JANUARY 2004 A M O N T H L Y N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E INDICATORS Texas Unemployment Rate Not Seasonally Adjusted December 2003 5.8% November 2003 6.1% December 2002 5.9% Seasonally Adjusted December 2003 6.4% November 2003 6.3% December 2002 6.5% U.S. Unemployment Rate Not Seasonally Adjusted December 2003 5.4% November 2003 5.6% December 2002 5.7% Seasonally Adjusted December 2003 5.7% November 2003 5.9% December 2002 6.0% Texas Nonagricultural Wage & Salary Employment Not Seasonally Adjusted 9,530,300 OTM Change 11,300 OTY Change 45,100 Seasonally Adjusted 9,464,100 OTM Change -7,500 OTY Change 43,900 Initial Claims for Unemployment Benefits December 2003 91,489 November 2003 80,569 December 2002 98,257 Consumer Price Index (CPI) Annual Change U.S. (Dec.) 1.9% Dallas-Fort Worth (Nov.) 1.3% Houston-Galveston (Dec.) 2.7% IN THIS ISSUE Texas & U.S. Unemployment Rates 2 Nonagricultural Wage & Salary Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) 2 Highlights of the Texas Labor Force 3 County Unemployment Rates 4 City Unemployment Rates 5 Featured Article: Why Are Employment Estimates Revised? 6 Happenings Around the State 7 Nonagricultural Wage & Salary Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted) 8 MSA Nonagricultural Wage & Salary Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted) 10 2004 Labor Market Information Release Dates 12 TEXAS L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W Texas Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) Total Nonagricultural Employment fell by 7,500 jobs in December. However, this decline was smaller than the 26,600 and 16,100-job decreases seen in December 2001 and 2002. Professional and Business Services posted the largest loss, while Education and Health Services added the most jobs. The annual growth rate for Total Nonagricultural Employment ended the year at 0.5 percent, an improvement over the December 2002 rate of 0.1 percent. Following a decrease of 4,500 jobs in November, Professional and Business Services employment fell by an additional 5,400 jobs in December. Though this was the third straight December decline for this industry, it was smaller than the losses posted in December 2001 and 2002. Education and Health Services employment grew for the third consecutive month, gaining 4,600 jobs Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted) Total Nonagricultural Employment in the MSAs rose by 6,400 jobs during December. This marked the largest December increase since 2000 and was an improvement over the 3,900-job decline in December 2002. The Houston MSA led the way with an over-the-month gain of 5,600 jobs, while the Austin-San Marcos MSA posted the largest job loss with a decrease of 2,700 positions. December s employment growth was driven by a seasonal increase in Retail Trade as retailers continued to add staff for the holidays. The MSAs gained 15,500 jobs in this industry, 1,700 more than were added in December 2002. The largest increases in Retail Trade employment were seen in the Dallas and Houston MSAs. Government employment in the MSAs fell by 5,700 jobs in December. The Austin-San Marcos in December. This industry added 29,500 jobs during 2003, the most of any industry group with the exception of Government. Government employment declined by 1,600 jobs in December, marking only the second over-themonth decrease in 2003. Despite this loss, the annual growth rate rose from 1.8 percent in November to 2.1 percent in December, with 33,600 jobs gained over the year. Construction employment ended the year on a positive note by gaining 1,500 jobs in December. This industry added 11,300 jobs during 2003, following declines of 4,800 and 1,800 jobs in 2001 and 2002. The annual growth rate stood at 2.5 percent after having been as low as 2.3 percent during 2002. MSA experienced a decrease of 3,400 State and Local Government jobs, while the Houston MSA posted a decline of 1,100 State Government Education jobs. Employment in Professional and Business Services fell for the second consecutive month in December with a decline of 3,300 positions. The Dallas MSA lost 1,700 jobs, with the majority coming from the Employment Services industry. For the first time since 1999, Construction employment in the MSAs grew during December. Although the increase of 400 jobs was small, it was a marked improvement over the December declines of 5,200 and 3,500 jobs posted in 2001 and 2002. The Houston MSA registered the largest December gain with an addition of 500 Construction jobs. L A B O R M A R K E T & C A R E E R I N F O R M A T I O N D E P A R T M E N T
L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W J ANUARY 2004 Total Nonagricultural Employment in Texas Trends Upward in 2003 (Statewide, Seasonally Adjusted) Construction Shows Signs of Recovery in 2003 (Statewide, Seasonally Adjusted) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0-5,000-10,000-15,000 Over-the-Month Employment Change Annual Growth Rate 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Annual Growth Rate 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% -3.0% Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Jul-03 Oct-03 TEXAS AND U.S. CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES TEXAS* UNITED STATES** Not Seasonally Adjusted CLF Employment Unemp. Rate CLF Employment Unemp. Rate December 2003 11,013,800 10,371,400 642,400 5.8 146,501,000 138,556,000 7,945,000 5.4 November 2003 11,038,600 10,364,200 674,400 6.1 146,969,000 138,700,000 8,269,000 5.6 December 2002 10,783,100 10,145,100 638,000 5.9 144,807,000 136,599,000 8,209,000 5.7 Seasonally Adjusted CLF Employment Unemp. Rate CLF Employment Unemp. Rate December 2003 11,033,000 10,330,100 702,900 6.4 146,878,000 138,479,000 8,398,000 5.7 November 2003 11,032,000 10,333,200 698,800 6.3 147,187,000 138,533,000 8,653,000 5.9 December 2002 10,807,300 10,107,600 699,700 6.5 145,157,000 136,459,000 8,698,000 6.0 Note: Only the actual series estimates for Texas and the U.S. are comparable to sub-state estimates. Current month estimates for Texas are preliminary. All estimates are subject to revision. In seasonally adjusted estimates, all elements of seasonality are factored out to achieve an estimate which reflects the basic underlying trend. *Source - Labor Market Information Department, Texas Workforce Commission (model-based methodology) **Source - Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (Current Population Survey) TEXAS NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED + Nov. '03 to Dec. '03 Dec. '02 to Dec. '03 INDUSTRY TITLE Dec. 2003* Nov. 2003 Dec. 2002 Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Change Change Change Change TOTAL NONAG. W&S EMPLOYMENT 9,464,100 9,471,600 9,420,200-7,500-0.1 43,900 0.5 GOODS PRODUCING Natural Resources & Mining 142,100 142,100 144,100 0 0.0-2,000-1.4 Construction 585,500 584,000 571,100 1,500 0.3 14,400 2.5 Manufacturing 903,400 905,900 929,900-2,500-0.3-26,500-2.8 SERVICE PROVIDING Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 1,939,800 1,941,400 1,956,800-1,600-0.1-17,000-0.9 Financial Activities 587,800 586,300 581,500 1,500 0.3 6,300 1.1 Professional & Business Services 1,045,000 1,050,400 1,045,800-5,400-0.5-800 -0.1 Education & Health Services 1,141,800 1,137,200 1,105,200 4,600 0.4 36,600 3.3 Leisure & Hospitality 858,000 857,200 847,400 800 0.1 10,600 1.3 Government 1,671,400 1,673,000 1,637,800-1,6000-0.1 33,6000 2.1 Note: The number of nonagricultural jobs in Texas is without reference to place of residence of workers. Total Nonagricultural employment is independently seasonally adjusted and employment for the individual sectors is not additive to the total. Seasonally adjusted estimates are not calculated for all industry sectors. *Estimates for the current month are preliminary. All estimates are subject to revision. +All elements of seasonality are factored out to achieve an estimate which reflects the basic underlying trend. 2
J ANUARY 2004 L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W by Bryce Bayles Highlights of the Texas Labor Force (Not Seasonally Adjusted) The Texas jobless rate fell to its lowest level of the year in December, dropping from 6.1 percent in November to 5.8 percent in December. This monthly decrease was consistent with a normal seasonal decline of three-tenths of a percentage point. For the second consecutive month, the rate showed an overthe-year decline a first since 2000. The United States jobless rate slipped from 5.6 percent in November to 5.4 percent in December. December s rate is three-tenths of a percentage point lower than last year s 5.7 percent. The number of jobholders rose by 7,200 over the month, from 10,364,200 in November to 10,371,400 in December. December s gain was the first for the month since 2000; the past two years have averaged losses of 3,300. The gain in employed was aided by a larger increase in seasonal workers this year as compared to last. Since January, employment has risen by 288,700 the largest twelve-month gain since 2000. The number of unemployed decreased for the sixth straight month, falling by 32,000 in December to 642,400 the lowest level for the year. This decline was larger than the average November-to-December seasonal reduction of 26,400. Since July 2003, unemployment has fallen each month by an average of 33,300. However, December s level was still 4,400 higher than last year s level of 638,000. The largest number of job seekers for the year occurred in June when the level reached 842,300. The civilian labor force fell for the sixth consecutive month in December, the longest streak of monthly declines since 1970. Since June, the labor force has fallen by 160,100. These reductions followed a downward trend in the number of job seekers over the period. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose for the first time in four months, from 157,500 in November to 157,700 in December. Eleven of the twenty-seven MSAs registered increases in claims over the month. The Houston MSA had the largest December reduction with 700 fewer claims, while McAllen-Edinburg-Mission registered the largest increase for the second consecutive month with 700 claims. Of the major industries, only Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Public Administration, and Nonclassifiable experienced decreases in claims over the month. Construction posted the largest over-the-month gain with 2,600 claims. Civilian Labor Force Estimates for Texas Metropolitan Statistical Areas (In Thousands) December 2003* November 2003 December 2002 C.L.F. Emp. Unemp. Rate C.L.F. Emp. Unemp. Rate C.L.F. Emp. Unemp. Rate State of Texas 11,013.8 10,371.4 642.4 5.8 11,038.6 10,364.2 674.4 6.1 10,783.1 10,145.1 638.0 5.9 Abilene 61.4 59.1 2.3 3.7 61.3 58.9 2.4 3.9 60.0 57.7 2.3 3.8 Amarillo 117.7 113.9 3.8 3.2 117.7 113.6 4.1 3.5 115.9 111.9 4.0 3.4 Austin-San Marcos 792.0 756.0 36.0 4.5 798.1 759.3 38.8 4.9 772.8 734.4 38.4 5.0 Beaumont-Port Arthur 185.3 169.0 16.3 8.8 184.7 168.2 16.5 8.9 181.3 166.6 14.7 8.1 Brazoria 115.5 106.6 8.9 7.7 116.2 106.8 9.4 8.1 112.4 104.4 8.0 7.2 Brownsville-Harlingen 148.6 132.9 15.7 10.6 147.8 131.9 15.9 10.8 144.4 129.7 14.7 10.2 Bryan-College Station 87.1 85.4 1.7 1.9 87.0 85.2 1.8 2.1 83.7 82.2 1.5 1.7 Corpus Christi 184.4 173.5 10.9 5.9 184.7 173.5 11.2 6.1 179.6 169.7 9.9 5.5 Dallas 2,051.7 1,929.1 122.6 6.0 2,058.6 1,929.3 129.3 6.3 2,030.2 1,900.5 129.7 6.4 El Paso 303.0 278.5 24.5 8.1 304.8 278.6 26.2 8.6 296.7 272.5 24.2 8.2 Fort Worth-Arlington 970.3 918.7 51.6 5.3 973.7 919.5 54.2 5.6 960.2 906.3 53.9 5.6 Galveston-Texas City 123.3 113.9 9.4 7.6 124.0 114.1 9.9 8.0 120.7 112.2 8.5 7.1 Houston 2,347.0 2,207.5 139.5 5.9 2,348.5 2,200.1 148.4 6.3 2,279.5 2,152.9 126.6 5.6 Killeen-Temple 124.0 118.3 5.7 4.6 124.7 118.3 6.4 5.1 122.9 116.6 6.3 5.2 Laredo 84.4 79.0 5.4 6.4 83.7 78.3 5.4 6.4 82.5 77.0 5.5 6.6 Longview-Marshall 107.2 101.3 5.9 5.5 107.8 101.6 6.2 5.7 106.2 99.7 6.5 6.1 Lubbock 134.1 130.0 4.1 3.0 134.7 130.6 4.1 3.0 131.0 127.5 3.5 2.6 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission 234.2 202.9 31.3 13.4 233.6 202.7 30.9 13.2 223.6 192.7 30.9 13.8 Odessa-Midland 127.6 121.5 6.1 4.7 127.5 121.1 6.4 5.0 124.4 117.8 6.6 5.3 San Angelo 52.2 50.4 1.8 3.4 52.1 50.3 1.8 3.5 51.5 49.8 1.7 3.4 San Antonio 843.3 803.2 40.1 4.8 844.7 801.7 43.0 5.1 815.1 775.4 39.7 4.9 Sherman-Denison 52.3 48.7 3.6 6.8 52.3 48.6 3.7 7.1 51.4 48.4 3.0 5.8 Texarkana Data Not Available Data Not Available 57.9 55.1 2.8 4.9 Tyler 98.9 94.3 4.6 4.6 99.5 94.1 5.4 5.4 96.8 92.7 4.1 4.3 Victoria 45.9 43.9 2.0 4.4 46.1 44.0 2.1 4.7 45.3 43.2 2.1 4.6 Waco 108.4 103.7 4.7 4.3 108.4 103.5 4.9 4.5 104.8 100.6 4.2 4.0 Wichita Falls 65.8 63.2 2.6 3.9 65.7 62.9 2.8 4.3 65.1 62.1 3.0 4.6 *Estimates for the current month are preliminary. All estimates are subject to revision. Estimates reflect actual (not seasonally adjusted) data. Civilian Labor Force (C.L.F.) includes wage and salary workers, self-employed, unpaid family, domestics in private households, agricultural workers, workers involved in labor disputes and the unemployed, all by place of residence. Employment and Unemployment data are first rounded then added together to derive the rounded CLF total. Because of this rounding technique, this rounded total of the CLF may not agree with a rounding of the CLF total itself. Percent Unemployed is based upon unrounded Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment numbers. Estimates of the TWC are in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 3
L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W J ANUARY 2004 Employment and Unemployment Estimates for Texas Counties - December 2003 County Emp. Unemp. Rate County Emp. Unemp. Rate County Emp. Unemp. Rate County Emp. Unemp. Rate Anderson 18,078 998 5.2 Donley 1,725 69 3.8 Kaufman 33,377 2,979 8.2 Real 973 32 3.2 Andrews 5,006 274 5.2 Duval 4,291 342 7.4 Kendall 18,412 521 2.8 Red River 4,963 304 5.8 Angelina 35,500 1,963 5.2 Eastland 10,109 360 3.4 Kenedy 211 2 0.9 Reeves 4,613 496 9.7 Aransas 9,671 773 7.4 Ector 59,460 3,617 5.7 Kent 382 12 3.0 Refugio 2,551 111 4.2 Archer 4,365 112 2.5 Edwards 855 32 3.6 Kerr 17,317 590 3.3 Roberts 405 4 1.0 Armstrong 1,113 20 1.8 Ellis 54,654 3,487 6.0 Kimble 2,056 40 1.9 Robertson 6,018 383 6.0 Atascosa 18,058 946 5.0 El Paso 278,489 24,504 8.1 King 214 7 3.2 Rockwall 25,166 1,180 4.5 Austin 15,269 612 3.9 Erath 16,957 432 2.5 Kinney 1,264 94 6.9 Runnels 5,314 158 2.9 Bailey 3,360 158 4.5 Falls 7,932 442 5.3 Kleberg 12,700 758 5.6 Rusk 21,680 1,114 4.9 Bandera 8,985 309 3.3 Fannin 11,623 711 5.8 Knox 1,857 74 3.8 Sabine 3,261 484 12.9 Bastrop 30,878 1,822 5.6 Fayette 11,328 284 2.4 Lamar 19,976 1,380 6.5 San Augustine 3,032 200 6.2 Baylor 1,540 77 4.8 Fisher 1,748 94 5.1 Lamb 6,821 407 5.6 San Jacinto 8,503 484 5.4 Bee 9,707 657 6.3 Floyd 3,073 232 7.0 Lampasas 10,160 378 3.6 San Patricio 28,341 1,942 6.4 Bell 97,494 4,645 4.5 Foard 658 54 7.6 La Salle 2,752 153 5.3 San Saba 2,319 64 2.7 Bexar 694,638 36,067 4.9 Fort Bend 197,375 10,533 5.1 Lavaca 8,500 170 2.0 Schleicher 1,223 40 3.2 Blanco 3,902 146 3.6 Franklin 4,480 134 2.9 Lee 6,929 284 3.9 Scurry 6,180 274 4.2 Borden 346 10 2.8 Freestone 9,139 365 3.8 Leon 6,941 467 6.3 Shackelford 1,634 30 1.8 Bosque 6,282 331 5.0 Frio 5,334 447 7.7 Liberty 29,671 3,376 10.2 Shelby 9,515 652 6.4 Bowie 39,160 2,064 5.0 Gaines 7,024 257 3.5 Limestone 9,389 365 3.7 Sherman 1,564 22 1.4 Brazoria 106,625 8,899 7.7 Galveston 113,943 9,365 7.6 Lipscomb 1,755 52 2.9 Smith 94,335 4,551 4.6 Brazos 85,364 1,674 1.9 Garza 2,329 91 3.8 Live Oak 4,017 119 2.9 Somervell 1,833 232 11.2 Brewster 6,189 163 2.6 Gillespie 11,136 215 1.9 Llano 5,557 296 5.1 Starr 20,834 5,156 19.8 Briscoe 839 32 3.7 Glasscock 639 17 2.6 Loving 51 5 8.9 Stephens 3,869 143 3.6 Brooks 3,333 240 6.7 Goliad 2,618 99 3.6 Lubbock 129,964 4,052 3.0 Sterling 782 25 3.1 Brown 16,457 672 3.9 Gonzales 8,020 388 4.6 Lynn 2,705 106 3.8 Stonewall 757 37 4.7 Burleson 7,992 410 4.9 Gray 8,894 391 4.2 Mc Culloch 3,394 128 3.6 Sutton 2,068 37 1.8 Burnet 17,156 669 3.8 Grayson 48,732 3,568 6.8 Mc Lennan 103,726 4,654 4.3 Swisher 3,484 143 3.9 Caldwell 15,527 1,060 6.4 Gregg 56,882 3,487 5.8 Mc Mullen 267 7 2.6 Tarrant 792,676 44,944 5.4 Calhoun 6,410 642 9.1 Grimes 7,586 607 7.4 Madison 4,416 158 3.5 Taylor 59,087 2,269 3.7 Callahan 6,610 264 3.8 Guadalupe 48,933 1,564 3.1 Marion 3,191 237 6.9 Terrell 760 30 3.8 Cameron 132,937 15,709 10.6 Hale 15,934 835 5.0 Martin 1,541 72 4.5 Terry 4,912 331 6.3 Camp 5,547 332 5.6 Hall 1,704 44 2.5 Mason 1,760 35 1.9 Throckmorton 944 22 2.3 Carson 3,330 91 2.7 Hamilton 4,208 121 2.8 Matagorda 12,491 1,849 12.9 Titus 13,809 658 4.5 Cass 14,078 872 5.8 Hansford 2,394 72 2.9 Maverick 13,927 4,899 26.0 Tom Green 50,448 1,790 3.4 Castro 3,078 141 4.4 Hardeman 1,766 111 5.9 Medina 15,495 904 5.5 Travis 493,873 23,914 4.6 Chambers 12,657 765 5.7 Hardin 21,352 1,876 8.1 Menard 926 37 3.8 Trinity 4,587 277 5.7 Cherokee 19,219 780 3.9 Harris 1,799,905 116,410 6.1 Midland 62,036 2,440 3.8 Tyler 6,502 677 9.4 Childress 2,840 81 2.8 Harrison 27,989 1,465 5.0 Milam 9,170 523 5.4 Upshur 16,427 971 5.6 Clay 5,440 141 2.5 Hartley 3,218 30 0.9 Mills 2,481 44 1.7 Upton 1,329 59 4.3 Cochran 1,450 99 6.4 Haskell 2,546 94 3.6 Mitchell 2,858 119 4.0 Uvalde 10,630 993 8.5 Coke 1,402 32 2.2 Hays 55,569 2,970 5.1 Montague 6,638 363 5.2 Val Verde 19,654 1,543 7.3 Coleman 3,185 202 6.0 Hemphill 2,056 25 1.2 Montgomery 153,222 7,563 4.7 Van Zandt 22,592 911 3.9 Collin 303,500 15,385 4.8 Henderson 28,953 2,154 6.9 Moore 9,595 356 3.6 Victoria 43,864 2,037 4.4 Collingsworth 1,653 59 3.4 Hidalgo 202,851 31,301 13.4 Morris 5,961 517 8.0 Walker 23,148 719 3.0 Colorado 7,850 452 5.4 Hill 15,460 854 5.2 Motley 934 5 0.5 Waller 14,679 887 5.7 Comal 43,174 1,877 4.2 Hockley 9,912 417 4.0 Nacogdoches 25,504 1,296 4.8 Ward 3,144 244 7.2 Comanche 6,998 267 3.7 Hood 18,251 1,184 6.1 Navarro 21,867 1,235 5.3 Washington 15,614 689 4.2 Concho 1,332 30 2.2 Hopkins 14,475 765 5.0 Newton 5,262 666 11.2 Webb 78,980 5,442 6.4 Cooke 15,148 696 4.4 Houston 9,010 496 5.2 Nolan 6,418 311 4.6 Wharton 18,163 1,198 6.2 Coryell 20,798 1,074 4.9 Howard 13,803 528 3.7 Nueces 145,205 8,949 5.8 Wheeler 2,615 57 2.1 Cottle 747 52 6.5 Hudspeth 1,070 101 8.6 Ochiltree 4,550 101 2.2 Wichita 58,808 2,444 4.0 Crane 1,846 101 5.2 Hunt 35,451 2,285 6.1 Oldham 1,281 35 2.7 Wilbarger 7,258 249 3.3 Crockett 1,850 44 2.3 Hutchinson 7,684 523 6.4 Orange 37,064 4,272 10.3 Willacy 4,835 921 16.0 Crosby 2,934 163 5.3 Irion 718 30 4.0 Palo Pinto 10,812 541 4.8 Williamson 160,202 6,274 3.8 Culberson 969 79 7.5 Jack 4,276 106 2.4 Panola 7,266 580 7.4 Wilson 16,433 618 3.6 Dallam 3,450 86 2.4 Jackson 6,766 319 4.5 Parker 44,197 1,853 4.0 Winkler 2,800 210 7.0 Dallas 1,182,813 83,183 6.6 Jasper 13,665 1,699 11.1 Parmer 4,553 126 2.7 Wise 26,873 1,067 3.8 Dawson 4,649 284 5.8 Jeff Davis 1,502 25 1.6 Pecos 6,273 321 4.9 Wood 14,258 723 4.8 Deaf Smith 6,832 326 4.6 Jefferson 110,600 10,178 8.4 Polk 14,283 941 6.2 Yoakum 2,374 106 4.3 Delta 2,631 116 4.2 Jim Hogg 2,287 101 4.2 Potter 53,976 3,049 5.3 Young 7,618 291 3.7 Denton 265,137 11,965 4.3 Jim Wells 15,932 1,270 7.4 Presidio 2,844 733 20.5 Zapata 5,068 405 7.4 De Witt 8,147 390 4.6 Johnson 63,529 3,623 5.4 Rains 3,810 220 5.5 Zavala 4,101 696 14.5 Dickens 849 27 3.1 Jones 9,633 323 3.2 Randall 59,963 778 1.3 Dimmit 3,361 444 11.7 Karnes 5,280 259 4.7 Reagan 1,579 42 2.6 Estimates reflect actual (not seasonally adjusted) data. Estimates are preliminary and subject to revision. To obtain the civilian labor force, add total employment to total unemployment. Estimates of the TWC are in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 4
J ANUARY 2004 L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W Employment and Unemployment Estimates for Texas Cities - December 2003 City Emp Unemp Rate City Emp Unemp Rate City Emp Unemp Rate City Emp Unemp Rate Abilene 52,181 2,105 3.9 Deer Park 17,848 866 4.6 Kirby 5,313 318 5.6 Quanah 1,100 80 6.8 Addison 7,860 414 5.0 Del Rio 16,253 1,336 7.6 Knox City 541 21 3.7 Rankin 300 18 5.7 Alamo 2,711 281 9.4 Denison 10,533 862 7.6 Kyle 1,557 127 7.5 Raymondville 2,410 491 16.9 Alamo Heights 4,394 115 2.6 Denton 58,963 3,909 6.2 La Joya 1,181 291 19.8 Rendon 4,931 229 4.4 Albany 930 17 1.8 Diboll 1,705 192 10.1 La Marque 6,789 813 10.7 Richardson 55,503 2,614 4.5 Aldine 6,239 487 7.2 Dickinson 4,963 495 9.1 La Porte 17,825 853 4.6 Richland Hills 5,068 202 3.8 Alice 8,416 661 7.3 Donna 6,141 1,255 17.0 Lago Vista 1,571 85 5.1 Richmond 7,645 868 10.2 Allen 20,960 975 4.4 Dripping Springs 846 24 2.8 Lake Jackson 14,204 747 5.0 Rio Grande City 5,823 1,070 15.5 Alton 1,498 274 15.5 Dumas 6,996 266 3.7 Lakeway 3,020 76 2.5 River Oaks 3,729 286 7.1 Alvarado 1,631 51 3.0 Duncanville 23,362 1,173 4.8 Lamesa 3,432 254 6.9 Roanoke 1,490 67 4.3 Alvin 11,184 829 6.9 Eagle Pass 8,275 2,563 23.6 Lampasas 4,400 216 4.7 Robert Lee 526 12 2.2 Amarillo 94,803 3,454 3.5 Edcouch 1,233 343 21.8 Lancaster 13,729 821 5.6 Robinson 4,574 91 2.0 Anderson Mill 11,271 491 4.2 Edinburg 17,770 2,389 11.9 Laredo 74,036 4,951 6.3 Robstown 4,684 436 8.5 Andrews 3,686 212 5.4 El Campo 4,631 350 7.0 League City 18,409 649 3.4 Rockdale 1,905 103 5.1 Angleton 9,912 846 7.9 El Paso 251,167 21,111 7.8 Leander 3,722 92 2.4 Rockwall 10,301 623 5.7 Anson 1,399 72 4.9 Eldorado 768 33 4.1 Leon Valley 6,734 225 3.2 Rosenberg 16,510 1,119 6.3 Arlington 193,657 9,539 4.7 Electra 1,327 62 4.5 Levelland 5,797 232 3.8 Round Rock 36,579 1,324 3.5 Athens 5,744 439 7.1 Elgin 3,421 279 7.5 Lewisville 47,266 1,896 3.9 Rowlett 16,788 557 3.2 Atlanta 3,069 152 4.7 Elsa 2,590 372 12.6 Liberty 4,330 771 15.1 Saginaw 5,715 441 7.2 Austin 399,355 20,650 4.9 Ennis 8,308 604 6.8 Linden 1,094 58 5.0 San Angelo 42,708 1,620 3.7 Azle 5,882 324 5.2 Euless 30,602 1,233 3.9 Littlefield 2,912 181 5.9 San Antonio 544,548 30,837 5.4 Balch Springs 10,483 599 5.4 Everman 3,488 337 8.8 Live Oak 7,041 194 2.7 San Benito 10,149 1,260 11.0 Bastrop 3,088 276 8.2 Fabens 2,080 268 11.4 Llano 1,780 122 6.4 San Juan 5,798 821 12.4 Bay City 6,292 943 13.0 Fairfield 1,823 53 2.8 Lockhart 5,179 418 7.5 San Marcos 23,221 1,833 7.3 Baytown 35,864 2,676 6.9 Falfurrias 2,242 85 3.7 Longview 38,505 2,432 5.9 Santa Fe 4,560 278 5.7 Beaumont 54,535 4,852 8.2 Farmers Branch 16,318 974 5.6 Lubbock 109,772 3,443 3.0 Schertz 8,311 260 3.0 Bedford 34,950 1,192 3.3 First Colony 16,257 404 2.4 Lufkin 15,634 821 5.0 Seabrook 5,585 245 4.2 Beeville 5,330 425 7.4 Flower Mound 14,402 542 3.6 Lumberton 4,033 214 5.0 Seagoville 4,659 370 7.4 Bellaire 10,216 245 2.3 Forest Hill 7,143 427 5.6 Mc Allen 52,533 5,551 9.6 Seguin 12,488 556 4.3 Bellmead 4,346 165 3.7 Fort Stockton 3,691 215 5.5 Mc Gregor 2,421 94 3.7 Seminole 3,493 92 2.6 Belton 6,741 312 4.4 Fort Worth 273,911 20,813 7.1 Mc Kinney 20,201 1,832 8.3 Sherman 16,418 1,327 7.5 Benbrook 14,134 501 3.4 Fredericksburg 4,134 81 1.9 Mansfield 10,102 518 4.9 Silsbee 3,162 326 9.3 Bertram 594 40 6.3 Freeport 5,535 907 14.1 Marble Falls 3,415 94 2.7 Sinton 2,337 193 7.6 Big Lake 1,228 39 3.1 Friendswood 14,587 571 3.8 Marlin 2,801 205 6.8 Smithville 2,189 147 6.3 Big Spring 9,444 406 4.1 Frisco 6,691 406 5.7 Marshall 11,066 587 5.0 Snyder 4,132 199 4.6 Blanco 738 37 4.8 Gainesville 6,509 355 5.2 Marshall Creek 240 18 7.0 Socorro 9,591 1,435 13.0 Boerne 4,964 157 3.1 Galena Park 4,999 392 7.3 Mason 968 34 3.4 Sonora 1,377 23 1.6 Bonham 2,746 233 7.8 Galveston 29,596 3,221 9.8 Mathis 1,985 238 10.7 South Houston 7,552 586 7.2 Borger 4,715 376 7.4 Garland 120,810 6,508 5.1 Memphis 1,043 33 3.1 South Padre Island 1,396 49 3.4 Bowie 1,849 114 5.8 Gatesville 3,353 151 4.3 Menard 636 37 5.5 Southlake 5,141 152 2.9 Brady 2,119 91 4.1 Georgetown 15,228 731 4.6 Mercedes 6,073 1,182 16.3 Spring 22,543 916 3.9 Breckenridge 2,496 74 2.9 Gladewater 2,839 228 7.4 Merkel 1,206 69 5.4 Stafford 7,814 415 5.0 Brenham 6,690 346 4.9 Glen Rose 516 118 18.6 Mertzon 320 12 3.6 Stamford 1,988 79 3.8 Bridge City 3,748 389 9.4 Graham 3,772 147 3.8 Mesquite 66,863 3,481 4.9 Stanton 795 44 5.2 Bridgeport 2,462 102 4.0 Granbury 2,560 118 4.4 Mexia 2,993 131 4.2 Stephenville 8,307 257 3.0 Brownsville 49,113 6,823 12.2 Grand Prairie 63,409 4,113 6.1 Midland 52,313 2,035 3.7 Sterling City 583 25 4.1 Brownwood 8,387 404 4.6 Grapevine 22,107 658 2.9 Midlothian 3,355 217 6.1 Sugar Land 22,309 979 4.2 Bryan 40,509 806 2.0 Greenville 12,603 807 6.0 Mineral Wells 6,070 379 5.9 Sulphur Springs 6,897 441 6.0 Buda 1,609 55 3.3 Gregory 1,276 97 7.1 Mission Bend 20,543 784 3.7 Sweetwater 4,535 250 5.2 Burkburnett 5,195 255 4.7 Groesbeck 1,397 58 4.0 Mission 14,713 1,877 11.3 Taylor 10,818 745 6.4 Burleson 10,925 610 5.3 Groves 7,487 408 5.2 Missouri City 34,190 1,170 3.3 Temple 28,688 993 3.3 Cameron 2,157 158 6.8 Haltom City 21,457 1,186 5.2 Monahans 1,958 158 7.5 Terrell 7,142 945 11.7 Canyon 7,378 118 1.6 Hamlin 1,555 51 3.2 Mount Pleasant 7,050 234 3.2 Texarkana 14,354 907 5.9 Canyon Lake 7,863 475 5.7 Harker Heights 6,956 203 2.8 Mount Vernon 1,187 52 4.2 Texas City 20,140 1,965 8.9 Carrollton 72,542 2,869 3.8 Harlingen 28,215 2,320 7.6 Nacogdoches 14,323 853 5.6 The Colony 20,115 970 4.6 Carthage 2,138 172 7.4 Haskell 1,136 53 4.5 Navasota 2,727 178 6.1 The Woodlands 25,361 752 2.9 Cedar Hill 12,736 502 3.8 Haslet 597 22 3.6 Nederland 8,610 361 4.0 Throckmorton 520 15 2.8 Cedar Park 5,750 316 5.2 Henderson 5,609 271 4.6 New Braunfels 21,866 930 4.1 Tomball 3,690 156 4.1 Channelview 15,157 997 6.2 Henrietta 1,559 52 3.2 Nocona 1,097 57 4.9 Trophy Club 3,778 120 3.1 Clarksville 1,515 116 7.1 Hereford 5,158 306 5.6 N Richland Hills 33,757 1,445 4.1 Tyler 46,806 2,683 5.4 Cleburne 13,013 1,016 7.2 Hewitt 6,274 91 1.4 Odessa 45,696 2,731 5.6 Universal City 8,197 292 3.4 Clifton 1,275 58 4.4 Hidalgo 1,439 173 10.7 Olney 1,242 55 4.2 University Park 13,150 396 2.9 Cloverleaf 11,090 830 7.0 Highland Park 4,726 113 2.3 Orange 8,115 999 11.0 Uvalde 6,479 707 9.8 Clute 5,287 404 7.1 Highland Village 6,415 235 3.5 Ozona 1,476 39 2.6 Vernon 5,524 203 3.5 Clyde 1,714 53 3.0 Hillsboro 3,706 261 6.6 Paducah 574 50 8.0 Victoria 32,528 1,605 4.7 Coleman 1,706 148 8.0 Houston 1,033,619 80,398 7.2 Paint Rock 125 2 1.6 Vidor 5,079 475 8.6 College Station 33,961 702 2.0 Humble 8,459 399 4.5 Palacios 1,312 340 20.6 Waco 52,098 3,092 5.6 Colleyville 8,835 265 2.9 Huntsville 12,432 457 3.5 Palestine 8,361 475 5.4 Waller 921 37 3.9 Columbus 1,372 69 4.8 Hurst 24,230 1,304 5.1 Pampa 7,422 317 4.1 Watauga 14,035 441 3.0 Commerce 3,463 343 9.0 Iowa Park 3,098 115 3.6 Paris 10,553 817 7.2 Waxahachie 11,065 882 7.4 Conroe 23,091 1,207 5.0 Irving 112,342 6,493 5.5 Pasadena 70,889 4,917 6.5 Weatherford 9,398 369 3.8 Converse 5,778 208 3.5 Jacinto City 4,560 552 10.8 Pearland 12,350 610 4.7 Webster 3,798 101 2.6 Cooper 1,025 89 8.0 Jacksonville 5,950 281 4.5 Pearsall 2,621 297 10.2 Wells Branch 7,991 176 2.2 Coppell 12,168 296 2.4 Jasper 3,202 295 8.4 Pecan Grove 8,757 268 3.0 Weslaco 11,421 2,257 16.5 Copperas Cove 10,327 592 5.4 Johnson City 556 32 5.4 Pecos 3,559 444 11.1 West Odessa 7,624 476 5.9 Corpus Christi 130,567 7,981 5.8 Jonestown 1,015 73 6.7 Perryton 3,787 91 2.3 West University Pl 8,515 124 1.4 Corsicana 12,558 763 5.7 Junction 1,245 32 2.5 Pflugerville 4,001 103 2.5 Wharton 3,792 354 8.5 Cotulla 1,929 105 5.2 Katy 5,096 180 3.4 Pharr 15,665 2,961 15.9 White Settlement 9,318 529 5.4 Crane 1,418 82 5.5 Keller 9,705 270 2.7 Plainview 10,184 512 4.8 Wichita Falls 45,438 1,932 4.1 Crockett 3,045 220 6.7 Kennedale 2,719 90 3.2 Plano 149,667 6,467 4.1 Wink 419 18 4.1 Crowley 4,607 254 5.2 Kermit 2,156 178 7.6 Pleasanton 4,472 245 5.2 Woodway 5,759 65 1.1 Cuero 2,715 160 5.6 Kerrville 7,754 303 3.8 Port Arthur 23,083 3,547 13.3 Wylie 9,074 533 5.5 Dalhart 4,437 92 2.0 Kilgore 6,006 345 5.4 Port Isabel 2,773 207 6.9 Yoakum 2,476 87 3.4 Dallas 649,853 53,627 7.6 Killeen 28,014 2,209 7.3 Port Lavaca 3,608 456 11.2 Daingerfield 1,124 107 8.7 Kingsville 10,748 652 5.7 Port Neches 6,670 432 6.1 De Soto 20,962 941 4.3 Kingwood 23,643 512 2.1 Portland 7,341 278 3.6 Estimates reflect actual (not seasonally adjusted) data. Estimates are preliminary and subject to revision. To obtain the civilian labor force, add total employment to total unemployment. Estimates of the TWC are in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 5
L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W J ANUARY 2004 Why Are Employment Estimates Revised? by Mark Dermit Each year, the Labor Market and Career Information Department (LMCI) of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) releases revised employment estimates for the state and each of its 27 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for the preceding two years. Not surprisingly, following the release of these new employment figures, the question arises, Why did you change the data? Sometimes this is followed by questions concerning the accuracy of sample survey-based estimates in general. While these questions are not always easy to answer, an understanding of the process and need for revising employment figures will enable users to more accurately interpret and use the data. In this article, we will cover several aspects of the revision process, also known as benchmarking, that should lend clarity to why the data that we produce undergoes regular revisions. Understanding the process The process that the LMCI department uses to develop and publish current employment estimates for Texas is not a self-derived methodology. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, administers several programs that produce employment, unemployment, and wage statistics. These programs have been tested and validated to ensure that they conform to established statistical processes. Since developing estimates for all states would be very time consuming, the Bureau contracts with each state to gather and validate data that it uses for national statistics, as well as to develop state-level data using BLS s methodological guidelines. In effect, the BLS pays each state to prepare employment data using a standardized methodology, thereby ensuring that all states data is prepared using comparable methods. Understanding the Estimate To begin, the most important concept to understand is that the employment data released each month by the agency is strictly an estimate derived from a sample of employers from across the state. There are approximately 500,000 employers in the state of Texas, of which about 25,000 supply the LMCI Department with information each month from which non-farm wage and salary employment estimates are generated. Employment estimates are produced for the state as well as the 27 MSAs in the following categories: Natural Gas and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Services; Educational and Health Services, Leisure and Hospitality; Other Services; and Government (which includes federal, state, and local government). This sample-based methodology is the most cost efficient way to measure the entire state or MSA because it would be too costly and time consuming to complete an economic census for each area every month. It simply isn t possible or practical. However, because we only look at a sample, or sub-set of employers in Texas, the process lends itself to sample error, a statistical term used to describe that portion of the estimate that is not realized or covered by the sample. We hope that the sample is representative enough to capture most of the change that occurs within an area or industry, but it won t capture all of it. We try to lessen the magnitude of sample error by researching each area prior to producing employment estimates to verify business openings, closures, or any other significant economic events to ensure we include as much information as possible. While this process provides data users with up-to-date, monthly estimates of employment by area and by industry, a procedure for periodically adjusting these estimates is necessary to bring the estimates back into alignment with actual employment levels. This can only be achieved by comparing the estimates to another data source a process known as benchmarking. Understanding the Benchmark Not only does the BLS prescribe a methodology for developing estimates, it also provides the methodology for revising them. The benchmark is an annual process during which BLS reviews each states employment estimates and compares them to a universal employment count known as the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW formerly known as ES-202, or Covered Employment and Wages). This data comprises the most complete count of employment since it is derived from the quarterly tax records submitted by employers covered by the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (or TUCA). A portion of the quarterly report requires the tabulation of employment for each month of the quarter being filed. Since TUCA covers approximately 98% of employers who do business within the state of Texas, this data provides the most comprehensive count of jobs available. However, even these records are subject to error and must be reviewed and adjusted as warranted. For example, an employer may indicate that they had 100 employees for two months of a quarter but for the third month a 10 was entered instead of 100. Was this a layoff or was it supposed to be 100 and the zero was left off? Or an employer may have indicated 25 employees one month and then 314 the next. Was this a seasonal increase, a new store opening, or should the employment level had been 31 and not 314? After all records have been reviewed and edited, each state uses these records to compute the total employment, by industry, for each area. However, even the QCEW records have one significant drawback. Because they re derived from employer tax records submitted by employers covered under TUCA, it takes several months to process and validate the data (and to complete the review mentioned above.) Therefore, it is not possible to use the QCEW information to develop and publish current estimates. So what does this mean? It means that while we re producing estimates for September, we know what the true employment level was only for March. It will be February of the following year before we will know what the true employment level was for September. Then, and only then, will we able to compare our estimates against the total QCEW employment for September to see how close the estimate was to the true level of employment. In effect, there is a six-to-nine month lag between when a current estimate is made and when the QCEW data for that month is available for comparison. But the states themselves do not determine if an estimate warrants a revision. Each year, the BLS reviews and validates all estimates in consultation with each state and determines through that review what data will be changed. The states must be able to explain large Continued on page 7 6
J ANUARY 2004 L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W Continued from page 6 adjustments or revisions that may be necessary and provide corrective action if there is a significant revision to the data. The states will then incorporate these changes and the benchmarked data will then become the official estimates for the state and areas. The BLS considers revisions that are + or - 2% to be within an acceptable range, however, the goal is always to have as little revision as possible. This year, Texas expects it s overall revision to be 0.6%, well within the acceptable range, but not the 0% revision for which we constantly strive. The chart shows the revisions for Texas over the past several years, the average (mean) revision for all states, as well as a comparison with California, Florida, and New York. Texas Revisions (% Change) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Texas 0.4 0.1 0.4-0.5-0.2 Mean (all States) 0.1 0.1 0.4-0.5-0.6 Range (all States) -1.2:2.5-1.3:1.8-1.1:3.3-2.9:0.9-2.1:2.1 California -0.2 0.0 0.7-0.4-1.2 Florida -0.4-0.6-1.1-0.6-0.3 New York 0.9 0.8 0.2-0.5-0.9 BLS uses March as the benchmark month. Adjustments are made to, and revised estimates emanate from, March. Because March s employment levels may be adjusted, that will affect how April s employment estimates will be re-computed. If April is changed, then May will be affected and so forth. So once March s new employment levels are established through the benchmark, then the estimates for April through December can be recomputed based upon this new level. So, the revision process looks like this: 1. April 2002 March 2003: Estimates for these months are benchmarked against available QCEW data. 2. April 2003 December 2003: Employment estimates for these months are re-calculated based on changes to the March 2003 levels. 3. Next year, April 2003 - December 2003 estimates will potentially be changed again as QCEW data becomes available for comparison. Note: Revised employment estimates are released beginning in March of each year. Other Data Affected Up until now, we have discussed revisions to the monthly non-farm wage and salary employment estimates. But the revision process does not stop there. The non-farm employment estimates, such as those for the Dallas, Houston, Waco, or Corpus Christi metropolitan areas, are also used in the computation of the unemployment rate. When the non-farm employment estimates are revised through the benchmark process, those new estimates must then be incorporated into the program that produces estimates of the labor force (number of people living in the area who are either employed or unemployed). This program, known as the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program, incorporates these changes as well as updated claims for unemployment benefits and other statistical components to generate new estimates of the civilian labor force. However, the size of the revision may or may not have an impact on an area s unemployment rate since other factors are also used in the development of these estimates. In Review The Texas LMCI Department regularly receives praise from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the accuracy of its employment estimates. It is important for users of employment estimates to remember that because these are estimates and do not represent a complete census of employment activity, a regular revision process is both necessary and beneficial. Because each state produces and revises employment estimates using the same methodology in accordance with strict BLS guidelines, employment data is comparable across all states. Through sample surveys and other data our economists constantly strive to produce the best estimates to describe the current state of the labor market in Texas. Central to this effort is the revision or benchmarking process. Using this process ensures that our customers are provided with the most accurate data available. This is a very abbreviated description of the benchmark and revision process. A more detailed paper will be available soon on our website at. Additional information can also be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website at http://stat.bls.gov/sae/ 790over.htm#intro. HAPPENINGS AROUND THE STATE Texas Counties Rank High in Employment and Wage Growth WASHINGTON, D.C. (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Williamson County in Texas ranked fourth nationally in average weekly wage growth from June 2002 to June 2003, growing by 6.6 percent. The average growth of 315 of the nation s largest counties was 2.2 percent. Williamson County also ranked fourth in actual average weekly wage growth of $46 over the year, compared to the national average county growth of $15. Hidalgo County finished ninth based on percent change among the nation s largest counties with a June-to-June growth rate of 3.6 percent. The average county growth rate dropped 0.5 percent during the same period. Harris County ranked fourth and Dallas County ranked sixth in large county employment growth in the nation. Exxon Mobil Plans $600M Natural Gas Facility CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Dallas Business Journal) Exxon Mobil Corp. says affiliate Vista del Sol LNG Terminal LP, plans to build a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in the Corpus Christi metropolitan area. The facility, located two miles west of Ingleside in San Patricio County, will take nearly three years to build and could involve roughly 600 workers during peak construction periods, according to the Irving-based oil and gas company. The facility will process LNG for distribution through Texas and the United States and is expected to have a processing capacity of one billion cubic feet per day, according to Exxon-Mobil. The project has garnered support from the Port of Corpus Christi board of commissioners. Oil Rig Count Up HOUSTON, TX (Houston Business Journal) Houston-based Baker Hughes Inc. reports that the number of U.S. oil and gas rigs in use rose 18 percent in mid-january compared to the same time last year. For the week ending January 16 th, there were 1,127 rigs in use compared to 845 last year. 7
L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W J ANUARY 2004 Texas Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted) 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% Annual Growth Rates Jan-91 Jul-91 Jan-92 Jul-92 Jan-93 Jul-93 Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97 Jan-98 Jul-98 Jan-99 Jul-99 Jan-00 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Nov '03 to Dec '03 Dec '02 to Dec '03 Dec '03* Nov '03 Dec '02 Change % Change Change % Change TOTAL NONFARM 9,530,300 9,519,000 9,485,200 11,300 0.1% 45,100 0.5% TOTAL PRIVATE (total nonfarm less government) 7,835,500 7,817,600 7,824,800 17,900 0.2% 10,700 0.1% GOODS PRODUCING 1,629,100 1,631,700 1,643,400-2,600-0.2% -14,300-0.9% Natural Resources and Mining (NAICS 1133 [logging], NAICS 21) 142,500 142,100 144,500 400 0.3% -2,000-1.4% Mining (NAICS 21) 140,200 139,800 142,300 400 0.3% -2,100-1.5% Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211) 64,300 64,000 63,800 300 0.5% 500 0.8% Support Activities for Mining (NAICS 213) 67,400 67,300 68,600 100 0.1% -1,200-1.7% Construction (NAICS 23) 580,600 581,400 566,200-800 -0.1% 14,400 2.5% Construction of Buildings (NAICS 236) 148,600 148,400 145,600 200 0.1% 3,000 2.1% Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction (NAICS 237) 99,000 99,400 96,000-400 -0.4% 3,000 3.1% Specialty Trade Contractors (NAICS 238) 333,000 333,600 324,600-600 -0.2% 8,400 2.6% Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) 906,000 908,200 932,700-2,200-0.2% -26,700-2.9% Durable Goods 559,400 560,100 575,400-700 -0.1% -16,000-2.8% Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321) 27,400 27,400 27,800 0 0.0% -400-1.4% Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing (NAICS 327) 43,200 43,500 44,200-300 -0.7% -1,000-2.3% Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS 331) 24,600 24,800 25,200-200 -0.8% -600-2.4% Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332) 106,200 106,700 109,100-500 -0.5% -2,900-2.7% Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) 79,700 79,600 81,700 100 0.1% -2,000-2.4% Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing (NAICS 334) 113,900 113,700 122,800 200 0.2% -8,900-7.2% Electric Equipment, Appliance, and Component Mfg (NAICS 335) 19,700 19,400 18,800 300 1.5% 900 4.8% Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) 78,900 79,300 79,100-400 -0.5% -200-0.3% Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing (NAICS 337) 32,200 32,100 31,600 100 0.3% 600 1.9% Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339) 33,600 33,600 35,100 0 0.0% -1,500-4.3% Nondurable Goods 346,600 348,100 357,300-1,500-0.4% -10,700-3.0% Food Manufacturing (NAICS 311) 96,500 96,000 94,700 500 0.5% 1,800 1.9% Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing (NAICS 312) 10,800 11,000 11,100-200 -1.8% -300-2.7% Paper Manufacturing (NAICS 322) 24,000 23,700 25,700 300 1.3% -1,700-6.6% Printing and Related Support Manufacturing (NAICS 323) 39,700 39,600 40,400 100 0.3% -700-1.7% Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324) 24,100 23,900 24,500 200 0.8% -400-1.6% Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 77,500 77,700 78,200-200 -0.3% -700-0.9% Plastics and Rubber Manufacturing (NAICS 326) 47,300 47,500 47,300-200 -0.4% 0 0.0% 20,000 Over-the-Month Change 15,000 10,000 5,000 0-5,000-10,000 Natural Resources and Mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Financial Activities Professional and Business Services Educational and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality Other Services Government *Estimates for the current month are preliminary. All estimates are subject to revision. The number of nonagricultural jobs in Texas is without reference to place of residence of workers. Estimates of the TWC are in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 8
J ANUARY 2004 L A B O R M A R K E T R E V I E W Texas Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment cont. (Not Seasonally Adjusted) Nov '03 to Dec '03 Dec '02 to Dec '03 Dec '03* Nov '03 Dec '02 Change % Change Change % Change SERVICE PROVIDING 7,901,200 7,887,300 7,841,800 13,900 0.2% 59,400 0.8% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (NAICS 42,44,45,48,49,22) 1,990,200 1,970,500 2,008,600 19,700 1.0% -18,400-0.9% Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42) 460,900 460,200 462,300 700 0.2% -1,400-0.3% Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods (NAICS 423) 262,100 261,500 266,400 600 0.2% -4,300-1.6% Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (NAICS 424) 153,500 153,000 152,400 500 0.3% 1,100 0.7% Retail Trade (NAICS 44-45) 1,151,600 1,134,000 1,158,300 17,600 1.6% -6,700-0.6% Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers (NAICS 441) 153,900 154,100 153,200-200 -0.1% 700 0.5% Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores (NAICS 442) 43,600 42,500 43,500 1,100 2.6% 100 0.2% Electronics and Appliance Stores (NAICS 443) 46,000 45,400 45,600 600 1.3% 400 0.9% Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies (NAICS 444) 85,800 85,000 82,700 800 0.9% 3,100 3.7% Food and Beverage Stores (NAICS 445) 201,800 200,800 202,900 1,000 0.5% -1,100-0.5% Gasoline Stations (NAICS 447) 70,800 70,700 69,600 100 0.1% 1,200 1.7% Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores (NAICS 448) 108,700 102,600 108,100 6,100 5.9% 600 0.6% Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores (NAICS 451) 44,000 41,600 44,800 2,400 5.8% -800-1.8% General Merchandise Stores (NAICS 452) 248,800 244,700 260,200 4,100 1.7% -11,400-4.4% Miscellaneous Store Retailers (NAICS 453) 66,200 64,900 66,600 1,300 2.0% -400-0.6% Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities (NAICS 48-49,22) 377,700 376,300 388,000 1,400 0.4% -10,300-2.7% Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48,49) 326,500 324,900 336,100 1,600 0.5% -9,600-2.9% Air Transportation (NAICS 481) 65,300 65,300 71,000 0 0.0% -5,700-8.0% Rail Transportation (NAICS 482) 14,600 14,600 14,700 0 0.0% -100-0.7% Truck Transportation (NAICS 484) 102,000 101,800 102,200 200 0.2% -200-0.2% Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) 14,500 14,600 15,000-100 -0.7% -500-3.3% Support Activities for Transportation (NAICS 488) 56,200 55,200 56,700 1,000 1.8% -500-0.9% Couriers and Messengers (NAICS 492) 36,600 36,200 36,700 400 1.1% -100-0.3% Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493) 21,200 21,200 21,900 0 0.0% -700-3.2% Utilities (NAICS 22) 51,200 51,400 51,900-200 -0.4% -700-1.3% Information (NAICS 51) 230,500 230,300 241,900 200 0.1% -11,400-4.7% Publishing Industries (Except Internet) (NAICS 511) 50,100 50,200 51,600-100 -0.2% -1,500-2.9% Telecommunications (NAICS 517) 95,100 96,100 105,200-1,000-1.0% -10,100-9.6% Internet Service Providers, Web Search Portals (NAICS 518) 37,900 38,000 38,800-100 -0.3% -900-2.3% Financial Activities (NAICS 52,53) 589,000 586,900 582,900 2,100 0.4% 6,100 1.0% Finance and Insurance (NAICS 52) 417,800 416,600 411,800 1,200 0.3% 6,000 1.5% Credit Intermediation and Related Activities (NAICS 522) 205,600 205,100 201,600 500 0.2% 4,000 2.0% Insurance Carriers and Related Activities (NAICS 524) 161,600 161,300 161,200 300 0.2% 400 0.2% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (NAICS 53) 171,200 170,300 171,100 900 0.5% 100 0.1% Real Estate (NAICS 531) 109,400 108,800 110,300 600 0.6% -900-0.8% Rental and Leasing Services (NAICS 532) 57,800 57,500 58,400 300 0.5% -600-1.0% Professional and Business Services (NAICS 54,55,56) 1,050,200 1,052,500 1,050,600-2,300-0.2% -400 0.0% Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS 54) 442,200 441,200 449,400 1,000 0.2% -7,200-1.6% Management of Companies and Enterprises (NAICS 55) 35,800 35,700 36,800 100 0.3% -1,000-2.7% Admin and Support and Waste Mgmt and Remediation (NAICS 56) 572,200 575,600 564,400-3,400-0.6% 7,800 1.4% Administrative and Support Services (NAICS 561) 547,400 550,900 541,000-3,500-0.6% 6,400 1.2% Educational and Health Services (NAICS 61,62) 1,146,100 1,144,900 1,109,500 1,200 0.1% 36,600 3.3% Educational Services (NAICS 61) 141,600 142,500 138,400-900 -0.6% 3,200 2.3% Health Care and Social Assistance (NAICS 62) 1,004,500 1,002,400 971,100 2,100 0.2% 33,400 3.4% Ambulatory Health Care Services (NAICS 621) 428,700 426,500 410,900 2,200 0.5% 17,800 4.3% Hospitals (NAICS 622) 259,900 259,400 252,400 500 0.2% 7,500 3.0% Nursing and Residential Care Facilities (NAICS 623) 148,800 149,300 146,500-500 -0.3% 2,300 1.6% Social Assistance (NAICS 624) 167,100 167,200 161,300-100 -0.1% 5,800 3.6% Leisure and Hospitality (NAICS 71,72) 842,400 842,900 832,100-500 -0.1% 10,300 1.2% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (NAICS 71) 91,800 93,300 91,400-1,500-1.6% 400 0.4% Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72) 750,600 749,600 740,700 1,000 0.1% 9,900 1.3% Accommodation (NAICS 721) 87,700 87,900 87,300-200 -0.2% 400 0.5% Food Services and Drinking Places (NAICS 722) 662,900 661,700 653,400 1,200 0.2% 9,500 1.5% Other Services (NAICS 81) 358,000 357,900 355,800 100 0.0% 2,200 0.6% Repair and Maintenance (NAICS 811) 104,200 104,200 103,400 0 0.0% 800 0.8% Personal and Laundry Services (NAICS 812) 88,500 88,500 92,300 0 0.0% -3,800-4.1% Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Prof Organizations (NAICS 813) 165,300 165,200 160,100 100 0.1% 5,200 3.2% Government (defined by ownerships 1,2,3) 1,694,800 1,701,400 1,660,400-6,600-0.4% 34,400 2.1% Federal Government 175,600 175,300 177,900 300 0.2% -2,300-1.3% State Government 353,000 354,900 347,600-1,900-0.5% 5,400 1.6% Local Government 1,166,200 1,171,200 1,134,900-5,000-0.4% 31,300 2.8% *Estimates for the current month are preliminary. All estimates are subject to revision. The number of nonagricultural jobs in Texas is without reference to place of residence of workers. Estimates of the TWC are in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 9