Job Growth During the Recovery
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
September 30, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41434
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

Summary
Congress in recent years passed a number of bills intended in part to jump-start a recovery in the
labor market from the recession that began in December 2007. Policymakers are interested in
how employment has responded to stimulus measures to determine how effective the legislation
has been and to decide whether additional job creation legislation is warranted.
One way to assess the extent of recovery in the labor market since the passage of stimulus
legislation is to compare employment data from the end of the recession in June 2009 with more
recent data gathered in surveys that the government regularly conducts. Accordingly, to determine
if and how much job growth has occurred thus far in the recovery, this report examines the
change in the number of jobs over the June 2009-August 2010 period. (August 2010 was the
latest month for which data were available at the time of the report’s preparation.) To provide
historical context, the results are compared with job growth at a comparable point (14 months)
from the start of the prior 10 recoveries of the postwar period. Data for August 2010 are
compared with December 2007, as well, to discern how close the number of jobs has come to the
level at the recession’s onset, and to provide historical context, the results are compared with job
growth at a comparable point (32 months) from the start of the prior 10 recessions. Lastly,
employment data by job and individual characteristics in December 2007, June 2009, and August
2010 are analyzed to ascertain how different sectors and demographic groups have fared in recent
years.
A “jobless recovery” has been underway since the recession’s end in June 2009. That is to say, the
number of jobs at private and public sector employers generally decreased between June 2009
and August 2010. After falling in the second half of 2009, overall employment rose through May
2010 partly as a result of the Census Bureau hiring workers temporarily to help conduct the
decennial count of the population. Total employment subsequently resumed declining, driven in
part by state and local governments laying off workers in an effort to address budget shortfalls. In
contrast, after decreasing for six months from the recession’s end, the number of jobs in the
private sector (i.e., excluding federal, state and local government) began to steadily increase in
January 2010. Despite this recent job growth, there were fewer jobs at private sector firms in
August 2010 than at the recession’s end.
Employment rebounded faster during almost all of the prior 10 recoveries of the postwar period.
At a comparable point in the business cycle (14 months into the current recovery as of August
2010), the number of jobs overall and in the private sector exceeded their levels at the start of
eight earlier recoveries. The exceptions are the two recoveries that immediately preceded the
current one (i.e., the recoveries that followed the 1990-1991 and 2001 recessions).
Two of the industry groups hardest hit by the recession—construction and manufacturing—have
continued to lose jobs during the recovery, although at a lower rate than during the recession.
Some of the states with the most depressed housing markets as well as manufacturing-dependent
states have experienced relatively large decreases in total employment (Arizona, California,
Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio). Smaller job losses among women than men during
the recession partly are explained by construction and manufacturing having predominantly male
workforces. Larger job losses among women than men during the recovery partly are explained
by women’s substantial presence in the occupations (e.g., teachers) that account for much of local
and state government workforces.
Congressional Research Service

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

Contents
Job Growth Overall and in the Private Sector .............................................................................. 1
Job Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 6
Individual Characteristics............................................................................................................ 8

Figures
Figure 1. Employment Trend During the December 2007-June 2009 Recession and
Subsequent Recovery ............................................................................................................... 2

Tables
Table 1. Employment Change During the 2007-2009 Recession and the Ensuing
Recovery by Industry ............................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Employment Change During the 2007-2009 Recession and the Ensuing
Recovery by Gender, Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Educational Attainment ................................. 11

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12

Congressional Research Service

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

ongress in recent years passed a number of bills intended in part to jump-start a recovery
in the labor market from the recession that began in December 2007. One of the bills, the
C American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), requires the Council of
Economic Advisers and executive branch agencies to estimate the number of jobs dependent on
some or all of the act’s provisions. The methodologies they have used to estimate the number of
jobs created or maintained have been criticized, however.1 Moreover, ARRA is not the only job
creation bill enacted into law.2 Congress did not include a requirement to estimate job growth
associated with the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-147),
for example. Policymakers nonetheless remain interested in the labor market’s response to these
measures to help Members decide how well the legislation is working and whether additional job
creation legislation is warranted.
One way to assess the extent of recovery in the labor market since the passage of stimulus
legislation is to compare employment data from the recession’s end (i.e., the trough of the
business cycle) in June 2009 with more recent data gathered in surveys that the government
regularly conducts. Accordingly, to determine the extent of job growth thus far in the recovery,
this report examines the number of jobs from the trough of the business cycle to August 2010 (the
latest month for which data were available at the time of the report’s preparation). To provide
historical context, the results are compared with job growth at a comparable point (14 months)
from the start of the prior 10 recoveries of the postwar period. Data for August 2010 are
compared with December 2007, as well, to discern how close the number of jobs has come to its
level at the recession’s onset (i.e., the peak of the business cycle), and to provide historical
context, the results are compared with job growth at a comparable point (32 months) from the
start of the prior 10 recessions. Lastly, seasonally adjusted employment data that are available by
job and individual characteristics in December 2007, June 2009, and August 2010 are analyzed to
ascertain how different sectors and demographic groups have fared in recent years.
Job Growth Overall and in the Private Sector
The Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research announced
that the 11th recession of the postwar period ended in June 2009, but job growth typically does not
commence until a recovery has been underway for some time. The usual length of time before an
upward trend in employment began following the end of the prior 10 recessions was four months.
After the end of the two shallow recessions that immediately preceded the 2007-2009 recession,
however, sustained job growth across all nonfarm employers did not begin until 12 months into
the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession and until 22 months into the recovery from the 2001
recession.3 Initially, some had hoped that the deep 2007-2009 recession would be followed by a
strong rebound such as occurred after the severe 1973-1975 and 1981-1982 recessions. But,
neither these nor the other U.S. recessions of the postwar period were precipitated by a financial

1 For information on the methodology utilized to develop job creation estimates related to the ARRA see CRS Report
R40080, Job Loss and Infrastructure Job Creation Spending During the Recession, by Linda Levine.
2 For information on stimulus legislation see CRS Report R41006, Unemployment: Issues and Policies, by Jane G.
Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and Marc Labonte.
3 CRS Report R40798, Unemployment and Employment Trends Before and After the End of Recessions, by Linda
Levine.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

crisis. The evidence from other countries that experienced recessions caused by financial crises
instead suggests a slow recovery for the United States.4
At 14 months into the recovery that began in June 2009, sustained job growth in the total nonfarm
economy has not yet begun. As shown in Figure 1, the number of jobs on employers’ payrolls fell
during the second half of 2009. Overall employment then rose through May 2010, before
resuming its decline through August. The brief period of job growth earlier in 2010 was fueled in
part by the Census Bureau’s usual practice of temporarily hiring workers to help conduct the
decennial count of the U.S. population.
Employment in the nonfarm private sector (i.e., excluding federal, state and local government)—
which accounts for more than four of every five jobs in the labor market—has exhibited a
consistently positive trend during 2010. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
monthly survey of employers in the nonfarm economy show that the number of jobs in private
industry has been steadily increasing since January 2010. Thus far in 2010, then, private sector
firms increased the size of their payrolls by almost 750,000 jobs.
Figure 1. Employment Trend During the December 2007-June 2009 Recession and
Subsequent Recovery

Source: Created by CRS from establishment survey data of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employment rebounded faster during almost all of the prior 10 recoveries of the postwar period.
At a comparable point in the business cycle (14 months into the current recovery as of August
2010), the number of jobs overall and in the private sector exceeded their levels at the start of
eight earlier recoveries. The exceptions are the two recoveries that immediately preceded the

4 CRS Report R41332, Economic Recovery: Sustaining U.S. Economic Growth in a Post-Crisis Economy, by Craig K.
Elwell, pp. 11-12.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

current one. At 14 months into the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession, the number of jobs
overall exceeded the number at the recovery’s outset but the number of private sector jobs did
not. At 14 months after the end of the 2001 recession, both total and private sector employment
were lower than at the recovery’s start—by 0.5% and 0.9%, respectively. Hence the phrase
“jobless recovery” came into common usage. It is also being applied to the current recovery
because total employment decreased by 0.3%, and private industry employment decreased by
0.2%, between June 2009 and August 2010. (See Table 1.) The less sluggish pace of the current
recovery compared to 14 months into the recovery from the 2001 recession may be related to
differences in the stimulus legislation enacted to mitigate the two recessions.5
The last two columns of Table 1 show how much employment must increase from its depressed
level in August 2010 to recoup all the jobs lost since the beginning of the latest recession in
December 2007. Total nonfarm employment at 32 months from the recession’s start was 7.6
million jobs (5.5%) below its pre-recession level. Employment at private sector firms in August
2010 was farther below its level at the recession’s outset (7.7 million jobs, 6.7%).
In contrast, total and private sector employment at 32 months from the start of all prior postwar
recessions exceeded or more nearly approached their pre-recession levels. All jobs lost during
each of eight recessions were fully recouped by 32 months from their outset. Compared to August
2010’s 5.5% shortfall from total nonfarm employment in December 2007, the number of jobs was
closer to its cyclical peak at 32 months from the start of two recessions: overall employment at 32
months from the beginning of the 1990-1991 recession was 1.1% below its level at the recession’s
outset; at the same point following the 2001 recession’s start, total employment was 1.7% lower.
Compared to August 2010’s 6.7% shortfall from private sector employment in December 2007,
the number of jobs was closer to its cyclical peak at 32 months from the start of the same two
recessions: private sector employment at 32 months from the start of the 1990-1991 recession was
1.5% below its level at the recession’s outset; at the same point following the 2001 recession’s
start, it was 2.6% lower.
Some have looked to the 2001 recession and subsequent jobless recovery, when the rate of
increase in productivity growth also uncharacteristically rose, to gauge how long it might be
before all jobs lost since December 2007 are recouped. The rate of increase in productivity
growth usually does not rise during recessions, but it did so during and for some years after the
2001 recession; it has done so again during and after the 2007-2009 recession.6 (An increasing
productivity growth rate enables businesses to produce the same amount of goods and services
with fewer workers.) 7 After the annual rate of change in nonfarm business productivity had
diminished to a decade-low of 0.9% in 2006, it measured 3.5% in 2009. BLS data show the
productivity growth rate continued to accelerate in the first and second quarters of 2010 (at
annual increases of 6.3% and 3.7%, respectively). Partly due to similarly high rates of increase it
took 47 months (until February 2005) from the 2001 recession’s start before all job losses were

5 The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-16) was passed to speed the recovery
from the 2001 recession by amending the Internal Revenue Code. For information on the stimulus approaches included
in legislation to mitigate the effects of the 2007-2009 recession (e.g., income tax relief, infrastructure spending,
assistance to state and local governments) see CRS Report R41006, Unemployment: Issues and Policies, by Jane G.
Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and Marc Labonte.
6 Bob McTeer, “Productivity and the Job Market,” New York Times, December 3, 2008, available at
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/productivity-and-the-job-market/.
7 For information on productivity growth in the short- and long-run, see CRS Report RL34677, Productivity Growth:
Trends and Prospects, by Brian W. Cashell.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

recouped and 50 months (until May 2005) before private sector job losses were recouped. The
greater stimulus measures enacted by Congress to mitigate the impact of the deeper 2007-2009
recession may have contributed to the less sluggish ongoing recovery in the labor market
compared to the recovery from the 2001 recession. If these measures also were to mitigate most
of the greater job losses incurred during the 2007-2009 recession compared to the 2001 recession,
then by early 2012, about four years from the December 2007 onset of the latest recession,
employment may return to its pre-recession level. But, as previously mentioned, the 2007-2009
recession was precipitated by a financial crisis, from which a recovery is especially difficult
according to the experiences of other countries.
Some within the public policy community also believe the increase since earlier in the decade in
offshoring of jobs historically performed in the United States may be a factor in addition to
accelerating productivity growth that has sapped the strength of job growth in recent years.8 This
perspective arguably contributed to Congress’s support for a Buy America provision in the ARRA
to increase demand for goods manufactured in the United States. Although not expressly intended
as an offshoring measure, a tax provision in the HIRE Act encourages firms to maintain and
expand their U.S. employment.


8 For additional information see CRS Report RL32292, Offshoring (a.k.a. Offshore Outsourcing) and Job Insecurity
Among U.S. Workers, by Linda Levine, pp. 1-9.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Table 1. Employment Change During the 2007-2009 Recession and the Ensuing Recovery by Industry
(numbers in thousands)
Employment Change
During the Recession,
During the Recovery,
Since the Recession’s Start,
Industry
Number of Jobs
Dec. 2007-June 2009
June 2009-Aug. 2010
Dec. 2007-Aug. 2010
Dec. 2007 June 2009 Aug. 2010a
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Al nonfarm industries

137951
130640
130311
-7311
-5.3
-329
-0.3
-7640
-5.5
Al private nonfarm industries

115574
108075
107870
-7499
-6.5
-205
-0.2
-7704
-6.7
Goods-producing
sector
21956 18503 18031 -3453 -15.7
-472 -2.6 -3925
-17.9
Mining and logging

739
692
741
-47
-6.4
49
7.1
2
0.3
Construction
7491
6029
5611
-1462
-19.5 -418
-6.9
-1880 -25.1
Manufacturing

13726 11782 11679 -1944 -14.2
-103 -0.9 -2047
-14.9
Private service-providing sector
93618
89572
89839
-4046
-4.3
267
0.3
-3779
-4.0
Wholesale
trade
6038 5613 5592 -425 -7.0
-21 -0.4 -446
-7.4
Retail trade

15566
14546
14434
-1020
-6.6
-112
-0.8
-1132
-7.3
Transportation and warehousing
4549
4223
4179
-326
-7.2
-44
-1.0
-370
-8.1
Utilities
557
561 553 4 0.7
-8 -1.4
-4 -0.7
Information

3023 2797 2714 -226 -7.5
-83 -3.0 -309 -10.2
Financial
activities

8227 7742 7576 -485 -5.9 -166 -2.1 -651
-7.9
Professional and business services
18051
16453
16714
-1598
-8.9
261
1.6
-1337
-7.4
Education and health services
18559
19165
19611
606
3.3
446
2.3
1052
5.7
Leisure and hospitality
13535
13105
13124
-430
-3.2
19
0.1
-411
-3.0
Other
services
5514 5367 5343 -147 -2.7
-24 -0.4 -171
-3.1
Government
22377
22565
22441
188
0.8
-124
-0.5
64
0.3
Source: Calculated by CRS from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ establishment survey data.
Notes: The establishment survey is asked of nonfarm employers and covers all employees on their payrolls.
a. Data for August 2010 are preliminary. The establishment survey revises initial monthly estimates twice (in the immediately succeeding two months) after they have
been published to improve the data series by incorporating additional information that was not available at the time of their initial publication.
CRS-5

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

Job Characteristics
The idea that offshoring may have slowed the pace of U.S. job growth differs from the contention
that certain industries’ percentages of national employment will not return to their shares at the
recession’s outset. Some suggest that the latest recession, like the 2001 recession, was
accompanied by a substantial reallocation of labor across sectors because many of the jobs lost in
recent years may reflect the permanent downsizing of certain industries due to such factors as
globalization and technological among other innovations. As a result, workers displaced during
the recession may endure unusually long spells of unemployment while they search for new jobs
in faster-growing industries. However, no consensus has yet been reached among economists
about whether displacement during recent recessions has involved an increase in structural vis-à-
vis cyclical unemployment.9 The remainder of this section of the report will analyze recent
changes in employment by industry.
The two industries that accounted for almost one of every two jobs lost during the latest recession
have had markedly different experiences during the recovery. Construction firms cut payrolls by
1.5 million jobs, and manufacturers by 1.9 million jobs, out of a total of 7.3 million nonfarm jobs
lost between December 2007 and June 2009. Both industry groups have continued to shed jobs
since then, but construction has been recovering much more slowly than manufacturing.
Manufacturers lost 130,000 jobs (a 0.9% decrease) during the first 14 months of the recovery,
whereas construction lost 418,000 jobs (a 6.9% decrease). As a result, one of every four
construction jobs and one of every seven manufacturing jobs at employers in December 2007 did
not exist in August 2010. Expressed another way, the construction industry must gain almost 1.9
million jobs and the manufacturing industry over 2.0 million jobs to return to their levels at the
recession’s outset. (See the last two columns of Table 1.)
The bursting of the housing bubble led to those who worked for residential builders and for
specialty trade contractors in residential construction to be the hardest-hit groups within the
construction industry. Employment in residential building construction fell by 259,000 jobs
(28.9%) during the recession and by 64,100 jobs (10.1%) during the recovery thus far, according
to BLS data. Similarly, employment at specialty trade contractors in residential construction fell
by 551,400 jobs (25.4%) during the recession and by 93,900 jobs (5.8%) during the recovery.
Some of the states with the weakest housing markets have experienced comparatively large
cutbacks in employment of the industry’s mostly blue-collar work force. In Nevada and Arizona,
for example, employment in the construction industry (i.e., residential and nonresidential building
construction, heavy and civil engineering construction, and specialty trades contractors) was
about halved between December 2007 and August 2010. BLS data by state also show that in
California and Florida there were over one-third fewer construction jobs in August 2010 than in
December 2007.
Within manufacturing, the problems at General Motors, Chrysler, and motor vehicle parts
suppliers were so grave during the recession that the Bush and Obama Administrations chose to
provide them with financial assistance.10 The industry’s employment, like that of a few other

9 CRS Report R41179, Long-Term Unemployment and Recessions, by Gerald Mayer and Linda Levine.
10 CRS Report R40003, U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and Restructuring, coordinated by
Bill Canis.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

manufacturers (i.e., primary and fabricated metal products, food, plastics and rubber products),
has subsequently increased. After employment at motor vehicle and parts manufacturers fell by
326,100 jobs (34.2%) between December 2007 and June 2009, it then rose by 56,100 jobs
(9.0%).11 Temporary programs enacted by Congress to increase demand for vehicles (e.g., “cash
for clunkers,” P.L. 111-32, enacted in June 2009) likely led automakers and their parts suppliers
to subsequently recall from layoff their predominantly blue-collar workforce to rebuild depleted
inventories.12 Nonetheless, one of four jobs at motor vehicle and parts manufacturers when the
recession started did not exist 32 months later in August 2010.
Manufacturing-dependent states tend to be especially vulnerable to economic downturns, a time
during which consumers and businesses usually postpone buying costly long-lasting products in
particular (e.g., household appliances, cars, farm and construction machinery). Manufacturing
industries also are sensitive to weakened global demand and impaired access to credit, such as has
occurred in recent years. More than one in 10 employees in Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio,
and Wisconsin worked for durable goods manufacturers in 2006, the last full year before the onset
of the recession.13 Three of the five states—Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio—recorded among the
largest decreases in nonfarm employment during the recession (9.8%, 7.2%, and 6.9%,
respectively).14
A third industry group that incurred many of the recession’s job losses is professional and
business services. (See Table 1.) More than one-fifth of all jobs lost during the recession occurred
at firms that provide professional and business services (e.g., accounting, computer, and other
professional-technical services; and administrative support services). Temporary help agencies
accounted for one-half of the 1.6 million decrease in employment at professional and business
services providers between December 2007 and June 2009.15 Unlike the two industries hardest hit
by the recession—construction and manufacturing—employment in professional and business
services grew since the recovery began. The employment rebound at professional and business
services providers largely was due to a 358,500 job gain at temporary help agencies, which
outweighed losses elsewhere in the industry group. When companies are unsure of a recovery’s
robustness they typically prefer to temporarily hire employees from the help industry rather than
commit themselves to hiring permanent employees.
Retail trade is another industry group in which a sizeable share of the recession’s job losses
occurred. The decrease of over 1 million jobs at such firms as automobile dealers, clothing and
accessories stores, department stores, furniture and home furnishings stores, and building material
and garden supply stores accounted for 14% of all jobs lost between December 2007 and June
2009. Retail employment continued to contract during the recovery (0.8% or 112,000 jobs), albeit
at a fraction of the pace that occurred during the recession (6.6% or 1.0 million jobs).
Nonetheless, one of every 14 jobs at retail establishments in December 2007 no longer existed in

11 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
12 CRS Report R40654, Accelerated Vehicle Retirement for Fuel Economy: “Cash for Clunkers,” by Brent D.
Yacobucci and Bill Canis.
13 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
14 The four states previously mentioned as having experienced very large decreases in construction jobs because of
conditions in their housing markets recorded large decreases in total employment as well. Employment in Nevada was
11.6% lower in June 2009 than in December 2007; in Arizona, 10.0% lower; Florida, 8.9% lower; and in California,
7.3% lower.
15 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

August 2010. Put differently, retail employment must expand by more than 1.1 million jobs to
return to its cyclical peak (see the last two columns of Table 1).
Despite the recession having been precipitated by a financial crisis, employment conditions
within the financial activities industry group have varied greatly. Almost one of every five job
losses in financial activities during the recession and ensuing recovery occurred among real estate
agents and other employees of the real estate industry.16 Employment declined by 86,800 (5.8%)
in the real estate industry as the housing market collapsed between December 2007 and June
2009, and by another 31,700 (2.3%) through August 2010 as conditions in the housing market
continued to be a drag on the economy. At 32 months into the recovery, the real estate industry
had 118,500 (7.9%) fewer jobs than at the recession’s outset. In contrast, the number of jobs at
securities brokers, securities and commodity contracts brokers and exchanges, and other
investment firms, which is linked to non-residential uses of credit, decreased by 6.6% compared
to the private sector average of 6.7% between December 2007 and August 2010. The decline in
employment has been even milder at commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions
(3.9%) through August 2010. But job losses at consumer finance providers that do not accept
deposits (e.g., credit card issuers, automobile financiers) and at firms that engage in activities
related to credit intermediation (e.g., mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers, check cashing and
money order providers, credit card processors) have been quite steep (16.4%).
Government and utilities are the only two industry groups that gained jobs during the recession
but lost jobs during the recovery thus far. The increase in government employment during the
recession occurred at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal employment was higher in
August 2010 than at the recession’s end in June 2009, despite the Census Bureau letting go
workers in 2010 that it had hired to assist the agency while it conducted the decennial population
count.17 The decrease in government employment overall since the recovery began has occurred
in state government, excluding education, and in local government. Congress was motivated by
the fiscal problems of state and local governments to include assistance for them in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) enacted in February 2009, and in the Education Jobs
and Medicaid Funding bill (P.L. 111-226) enacted in August 2010.
Individual Characteristics
The employment trends of women and men over the course of a business cycle are related in part
to their differing employment distributions by industry. From the start of the latest recession in
December 2007 until August 2010, women lost jobs at almost half the rate of men (3.4% and
6.1%, respectively). (See Table 2.) The gender difference is due largely to men accounting for
more than seven out of 10 employees in the recession-wracked construction and manufacturing
industries, which continued to shed jobs during the recovery.18 Although women and men lost
jobs throughout the period, women went from losing fewer jobs than men during the recession
(1.6 million and 4.5 million, respectively) to losing more jobs than men during the recovery

16 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
17 In the Employment Situation—August 2010, BLS noted that the number of temporary workers hired for Census 2010
peaked in May 2010 at 564,000. By August, their number had fallen to 82,000.
18 According to data from the BLS establishment survey, women comprised just 28.7% of employment across all
manufacturing industries and just 20.4% of employment in the residential building construction industry in 2006, the
last full year before the latest recession began.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

(669,000 and 273,000, respectively). In this instance, the relatively greater presence of women in
the occupations that populate local governments in particular (e.g., teachers) likely worked
against them.19 As previously discussed, employment in local and state governments, excluding
education, decreased during the recovery after having posted gains during the recession.
The oldest and youngest workers have had very different experiences since December 2007. As
shown in Table 2, persons aged 55 and older enjoyed job growth not only during the recovery but
also during the recession. The seniority that usually comes with age appears to have worked to
their advantage. Not surprisingly, given the industry distribution of employment discussed above,
older women have reported even greater job growth than older men.
In contrast, the employer practice of “last hired, first fired” operated to the disadvantage of the
youngest workers. Employment decreased more precipitously among 16- to 19-year-olds than any
other age group. One in four jobs held by teenagers at the start of the recession had disappeared
by August 2010; this was true for girls and boys alike. Black teens suffered steeper job losses than
white teens: employment of black 16- to 19-year-olds dropped 32.6% whereas employment of
white teenagers fell 23.0% between December 2007 and August 2010.20
Employment among black workers, regardless of age, has fallen to a greater degree than among
white workers. As shown in Table 2, employment of black workers was 6.4% less in August 2010
than in December 2007 whereas employment of white workers was 4.5% less. Employment
decreased to a greater extent among black than white workers during the recession (5.9% and
4.0%, respectively). When teenagers are excluded and the data for black and white workers aged
20 and older are further disaggregated by gender, adult black men lost jobs at the highest rate
during the recession (8.4%) compared with adult white men (5.2%), adult black women (2.7%)
and adult white women (1.7%).21 Employment of black and white workers aged 16 and older
continued to decline during the recovery, but at a much slower rate (0.5%). When teenagers are
excluded and the data for black and white workers aged 20 and older are further disaggregated by
gender, adult black women lost jobs at a higher rate than adult white women (1.1% and 0.5%,
respectively) during the recovery whereas adult black men experienced job growth at a higher
rate than adult white men (1.2% and 0.2%, respectively).
Hispanics, who can be of any race, experienced job growth during the recovery after their
employment fell at about the average rate for all workers during the recession. (See Table 2.) The
employment of Hispanic workers is fairly quickly returning to its level at the start of the
recession. Some might regard this as surprising because, according to BLS data, one in four
workers in the construction industry were of Hispanic origin in 2006, the last full year before the
recession’s onset. However, Hispanics also comprised over one in five workers in the
accommodation and food services industry in that year. The industry is part of the leisure and
hospitality group which, as shown in Table 1, was one of only three industry groups in which
employment fell during the recession but then rose during the recovery. Additionally, leisure and
hospitality experienced among the lowest rates of job loss during the recession.

19 According to data from the BLS establishment survey, women comprised 59.3% of employment in local government
overall and 68.3% of employment in local government’s education function in 2006, the last full year before the latest
recession began. Also in that year, women were 51.8% of all state government employees.
20 Calculated by CRS from BLS data from the Current Population Survey.
21 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

The lower a worker’s educational attainment, the worse they typically fared between December
2007 and August 2010. As shown in Table 2, employment over the 32-month period decreased by
10.2% among workers without a high school diploma, 6.6% among those with a high school
diploma, 3.2% among those with some college or an associate degree, and by 0.1% among those
with a bachelor’s or advanced diploma. The two educational attainment groups that experienced
job growth thus far in the recovery are workers with some college or an associate degree and
those with a bachelor’s or advanced diploma.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Table 2. Employment Change During the 2007-2009 Recession and the Ensuing Recovery by Gender, Age, Race, Ethnicity,
and Educational Attainment
(numbers in thousands)
Employment Change
During the Recession,
During the Recovery,
Since the Recession’s Start,
Number of Employed Personsa
Dec. 2007-June 2009
June 2009-Aug. 2010
Dec. 2007-Aug. 2010
Characteristic
Dec. 2007 June 2009 Aug. 2010 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Gender
Men 78239
73727
73454
-4512
-5.8
-273
-0.4
-4785
-6.1
Women 67934
66311
65642
-1623
-2.4
-669
-1.0
-2292
-3.4
Age
16-19 5829
4943
4373
-886
-15.2
-570
-11.5
-1456
-25.0
20-24 13722
12745
12838
-977
-7.1
93
0.7
-884
-6.4
25-34 31599
29996
30318
-1603
-5.1
322
1.1
-1281
-4.1
35-44 34072
31706
30584
-2366
-6.9
-1122
-3.5
-3488
-10.2
45-54 34749
33611
33104
-1138
-3.3
-507
-1.5
-1645
-4.7
55 and older 26218
27119
28069
901
3.4
950
3.5
1851
7.1
Race or ethnicity
White 119914
115102
114470
-4812
-4.0
-632
-0.5
-5444
-4.5
Black 15988
15048
14967
-940
-5.9
-81
-0.5
-1021
-6.4
Hispanic 20465
19609
20002
-856
-4.2
393
2.0
-463
-2.3
Educational attainment
Less than high school
11317
10449
10165
-868
-7.7
-284
-2.7
-1152
-10.2
High school or equivalent
36787
34719
34373
-2068
-5.6
-346
-1.0
-2414
-6.6
Some college/AA 34969
33786
33850
-1183
-3.4
64
0.2
-1119
-3.2
Bachelor's or advanced degree
43616
43367
43582
-249
-0.6
215
0.5
-34
-0.1
Source: Created by CRS from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data from the Current Population Survey.
Notes: The survey of households provides data for al workers (including the self-employed, private household workers, and unpaid family workers) in all sectors of the
economy (i.e., farm and nonfarm) aged 16 and older, except for educational attainment data which relate to workers aged 25 and older.
a. Data are subject to revision each January based on updated population controls from the Census Bureau. The population controls are used to weight survey sample
results to reflect the civilian noninstitutional population.

CRS-11

---

Job Growth During the Recovery


Author Contact Information

Linda Levine

Specialist in Labor Economics
llevine@crs.loc.gov, 7-7756


Congressional Research Service
12

---