Job Growth During the Recovery
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
February 17, 2011
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. Members of the 112th Congress are
interested in the labor market’s response to these measures to help them decide how well the
legislation has worked and whether additional job creation as well as retraining legislation may be
warranted in light of the pace and composition of job growth since the recession’s official end in
June 2009.
One way to assess the extent and nature of recovery in the labor market is to compare
employment data from the end of the recession 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 between
the recovery’s start in June 2009 and January 2011. (January 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 during the 10 prior recoveries. Data for January 2011 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. Employment data by job and individual characteristics for December 2007,
June 2009, and January 2011 also are analyzed to ascertain how different sectors and
demographic groups have fared during the recession and recovery.
A “jobless recovery” prevailed across employers in the private nonfarm sector until March 2010.
That is to say, after the latest recession’s end in June 2009 the number of jobs generally continued
to fall until nine months into the recovery. The recovery was jobless until October 2010, 16
months into the recovery, across all employers. At that point, net job growth began not because
government employment started to rise but because it fell more slowly while private sector
employment continued to grow. By January 2011, the number of jobs in the private sector had
surpassed its level at the recovery’s start. At the rate that job growth recently has been occurring
at private sector employers, however, it likely will take quite a few years to recoup the almost 7.7
million jobs lost during the recession.
In two of the industry groups hardest hit by the recession—construction and manufacturing—
employment was lower in January 2011 than in June 2009, when the recovery began. Some of the
states with the most depressed housing markets as well as manufacturing-dependent states have
experienced relatively large job losses (Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada,
Ohio). Smaller job losses among women than men during the recession are partly explained by
construction and manufacturing having predominantly male workforces. Further job losses
among women during the recovery compared to a small gain among men are partly explained by
women’s substantial presence in the occupations (e.g., teachers) that account for much of local
and state government workforces. The employment of Hispanic workers is returning fairly
quickly to its level at the recession’s start, despite the ethnic group’s employment concentration in
the hard-hit construction industry. Hispanic employment also is concentrated in the leisure and
hospitality industry group which, as of January 2011, had recouped over 96% of jobs lost during
the recession. Workers with at least a bachelor’s degree fared better than less educated workers
during the recession and recovery, having regained all their job losses by late 2010.

Congressional Research Service

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

Contents
Slow Job Growth Overall, Led by the Private Sector ................................................................... 1
Industry Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain ............................................................................. 7
Individual Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain .......................................................................... 9

Figures
Figure 1. Employment Trend During the December 2007-June 2009 Recession
and Subsequent Recovery ........................................................................................................ 3

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. Members of the 112th Congress nonetheless remain interested in the labor market’s
response to these measures to help them decide how well the legislation has worked and whether
additional job creation as well as retraining legislation may be warranted in light of the pace and
composition of job growth since the recession’s official end in June 2009. This report provides a
snapshot of the current situation in the labor market to better inform policymakers with regard to
further assisting groups such as workers laid off from industries that may have permanently
downsized employment.
One way to assess the extent and nature of the recovery in the labor market is to compare
employment data from the recession’s end (i.e., the trough of the business cycle) 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 in June 2009, to January 2011 (the latest month for which data were
available at the time of the report’s preparation). To provide historical context, the timing and
strength of job growth during the current recovery is compared to the prior 10 recoveries. Data
for January 2011 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). Lastly,
employment data by job and individual characteristics for December 2007, June 2009, and
January 2011 also are analyzed to ascertain how different sectors and demographic groups have
fared during the recession and recovery.
Slow Job Growth Overall, Led by 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.3 Initially, some had hoped that the
deep 2007-2009 recession would not be followed by a “jobless recovery” such as occurred after
the two immediately preceding recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001, when employers kept shedding
jobs for a year or more after their end. The hope was instead for a quick and strong rebound such
as occurred after the two severe recessions of 1973-1975 and 1981-1982. Neither these nor the
other U.S. recessions of the postwar period were precipitated by a financial crisis, however. The

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 CRS Report R41578, Unemployment: Issues in the 112th Congress, 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

evidence from other countries that experienced recessions associated with financial crises instead
suggests a slow recovery for the United States.4
A jobless recovery prevailed across employers in the private nonfarm sector until March 2010. As
shown in Figure 1, sustained job growth did not begin until nine months from the latest
recession’s end in June 2009. By January 2011, the number of jobs in the private sector had
surpassed its level at the recovery’s start. However, at the rate that private sector firms recently
have been hiring additional workers, it likely will take quite a few years to recoup the almost 7.7
million jobs lost during the recession.
A jobless recovery prevailed until October 2010, 16 months into the recovery, across all
employers. At that point, net job growth began not because government employment started to
rise but because it fell more slowly while private sector employment continued to grow. As shown
in Figure 1, the number of jobs on all employers’ payrolls fell between June 2009 and March
2010. After briefly rising, it resumed declining through September 2010. The few months of job
growth during early the first half of 2010 was fueled in part by the Census Bureau’s temporarily
hiring workers to help conduct the decennial count of the U.S. population. More recently,
declining employment has occurred chiefly at state and local government levels due to budget
difficulties. (Additional discussion of employment trends in government and other industries
appears later in the report.) Although aggregate employment began to increase after September
2010, only 105,250 net jobs per month were added on average through January 2011—a number
which usually is not sufficiently large to have much, if any, effect on the U.S. unemployment
rate.5

4 For additional information see CRS Report R41332, Economic Recovery: Sustaining U.S. Economic Growth in a
Post-Crisis Economy, by Craig K. Elwell.
5 Because the jobs number and the unemployment rate come from two different surveys, any estimate of the net change
in jobs sufficient to lower or raise the unemployment rate is necessarily imprecise. In addition, the unemployment rate
is affected not only by the number of unemployed workers (the numerator) but also by the number of labor force
participants (the denominator). As the number of persons in the labor force is related in part to the size of the working-
age population, a commonly cited rule-of-thumb is that in order to keep pace with population growth a net increase in
jobs per month of 125,000 is needed to keep the unemployment rate unchanged.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

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 more quickly and strongly during almost all of the prior 10 recoveries of
the postwar period. The exceptions are the two recoveries that immediately preceded the current
one. As noted above, private sector employment began to steadily rise at 9 months into the latest
recovery. In contrast, employment in the private sector did not start a sustained increase until 12
months into the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession, and until 21 months into the recovery
from the 2001 recession. As shown in column 7 of Table 1, employment at private sector firms in
January 2011 was 0.1% above its level at the recovery’s start.6 In contrast, at a point comparable
to January 2011 (19 months from the 2001 recession’s end), job growth had not yet begun.
While total nonfarm employment started to steadily rise earlier (12 months) into the recovery
from the 1990-1991 recession compared to the current recovery (16 months), it began to trend
upward much later (22 months) into the recovery from the 2001 recession. As shown in column 7
of Table 1, overall employment in January 2011 was 0.2% below its level at the recovery’s start.7
In contrast, at 19 months after the 2001 recession’s end, job growth across all employers had not
yet begun and was 0.8% lower than at the jobless recovery’s outset. The less sluggish pace of the
current recovery compared to the recovery from the 2001 recession may be partly related to
differences in the stimulus legislation enacted to mitigate the two recessions.8

6 At a point comparable to January 2011 (19 months into the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession), private sector job
growth was slightly stronger (0.2%) compared to today.
7 At a point comparable to January 2011 (19 months into the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession), job growth
across all nonfarm employers was somewhat stronger (0.5%) compared to today.
8 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

The last two columns of Table 1 show how much employment must increase from its level in
January 2011 to recoup all the jobs lost since the beginning of the latest recession in December
2007. Total nonfarm employment in January 2011 was about 7.5 million jobs below its level 37
months earlier at the latest recession’s start. There were almost 7.7 million fewer jobs at private
sector firms in January 2011 than in December 2007.
In contrast, total and private sector employment at 37 months from the start of all prior postwar
recessions exceeded or more nearly approached their pre-recession levels. For example,
compared with January 2011’s 5.6% shortfall from total nonfarm employment in December 2007,
overall employment at 37 months from the beginning of the 2001 recession was 2.0% below its
level at the recession’s outset. Compared with January 2011’s 6.6% shortfall from private sector
employment in December 2007, private sector employment at 37 months from the beginning of
the 2001 recession was 3.0% below its level at the recession’s outset.
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 immediately after the 2007-2009 recession. (An
increasing productivity growth rate enables businesses to produce the same amount of goods and
services with fewer workers.) 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 and 3.6% in 2010.9
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 recouped and 50 months (until May 2005) before
private sector job losses were recouped. While applying this time frame to the start of the latest
recession in December 2007 suggests that job losses may be fully recouped by early 2012, the
2007-2009 recession having been precipitated by a financial crisis suggests that returning to the
pre-recession level of employment will take longer based on the experiences of other countries.
Some within the public policy community also believe that an increase in offshoring of jobs
historically performed in the United States may be an additional factor that has sapped the
strength of job growth in recent years. 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 to dampen offshoring, a tax provision in the
HIRE Act encourages firms to maintain and expand their U.S. employment as well. However, the
widespread nature of worker displacement during the recession and the fact that the jobs of
workers in the especially hard hit construction industry do not possess characteristics making
them vulnerable to offshoring suggests that offshoring has had a smaller effect than
macroeconomic conditions on the pace of recovery.10


(...continued)
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 R41578, Unemployment: Issues in the 112th Congress, by
Jane G. Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and Marc Labonte.
9 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Productivity and Costs: Fourth Quarter and Annual Averages 2010, Preliminary,
February 3, 2011.
10 For additional information see CRS Report RL32292, Offshoring (or Offshore Outsourcing) and Job Loss Among
U.S. Workers, by Linda Levine.
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,
Number of Jobs
Dec. 2007-June 2009
June 2009-Jan. 2011
Dec. 2007-Jan. 2011
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Industry
Dec. 2007a June
2009a Jan.
2011b
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Al nonfarm industries

137983
130493
130265
-7490
-5.4
-228
-0.2
-7718
-5.6
Al private nonfarm industries

115606
107936
108030
-7670
-6.6
94
0.1
-7576
-6.6
Goods-producing sector
21967
18417
17804
-3550
-16.2
-613
-3.3
-4163
-19.0
Mining and logging

740
686
732
-54
-7.3
46
6.7
-8
-1.1
Construction
7487
6003
5455
-1484
-19.8 -548
-9.1
-2032 -27.1
Manufacturing
13740
11728
11617
-2012
-14.6 -111
-0.1 -2123 -15.5
Private service-providing sector
93639
89519
90226
-4120
-4.4
707
0.8
-3413
-3.6
Wholesale
trade
6038 5580 5490 -458 -7.6
-90 -1.6 -548
-9.1
Retail trade

15581
14533
14471
-1048
-6.7
-62
-0.4
-1110
-7.1
Transportation and warehousing
4556
4223
4229
-333
-7.3
6
0.1
-327
-7.2
Utilities
557
561 549 4
0.7 -12
-2.1
-8 -1.4
Information 3024
2795
2698
-229
-7.6 -97
-3.5
-326
-10.8
Financial activities

8225
7752
7606
-473
-5.8
-146
-1.9
-619
-7.5
Professional and business services
18052
16444
16929
-1608
-8.9
485
2.9
-1123
-6.2
Education and health services
18555
19174
19768
619
3.3
594
3.1
1213
6.5
Leisure and hospitality
13538
13084
13062
-454
-3.4
-22
-0.2
-476
-3.5
Other
services
5514 5374 5424
-140 -2.5
50 0.9 -90 -1.6
Government
22377
22557
22235
180
0.8
-322
-1.4
-142
-0.6
Source: Calculated by CRS from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ establishment survey data.
CRS-5

---

Notes: The establishment survey is asked of a sample of nonfarm employers and covers wage and salary workers on their payrolls.
a. Data for December 2007 and June 2009 differ from previously reported statistics for the two months because near the beginning of each year BLS adjusts the
establishment survey series to take into account more comprehensive information obtained from unemployment insurance tax records filed by almost all employers
with state employment security agencies.
b. Data for January 2011 are preliminary. Initial monthly estimates are revised twice in the immediately succeeding months to incorporate additional information that was
not available at the time of their original publication.
CRS-6

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

Industry Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain
Saying that offshoring may have slowed the pace of U.S. job growth is not the same as saying
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 as certain industries
permanently downsized employment due to 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,
economists disagree about whether displacement during recent recessions has involved an
increase in structural vis-à-vis cyclical unemployment.11
This section of the report analyzes the recent changes in employment by industry shown in Table
1. The two industries that accounted for nearly one of every two jobs lost during the latest
recession have had markedly different experiences during the recovery. Construction firms cut
payrolls by almost 1.5 million jobs, and manufacturers by 2.0 million jobs, out of a total of 7.5
million nonfarm jobs lost between December 2007 and June 2009. (See column 4 in Table 1.)
Both industry groups have continued to shed jobs since then, but manufacturing has been
recovering much faster than construction. Manufacturers lost 111,000 jobs (a 0.9% decrease)
during the first 19 months of the recovery, whereas construction lost 548,000 jobs (a 9.1%
decrease). (See columns 6 and 7 in Table 1.) As a result, one of every four construction jobs and
one of every seven manufacturing jobs at employers in December 2007 no longer existed in
January 2011. Expressed another way, the construction and manufacturing industries must each
gain at least 2.0 million jobs to return to their employment levels at the recession’s outset. (See
the last two columns in 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 262,800 jobs
(29.4%) during the recession and by 74,600 jobs (11.8%) during the recovery thus far, according
to BLS establishment survey data. Similarly, employment at specialty trade contractors in
residential construction fell by 566,800 jobs (26.2%) during the recession and by 147,300 jobs
(9.2%) 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, employment
in the construction industry (i.e., residential and nonresidential building construction, heavy and
civil engineering construction, and specialty trades contractors) dropped by over 50% between
December 2007 and December 2010 (the latest month for which state data are available).
Construction employment in December 2010 was 46% less than at the recession’s start in
Arizona, 41% less in Florida, and 37% less in California.
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.12 The industry’s employment, like that of some other

11 For more information see CRS Report R41179, Long-Term Unemployment and Recessions, by Gerald Mayer and
Linda Levine.
12 For more information see CRS Report R40003, U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

manufacturers (e.g., primary and fabricated metal products producers), has subsequently
increased. After employment at motor vehicle and parts manufacturers fell by 331,600 jobs
(34.7%) between December 2007 and June 2009, it then rose by 71,700 jobs (11.5%).13
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.14 Nonetheless, more than one in four jobs at motor vehicle and parts manufacturers
when the recession started no longer existed 37 months later in January 2011.
Manufacturing-dependent states tend to be especially vulnerable to recessions, 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. 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.15 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).16
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 were 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 2009.17 Unlike the two industries hardest hit
by the recession—construction and manufacturing—employment in professional and business
services was greater in January 2011 than in June 2009. The employment rebound at professional
and business services providers largely was due to a 441,400 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 many of the recession’s job losses occurred. The
decrease of over one 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 (0.4% or 62,000 jobs), as shown in
columns 6 and 7 in Table 1. But, it did so at a fraction of the pace that occurred during the

(...continued)
Restructuring, coordinated by Bill Canis.
13 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
14 CRS Report R40654, Accelerated Vehicle Retirement for Fuel Economy: “Cash for Clunkers,” by Brent D.
Yacobucci and Bill Canis.
15 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
16 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, 9.8% lower; Florida, 8.9% lower; and in California,
7.3% lower.
17 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

recession (6.7% or 1.0 million jobs), as shown in columns 4 and 5 in Table 1. Nonetheless, one of
every 14 jobs at retail establishments in December 2007 no longer existed in January 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 in Table 1).
As the recession was precipitated by a financial crisis whose effects still linger, employment in
the financial activities industry group decreased at a fairly rapid rate. About 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.18 Employment declined by 81,200 (5.8%)
in the real estate industry as the housing market collapsed between December 2007 and June
2009, and by another 25,900 (1.8%) through January 2011 as conditions in the housing market
continued to be a drag on the economy. At 37 months into the recovery, the real estate industry
had 106,800 (7.2%) fewer jobs than at the recession’s outset. Employment at securities brokers,
securities and commodity contracts brokers and exchanges, and other investment firms fell to a
lesser degree (6.0%) between December 2007 and January 2011, as did employment at
commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions (4.5%). In contrast, consumer finance
providers that do not accept deposits (e.g., credit card issuers, automobile financiers) and 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) cut jobs at double-digit
rates between December 2007 and January 2011.
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 slightly higher
(by 36,000 or 1.3%) in January 2011 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 conducting the
decennial population count.19 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 budget 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 of Job Loss and Gain
This section analyzes the recent changes in employment by individual characteristics shown in
Table 2. The employment trends of women and men over the course of a business cycle differ in
part due to their employment distributions by industry. From the start of the latest recession in
December 2007 until January 2011, women lost jobs to a lesser degree than men (3.6% versus
5.8%, respectively, as shown in column 9, 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.20 As shown in
columns 4 and 6 of Table 2, women went from losing fewer jobs than men during the recession

18 Calculated by CRS from BLS establishment survey data.
19 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.
20 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
9

---

Job Growth During the Recovery

(1.7 million and 4.6 million, respectively) to losing additional jobs during the recovery (766,000)
compared to gains among men (111,000). 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.21 As noted earlier, employment in local government 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 columns 4 through 7 of Table 2, persons aged 55 and older enjoyed job growth during
the recession and the recovery. 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. About one in four jobs held by teenagers at the start of the recession no longer
existed in January 2011, as shown in the last column of Table 2. Black teens suffered steeper job
losses than white teens: employment of black 16- to 19-year-olds dropped 37.1% whereas
employment of white teenagers fell 23.6% between December 2007 and January 2011.22
A larger share of black compared to white workers, regardless of age, has lost jobs since
December 2007. As shown in column 5 of Table 2, employment of black workers fell by 5.9%
whereas employment of white workers fell by 4.1% during the recession. Employment of white
workers continued to decline during the recovery, but at a much slower rate (0.8%), whereas
employment of black workers increased slightly (0.1%) as of January 2011. (See column 7 in
Table 2.)
Hispanics, who can be of any race, experienced job growth during the recovery (2.4%) after their
employment fell during the recession (4.1%). (See columns 7 and 5, respectively, in Table 2.) The
employment of Hispanic workers is returning fairly quickly to its level at the recession’s start, as
shown in the last column of Table 2. Some might regard this as surprising because, according to
BLS data from the Current Population Survey, 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 of January
2011, had recouped more than 96% of the jobs lost during the recession. (See column 9, Table 1.)
The lower a worker’s educational attainment, the worse they typically fared between December
2007 and January 2011. As shown in the last column of Table 2, employment over the 37-month
period decreased by 13.8% among workers without a high school diploma, 7.9% among those
with a high school diploma, and 3.1% among those with some college or an associate’s degree. In
contrast, employment among workers with a bachelor’s or advanced diploma in January 2011
exceeded its level at the recession’s outset. The only other educational group that experienced job
growth during the recovery was workers with some college or an associate degree, but the group’s
employment in January 2011 remained below its level at the recession’s outset. (See columns 6
through 9 of Table 2.)

21 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.
22 Calculated by CRS from BLS data from the Current Population Survey.
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 Persons
Dec. 2007-June 2009
June 2009-Jan. 2011
Dec. 2007-Jan. 2011
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Characteristic
Dec. 2007 June 2009 Jan. 2011a
# % # % #
%
Gender
Men 78307
73689
73800
-4618
-5.9
111
0.2
-4507
-5.8
Women 67965
66289
65523
-1676
-2.5
-766
-1.2
-2442
-3.6
Age
16-19 5856
4962
4341
-894
-15.3
-621
-12.5
-1515
-25.9
20-24 13741
12743
12941
-998
-7.3
198
1.6
-800
-5.8
25-34 31619
29986
30438
-1633
-5.2
452
1.5
-1181
-3.7
35-44 34076
31684
30373
-2392
-7.0
-1311
-4.1
-3703
-10.9
45-54 34770
33551
32946
-1219
-3.5
-605
-1.8
-1824
-5.2
55 and older 26240
27090
28268
850
3.2
1178
4.3
2028
7.7
Race or ethnicity
White 119981
115085
114197
-4896
-4.1
-888
-0.8
-5784
-4.8
Black 15993
15036
15048
-957
-6.0
12
0.1
-945
-5.9
Hispanic 20470
19629
20099
-841
-4.1
470
2.4
-371
-1.8
Educational attainment
Less than high school
11329
10375
9770
-954
-8.4
-605
-5.8
-1559
-13.8
High school or equivalent
36876
34727
33972
-2149
-5.8
-755
-2.2
-2904
-7.9
Some college/AA 34969
33817
33878
-1152
-3.3
61
0.2
-1091
-3.1
Bachelor’s or advanced degree
43575
43358
44322
-217
-0.5
964
2.2
747
1.7
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. Each January data are subject to revision based on updated population controls from the Census Bureau that are used to weight survey sample results.

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

---