![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailytide.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/civilian-unemployment-ra.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
\nmeasures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics.
\nThe establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry.
\nFor more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two
\nsurveys, see the Technical Note.<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________________________________
\n| |
\n| Changes to The Employment Situation Data |
\n| |
\n| Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual benchmarking |
\n| process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors. Also, household survey |
\n| data for January 2022 reflect updated population estimates. See the notes at the |
\n| end of this news release for more information. |
\n|____________________________________________________________________________________|<\/p>\n
Household Survey Data<\/p>\n
Both the unemployment rate, at 4.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at
\n6.5 million, changed little in January. Over the year, the unemployment rate is down
\nby 2.4 percentage points, and the number of unemployed persons declined by 3.7 million.
\nIn February 2020, prior to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the unemployment rate
\nwas 3.5 percent, and unemployed persons numbered 5.7 million. (See table A-1. See the
\nnote at the end of this news release and tables B and C for information about annual
\npopulation adjustments to the household survey estimates.)<\/p>\n
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.8 percent) and
\nWhites (3.4 percent) edged up in January. The jobless rates for adult women (3.6 percent),
\nteenagers (10.9 percent), Blacks (6.9 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics
\n(4.9 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)<\/p>\n
Among the unemployed, the number of job leavers increased to 952,000 in January, following
\na decrease in the prior month. The number of persons on temporary layoff, at 959,000 in
\nJanuary, also increased over the month but is down by 1.8 million over the year. The
\nnumber of permanent job losers, at 1.6 million, changed little in January but is down
\nby 1.9 million from a year earlier. (See table A-11.)<\/p>\n
In January, the number of persons jobless less than 5 weeks increased to 2.4 million
\nand accounted for 37.0 percent of the total unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed
\n(those jobless for 27 weeks or more) declined to 1.7 million. This measure is down from
\n4.0 million a year earlier but is 570,000 higher than in February 2020. The long-term
\nunemployed accounted for 25.9 percent of the total unemployed in January. (See table A-12.)<\/p>\n
After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the labor force
\nparticipation rate held at 62.2 percent in January, and the employment-population ratio
\nwas little changed at 59.7 percent. Both measures are up over the year but remain below
\ntheir February 2020 levels (63.4 percent and 61.2 percent, respectively). (See table A-1.
\nFor additional information about the effects of the population adjustments, see table C.)<\/p>\n
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 3.7 million, continued
\nto trend down over the month. The over-the-year decline of 2.2 million brings this measure
\nto 673,000 below its February 2020 level. These individuals, who would have preferred
\nfull-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they
\nwere unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)<\/p>\n
The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job was little changed
\nat 5.7 million in January. This measure decreased by 1.3 million over the year but is
\n708,000 higher than in February 2020. These individuals were not counted as unemployed
\nbecause they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey
\nor were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)<\/p>\n
Among those not in the labor force who wanted a job, the number of persons marginally
\nattached to the labor force, at 1.5 million, changed little in January. These individuals
\nwanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12
\nmonths but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of
\ndiscouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were
\navailable for them, was also little changed over the month, at 408,000. (See Summary
\ntable A.)<\/p>\n
Household Survey Supplemental Data<\/p>\n
In January, the share of employed persons who teleworked because of the coronavirus
\npandemic increased to 15.4 percent. These data refer to employed persons who teleworked
\nor worked at home for pay at some point in the 4 weeks preceding the survey specifically
\nbecause of the pandemic.<\/p>\n
In January, 6.0 million persons reported that they had been unable to work because their
\nemployer closed or lost business due to the pandemic–that is, they did not work at all
\nor worked fewer hours at some point in the 4 weeks preceding the survey due to the
\npandemic. This measure is considerably higher than the level of 3.1 million in December.
\nAmong those who reported in January that they were unable to work because of pandemic-
\nrelated closures or lost business, 23.7 percent received at least some pay from their
\nemployer for the hours not worked, up from the prior month.<\/p>\n
Among those not in the labor force in January, 1.8 million persons were prevented from
\nlooking for work due to the pandemic, up from 1.1 million in the prior month. (To be
\ncounted as unemployed, by definition, individuals must be either actively looking for
\nwork or on temporary layoff.)<\/p>\n
These supplemental data come from questions added to the household survey beginning in
\nMay 2020 to help gauge the effects of the pandemic on the labor market. The data are
\nnot seasonally adjusted. Tables with estimates from the supplemental questions for all
\nmonths 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 increased by 467,000 in January, compared with an
\naverage monthly gain of 555,000 in 2021. Nonfarm employment has increased by 19.1
\nmillion since April 2020 but is down by 2.9 million, or 1.9 percent, from its pre-
\npandemic level in February 2020. In January, employment growth continued in leisure
\nand hospitality, in professional and business services, in retail trade, 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.)<\/p>\n
Employment in leisure and hospitality expanded by 151,000 in January, reflecting job
\ngains in food services and drinking places (+108,000) and in the accommodation industry
\n(+23,000). Since February 2020, employment in leisure and hospitality is down by 1.8
\nmillion, or 10.3 percent.<\/p>\n
In January, professional and business services added 86,000 jobs. Job gains occurred
\nin management and technical consulting services (+16,000), computer systems design
\nand related services (+15,000), architectural and engineering services (+8,000), and
\nother professional and technical services (+7,000). Employment in temporary help
\nservices continued to trend up (+26,000). Employment in professional and business
\nservices is 511,000 higher than in February 2020, largely in temporary help services
\n(+185,000), computer systems design and related services (+161,000), and management
\nand technical consulting services (+151,000).<\/p>\n
Retail trade employment rose by 61,000 in January. Job growth occurred in general
\nmerchandise stores (+29,000); health and personal care stores (+11,000); sporting
\ngoods, hobby, book, and music stores (+7,000); and building material and garden supply
\nstores (+6,000). Retail trade employment is 61,000 above its level in February 2020.<\/p>\n
Employment in transportation and warehousing increased by 54,000 in January and is
\n542,000 higher than in February 2020. In January, job gains occurred in couriers and
\nmessengers (+21,000), warehousing and storage (+13,000), truck transportation (+8,000),
\nand air transportation (+7,000). All four of these component industries have surpassed
\ntheir February 2020 employment levels, with particularly strong growth in warehousing
\nand storage (+410,000) and couriers and messengers (+236,000).<\/p>\n
Employment in local government education rose by 29,000 in January but is down by
\n359,000, or 4.4 percent, since February 2020.<\/p>\n
Employment in health care continued to trend up (+18,000) over the month but is down
\nby 378,000, or 2.3 percent, from its level in February 2020.<\/p>\n
Wholesale trade added 16,000 jobs in January, with gains in both durable goods (+11,000)
\nand nondurable goods (+8,000). Employment in wholesale trade is 125,000, or 2.1 percent,
\nlower than in February 2020.<\/p>\n
Employment showed little change over the month in mining, construction, manufacturing,
\ninformation, financial activities, and other services.<\/p>\n
In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
\nincreased by 23 cents to $31.63. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have
\nincreased by 5.7 percent. In January, average hourly earnings of private-sector
\nproduction and nonsupervisory employees rose by 17 cents to $26.92. (See tables B-3 and
\nB-8.)<\/p>\n
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.2 hour to
\n34.5 hours in January. In manufacturing, the average workweek edged down by 0.1 hour to
\n40.2 hours, and overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.3 hours. The average workweek for
\nproduction and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.2
\nhour to 33.9 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)<\/p>\n
In accordance with usual practice, the seasonal adjustment models are updated as part
\nof the annual benchmark process. As a result of the updates, there were some large
\nrevisions to seasonally adjusted data that mostly offset each other. (See the note at
\nthe end of this news release and table A for information about the revisions, the
\nannual benchmark process, and the seasonal adjustment model updates.)<\/p>\n
_____________
\nThe Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday,
\nMarch 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).<\/p>\n
Revisions to Establishment Survey Data<\/p>\n
In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today
\nhave been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March
\n2021. These counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment
\nand Wages (QCEW), which counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax
\nsystem. The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data
\nfrom April 2020 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from January 2017 forward are
\nsubject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to 2017, both
\nseasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate other revisions.<\/p>\n
The total nonfarm employment level for March 2021 was revised upward by 374,000.
\nOn a not seasonally adjusted basis, total nonfarm employment for March 2021 was
\nrevised downward by 7,000, or less than -0.05 percent. Not seasonally adjusted,
\nthe absolute average benchmark revision over the past 10 years is 0.1 percent.<\/p>\n
As part of the benchmark process, the seasonal adjustment models are also updated.
\nThese models remove normal seasonal fluctuations–such as regular employment
\nchanges due to major holidays–from the data series, making it easier to observe
\ncyclical and other economic trends. Now that there are more monthly observations
\nrelated to the historically large job losses and gains seen in the pandemic-driven
\nrecession and recovery, the models can better distinguish normal seasonal movements
\nfrom underlying trends. As a result, some large revisions to seasonally adjusted
\ndata occurred with the updated models; however, these monthly changes mostly offset
\neach other. For example, the over-the-month employment change for November and December
\n2021 combined is 709,000 higher than previously reported, while the over-the-month
\nemployment change for June and July 2021 combined is 807,000 lower. Overall, the
\n2021 over-the-year change is 217,000 higher than previously reported. Going forward,
\nthe updated models should produce more reliable estimates of seasonal movements.
\nTable A presents revised total nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted
\nbasis from January to December 2021.<\/p>\n
All revised historical establishment survey data are available on the BLS website
\nat www.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 2021, seasonally
\nadjusted
\n(Numbers in thousands)
\n—————————————————————————————
\n| Level | Over-the-month change
\n|———————————————————————
\nYear and month | | As | | | As |
\n| As |previously | Difference| As |previously| Difference
\n| revised |published | | revised |published |
\n—————————————————————————————
\n2021 | | | | | |
\n| | | | | |
\nJanuary……… | 143,017 | 142,736 | 281 | 520 | 233 | 287
\nFebruary…….. | 143,727 | 143,272 | 455 | 710 | 536 | 174
\nMarch……….. | 144,431 | 144,057 | 374 | 704 | 785 | -81
\nApril……….. | 144,694 | 144,326 | 368 | 263 | 269 | -6
\nMay…………. | 145,141 | 144,940 | 201 | 447 | 614 | -167
\nJune………… | 145,698 | 145,902 | -204 | 557 | 962 | -405
\nJuly………… | 146,387 | 146,993 | -606 | 689 | 1,091 | -402
\nAugust………. | 146,904 | 147,476 | -572 | 517 | 483 | 34
\nSeptember……. | 147,328 | 147,855 | -527 | 424 | 379 | 45
\nOctober……… | 148,005 | 148,503 | -498 | 677 | 648 | 29
\nNovember…….. | 148,652 | 148,752 | -100 | 647 | 249 | 398
\nDecember(p)….. | 149,162 | 148,951 | 211 | 510 | 199 | 311
\n—————————————————————————————
\n(p) = preliminary<\/p>\n
Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey<\/p>\n
Effective with data for January 2022, updated population estimates were incorporated into
\nthe household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the
\nU.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new
\ninformation and assumptions about the growth of the population since the previous decennial
\ncensus. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction
\nof a blended 2020 population base, which combines population totals from the 2020 Census
\nand demographic characteristics from other sources. It also reflects adjustments for net
\ninternational migration, updated vital statistics, and estimation methodology improvements.
\nThe vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in the base
\npopulation from Census 2010 to the blended Census 2020 base.<\/p>\n
In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates
\nfor December 2021 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustments,
\nhowever, differences in selected December 2021 labor force series based on the old and new
\npopulation estimates are shown in table B.<\/p>\n
The adjustments increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in
\nDecember by 973,000, the civilian labor force by 1,530,000, employment by 1,471,000, and
\nunemployment by 59,000. The number of persons not in the labor force decreased by 557,000.
\nAlthough the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the employment-population ratio and
\nlabor force participation rate were each increased by 0.3 percentage point. This was mostly
\ndue to an increase in the size of the population in age groups that participate in the labor
\nforce at high rates (those ages 35 to 64) and a large decrease in the size of the population
\nage 65 and older, which participates at a low rate.<\/p>\n
Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the comparability
\nof household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of new
\npopulation estimates on the comparison of selected labor force measures between December
\n2021 and January 2022. Additional information on the population adjustments and their effect
\non national labor force estimates is available at
\nwww.bls.gov\/web\/empsit\/cps-pop-control-adjustments.pdf.<\/p>\n