mining. Mining employment is down by 133,000 since a recent peak in
\nJanuary 2019, though employment in the industry showed little change for several
\nmonths prior to the uptick in January. <\/p>\n
In January, employment in leisure and hospitality declined by 61,000, following a
\nsteep decline in December (-536,000). In January, employment edged down in
\namusements, gambling, and recreation (-27,000) and in accommodation (-18,000).
\nEmployment in food services and drinking places continued to trend down (-19,000).
\nEmployment in leisure and hospitality fell by 8.2 million during March and April,
\nincreased by 4.9 million from May to November, and then declined by 597,000 over
\nthe past 2 months. Since February, employment in leisure and hospitality is down
\nby 3.9 million, or 22.9 percent. <\/p>\n
Retail trade lost 38,000 jobs in January, after adding 135,000 jobs in December. Over
\nthe month, employment declined in general merchandise stores (-38,000), electronics
\nand appliance stores (-29,000), and nonstore retailers (-15,000). These job losses
\nwere partially offset by gains in food and beverage stores (+15,000), clothing and
\nclothing accessories stores (+15,000), and health and personal care stores (+14,000).
\nEmployment in retail trade is 383,000 lower than in February.<\/p>\n
Employment in health care declined by 30,000 in January. Within the industry, job
\nlosses occurred in nursing care facilities (-19,000), home health care services
\n(-13,000), and community care facilities for the elderly (-7,000). Since February,
\nhealth care employment is down by 542,000.<\/p>\n
Employment in transportation and warehousing declined by 28,000 in January and is
\n164,000 lower than in February. In January, job losses occurred in warehousing and
\nstorage (-17,000) and in couriers and messengers (-14,000); however, employment in
\nthese industries is higher than in February by 97,000 and 137,000, respectively.
\nEmployment in air transportation increased by 15,000 over the month but is 105,000
\nlower than in February.<\/p>\n
Employment in manufacturing changed little over the month (-10,000), following 8
\nmonths of growth. Within the industry, durable goods lost 17,000 jobs in January.
\nEmployment in manufacturing is up by 803,000 since April but is 582,000 lower than
\nin February.<\/p>\n
Construction employment changed little over the month (-3,000), after increasing
\nfor 8 consecutive months. However, employment in the industry is down by 256,000
\nsince February.<\/p>\n
In January, employment changed little in other major industries, including
\ninformation, financial activities, and other services. <\/p>\n
In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
\nincreased by 6 cents to $29.96. Average hourly earnings of private-sector
\nproduction and nonsupervisory employees, at $25.18, changed little (+3 cents). The
\nlarge employment fluctuations over the past several months–especially in
\nindustries with lower-paid workers–complicate the analysis of recent trends in
\naverage hourly earnings. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)<\/p>\n
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by
\n0.3 hour to 35.0 hours in January. In manufacturing, the workweek also increased
\nby 0.3 hour to 40.4 hours, and overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours. The average
\nworkweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls
\nincreased by 0.2 hour to 34.4 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)<\/p>\n
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised down by
\n72,000, from +336,000 to +264,000, and the change for December was revised down
\nby 87,000, from -140,000 to -227,000. With these revisions, employment in November
\nand December combined was 159,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly
\nrevisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government
\nagencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal
\nfactors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to the November and
\nDecember revisions.)<\/p>\n
_____________
\nThe Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday,
\nMarch 5, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).<\/p>\n
_______________________________________________________________________________________
\n|\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n|\t\t Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on January 2021 \t\t\t|
\n|\t\t\tHousehold and Establishment Survey Data\t\t\t\t|
\n|\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n| Data collection for both surveys was affected by the pandemic. In the establishment \t|
\n| survey, more data continued to be collected by web than in months prior to the \t|
\n| pandemic. In the household survey, for the safety of both interviewers and \t\t|
\n| respondents, in-person interviews were conducted only when telephone interviews could |
\n| not be done. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n|\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n| Since March 2020, household survey interviewers have been instructed to classify \t|
\n| employed persons absent from work due to temporary, pandemic-related business \t|
\n| closures or cutbacks as unemployed on temporary layoff. As in earlier months, some \t|
\n| workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on \t|
\n| temporary layoff were instead misclassified as employed but not at work. However, the |
\n| share of responses that may have been misclassified was highest in the early months \t|
\n| of the pandemic and has been considerably lower in recent months.\t\t\t|
\n|\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n| For March through December, BLS published an estimate of what the unemployment rate \t|
\n| might have been had misclassified workers been included among the unemployed. \t|
\n| Repeating this same approach, the seasonally adjusted January unemployment rate would |
\n| have been 0.6 percentage point higher than reported. However, this represents the \t|
\n| upper bound of our estimate of misclassification and probably overstates the size of |
\n| the misclassification error. According to usual practice, the data from the household |
\n| survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are \t|
\n| taken to reclassify survey responses.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n|\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n| More information about the impact of the pandemic on the two surveys is available at |
\n| www.bls.gov\/covid19\/employment-situation-covid19-faq-january-2021.htm.\t\t|
\n|_______________________________________________________________________________________|<\/p>\n
\t\t\tRevisions to Establishment Survey Data<\/p>\n
In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have
\nbeen benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2020. These
\ncounts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),
\nwhich counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax system. The benchmark
\nprocess results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2019 forward.
\nSeasonally adjusted data from January 2016 forward are subject to revision. In addition,
\ndata for some series prior to 2016, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate
\nother revisions. <\/p>\n
The total nonfarm employment level for March 2020 was revised downward by 250,000 (on a
\nnot seasonally adjusted basis, -121,000 or -0.1 percent). Not seasonally adjusted, the
\nabsolute average benchmark revision over the past 10 years is 0.2 percent. <\/p>\n
The over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for March 2020 was revised from
\n+808,000 to +577,000 (seasonally adjusted). Table A presents revised total nonfarm
\nemployment data on a seasonally adjusted basis from January to December 2020.<\/p>\n
All revised historical establishment survey data are available on the BLS website at
\nwww.bls.gov\/ces\/data\/home.htm. In addition, an article that discusses the benchmark
\nand post-benchmark revisions and other technical issues is available at
\nwww.bls.gov\/web\/empsit\/cesbmart.htm. <\/p>\n
Table A. Revisions to total nonfarm employment, January to December 2020, seasonally
\nadjusted
\n(Numbers in thousands)
\n—————————————————————————————
\n | |
\n | Level | Over-the-month change
\n |———————————————————————
\n Year and month | | As | | | As |
\n | As |previously | Difference| As |previously| Difference
\n | revised |published | | revised |published |
\n—————————————————————————————
\n | | | | | |
\n 2020 | | | | | |
\n | | | | | |
\nJanuary……… | 152,234 | 152,212 | 22 | 315 | 214 | 101
\nFebruary…….. | 152,523 | 152,463 | 60 | 289 | 251 | 38
\nMarch……….. | 150,840 | 151,090 | -250 | -1,683 | -1,373 | -310
\nApril……….. | 130,161 | 130,303 | -142 |-20,679 |-20,787 | 108
\nMay…………. | 132,994 | 133,028 | -34 | 2,833 | 2,725 | 108
\nJune………… | 137,840 | 137,809 | 31 | 4,846 | 4,781 | 65
\nJuly………… | 139,566 | 139,570 | -4 | 1,726 | 1,761 | -35
\nAugust………. | 141,149 | 141,063 | 86 | 1,583 | 1,493 | 90
\nSeptember……. | 141,865 | 141,774 | 91 | 716 | 711 | 5
\nOctober……… | 142,545 | 142,428 | 117 | 680 | 654 | 26
\nNovember…….. | 142,809 | 142,764 | 45 | 264 | 336 | -72
\nDecember(p)….. | 142,582 | 142,624 | -42 | -227 | -140 | -87
\n—————————————————————————————
\n (p) = preliminary.<\/p>\n
\t Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey<\/p>\n
Effective with data for January 2021, updated population estimates were incorporated
\ninto the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed
\nby the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to
\nreflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population since the
\nprevious decennial census. The change in population reflected in the new estimates
\nresults from adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics,
\nand estimation methodology improvements. <\/p>\n
In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey
\nestimates for December 2020 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population
\nadjustments, however, differences in selected December 2020 labor force series based
\non the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.<\/p>\n
The adjustments decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional
\npopulation in December by 476,000, the civilian labor force by 200,000, employment by
\n180,000, and unemployment by 20,000. The number of persons not in the labor force was
\ndecreased by 277,000. The total unemployment rate, employment-population ratio, and
\nlabor force participation rate were unaffected.<\/p>\n
Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the
\ncomparability of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the
\nintroduction of new population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force
\nmeasures between December 2020 and January 2021. Additional information on the
\npopulation adjustments and their effect on national labor force estimates is
\navailable at www.bls.gov\/web\/empsit\/cps-pop-control-adjustments.pdf. <\/p>\n
Population controls for veterans, which are derived from a Department of Veterans
\nAffairs population model and are updated periodically, have also been updated with
\nthe release of data for January 2021. Historical data have not been revised. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Washington, DC…The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 6.3 percent in January, while nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+49,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The labor market continued to reflect the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. In January, notable job gains in professional and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6322,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_cbd_carousel_blocks":"[]","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,20,149,5,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business","category-featured","category-financial","category-government","category-news","last_archivepost"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/blslogo.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=114193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114193\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=114193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=114193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=114193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}