March 29, 201213 yr It's more interesting when it's statistically valid. The definition at http://ohiolmi.com/laus/laus.html makes clear that "National estimates are based on a monthly survey of approximately 50,000 households. State estimates are time-series model estimates. County estimates are based on a building block method with estimates adjusted to add to state totals. Seasonally adjusted data are available only for the state and the nation." These are estimates of surveys and the survey aren't even of employers. The actual "non-farm wage and salary employment" w-4 filings will provide some valid and useful data, but not for awhile.
March 30, 201213 yr Here is a preliminary indication of manufacturing jobs in March in Cincinnati: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2012/03/cincinnati-manufacturing-rose-in.htm. lOnly the non-farm wage and salary employment will tell.
March 30, 201213 yr Well I appreciate it, jbcmh81. Keep posting away (I'm a data geek)! I fixed that for you! >:D 8) :laugh:
April 12, 201213 yr The official BLS non-farm wage and salary numbers for February 2012 are in. Here they are. Jobs added in February 2012 by metro: Cincinnati +4,100 Columbus +4,700 Cleveland +9,500 And for good measure: Indianapolis +6,500 Pittsburgh +3,500 There they are. These are for MSAs and are unadjusted. These are simply the changes in the total number of current w-4 filings. Thus, if someone got a second job they increase these numbers while they wouldn't increase the "employment" numbers reported by the BLS. These numbers avoid the problems of who counts as unemployed, who works where and for whom and how relative metro population growth or decline affects employment rates. It only counts people where they are officially working for legal purposes and is thus the most statistically reliable measure of metro job markets. Along with metro wage numbers and Metropolitan Domestic Products these numbers give the best snap shots we can get of metro economies.
April 12, 201213 yr There they are. These are for MSAs and are unadjusted. These are simply the changes in the total number of current w-4 filings. Thus, if someone got a second job they increase these numbers while they wouldn't increase the "employment" numbers reported by the BLS. These numbers avoid the problems of who counts as unemployed, who works where and for whom and how relative metro population growth or decline affects employment rates. It only counts people where they are officially working for legal purposes and is thus the most statistically reliable measure of metro job markets. Along with metro wage numbers and Metropolitan Domestic Products these numbers give the best snap shots we can get of metro economies. Where are you getting this? The BLS website's methodology doesn't agree with what you are saying. From their website: "Data based on establishment records are complied each month from mail questionnaires and telephone interviews by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with State agencies. The Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey is designed to provide industry information on nonfarm wage and salary employment, average weekly hours, average hourly earnings, and average weekly earnings for the Nation, States, and metropolitan areas. The employment, hours, and earnings data are based on payroll reports from a sample of over 390,000 establishments employing over 47 million nonfarm wage and salary workers, full or part time, who receive pay during the payroll period which includes the 12th of the month. The household and establishment data complement one another, each providing significant types of information that the other cannot suitably supply. Population characteristics, for example, are obtained only from the household survey, whereas detailed industrial classifications are much more reliably derived from establishment reports." http://www.bls.gov/lau/lauhvse.htm#hvse
April 12, 201213 yr Here is my source. http://www.bls.gov/eag/home.htm. Your definition of the current employment survey is correct. The numbers listed are not the current employment survey. They are actual non-farm wage and salary filings with the IRS as reported by the BLS at http://www.bls.gov/eag/home.htm.
April 12, 201213 yr Your links don't work, but I see where they are supposed to go. The Areas at a Glance features two data series- the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey. Neither of those comes from IRS filings. Both come from surveys, as the methodology I linked to indicates. One surveys households, the other businesses.
April 12, 201213 yr This link worked for me. http://www.bls.gov/eag/home.htm. This description, http://www.bls.gov/sae/ , of these numbers says that "Each month the Current Employment Statistics program surveys about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and about 400 metropolitan areas and divisions." As I understand it, this is based on whose working and how much, not whose filed for unemployment. Thus only legally employed people and their official earnings are included.
April 12, 201213 yr For some reason the at a glance tables don't work if I cut and past them. I don't understand why that would be. Nonetheless, my numbers are from the links I included.
April 12, 201213 yr As I understand it, this is based on whose working and how much, not whose filed for unemployment. Thus only legally employed people and their official earnings are included. You're right about that, but neither is based on who is filed for unemployment, which has become a persistent myth about the Household Survey. From their website, the same page I posted earlier: "Household vs. Unemployment Insurance The unemployed total from the household survey includes all persons who did not have a job during the reference week, were currently available for a job, and were looking for work or were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Figures on unemployment insurance claims, prepared by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, exclude, in addition to otherwise eligible persons who do not file claims for benefits, persons who have exhausted their benefit rights, persons who have been disqualified from receiving benefits, new workers who have not earned rights to unemployment insurance, and persons losing jobs not covered by unemployment insurance systems (some workers in agriculture, domestic services, and religious organizations, and self employed and unpaid family workers). In addition, the qualifications for receiving unemployment compensation differ from the definition of unemployment used in the household survey. For example, persons with a job but not at work and persons working only a few hours during the week are sometimes eligible for unemployment compensation, but are classified as employed rather than unemployed in the household survey." http://www.bls.gov/lau/lauhvse.htm#hvse
April 12, 201213 yr This thread is so confusing. Every new post paints a totally different picture for how the Ohio metros are doing on a comparative basis.
April 12, 201213 yr Its confusing because it isn't as simple or obvious as some would suggest. It's become even harder in recent years as 'new normals' in many areas emerge. Old assumptions and understandings about employment, unemployment, wages, real estate,individual industries, and particular metros increasingly don't apply. The job numbers I've posted support the "new normal" in employment as manufacturing and business services lead growth while the old drivers of finance, real estate, retail, hospitality and customer service, are stagnant or declining. Again, my numbers are from the employment information from employers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Others have posted numbers here whose sources I have never been able to verify. They'll have to explain their own sources and data selection for themselves.
April 13, 201213 yr Just to reiterate. The official BLS non-farm wage and salary numbers for February 2012 are in. Here they are. Jobs added in February 2012 by metro: Cincinnati +4,100 Columbus +4,700 Cleveland +9,500 Indianapolis +6,500 Pittsburgh +3,500 Welcome to the 'new normal'!
April 13, 201213 yr Just to reiterate. The official BLS non-farm wage and salary numbers for February 2012 are in. Here they are. Jobs added in February 2012 by metro: Cincinnati +4,100 Columbus +4,700 Cleveland +9,500 Indianapolis +6,500 Pittsburgh +3,500 Welcome to the 'new normal'! Just reminding you that the new job numbers for MSAa are out.
April 13, 201213 yr Yeah, I agree with ColDayMan as this is interesting info to follow. Do agree that percentages are maybe more valuable for comparison purposes.
April 13, 201213 yr ^ Yes. At the same time, It's clear that Indy & Cleveland were the big winners, even when percentages are taken into account. Cincy & Cbus are a little disappointing, but still good obviously.
April 13, 201213 yr Percentages of what? all population, working age population, working age population not disabled or retired, jobs in the previous month, jobs in the previous year? Jobs since some ohter time. This issue isn't as simple or obvious as some suggest. Two metros with similiar headline numbers may be very different in the internal dynamics of their economies. Like-for-like comparisons like unadjusted job numbers and metropolitan domestic product are a way to get past the fundamental problems with other measures of metro economies.
April 14, 201213 yr Just to reiterate. The official BLS non-farm wage and salary numbers for February 2012 are in. Here they are. Jobs added in February 2012 by metro: Cincinnati +4,100 Columbus +4,700 Cleveland +9,500 Indianapolis +6,500 Pittsburgh +3,500 Welcome to the 'new normal'! Just reminding you that the new job numbers for MSAa are out. They're still preliminary, though, so revisions are likely. I want to wait until they are official before posting February's, something I should've done previously.
April 14, 201213 yr ^ Yes. At the same time, It's clear that Indy & Cleveland were the big winners, even when percentages are taken into account. Cincy & Cbus are a little disappointing, but still good obviously. In terms of %, the preliminary numbers are actually the opposite of what you stated, except for the last month. I'm not going to do all the numbers because it's all unofficial and will likely change, but here's for the 3-Cs and Indy, anyway. February 2007-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Columbus: -0.7% Indianapolis: -1.7% Cincinnati: -4.0% Cleveland: -7.0% February 2011-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Cincinnati: +1.7% Columbus: +1.6% Indianapolis: +1.6% Cleveland: +0.2% January 2012-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Cleveland: +1.0% Indianapolis: +0.7% Columbus: +0.5% Cincinnati: +0.4% In the long-term, both Columbus and Cincinnati are performing better, and both cities lost fewer non-farm jobs the last 5 years. Cleveland had a decent month, though.
April 14, 201213 yr Just to reiterate. The official BLS non-farm wage and salary numbers for February 2012 are in. Here they are. Jobs added in February 2012 by metro: Cincinnati +4,100 Columbus +4,700 Cleveland +9,500 Indianapolis +6,500 Pittsburgh +3,500 Welcome to the 'new normal'! Just reminding you that the new job numbers for MSAa are out. They're still preliminary, though, so revisions are likely. I want to wait until they are official before posting February's, something I should've done previously. The question is, are these numbers officially unofficial or unofficially official and when will the officially official numbers be made known officially and how will we know any of this?
April 15, 201213 yr ^ Yes. At the same time, It's clear that Indy & Cleveland were the big winners, even when percentages are taken into account. Cincy & Cbus are a little disappointing, but still good obviously. In terms of %, the preliminary numbers are actually the opposite of what you stated, except for the last month. I'm not going to do all the numbers because it's all unofficial and will likely change, but here's for the 3-Cs and Indy, anyway. January 2012-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Cleveland: +1.0% Indianapolis: +0.7% Columbus: +0.5% Cincinnati: +0.4% I was referring to the last month, since the data he had posted was the Jan-Feb change. In the last year Columbus & Cincy have definitely been making the most improvement.
April 21, 201213 yr Okay, new jobs numbers are out for February. This time around, I'm going to list best to worst by % and have the actual number as well, instead of separating it all out into different posts. I'm also only going to do the change for the past year and past month. I'm only going to do the 5-year every few months because it gets too be too much. I still have all the data, though, so if anyone wants it, just ask. Non-Farm Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Toledo: +2.1% +6,300 2. Cincinnati: +1.8% +17,000 3. Columbus: +1.6% +15,900 4. Youngstown: +1.0% +2,100 5. Dayton: +0.9% +3,500 6. Akron: +0.1% +400 7. Cleveland: 0.0% +100 Non-Farm Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Toledo: +1.2% +3,600 2. Akron: +0.9% +2,800 3. Cleveland: +0.8% +8,000 4. Columbus: +0.6% +5,800 5. Cincinnati: +0.4% +4,400 6. Dayton: +0.1% +300 7. Youngstown: -0.3% -700 Mining/Logging/Construction Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Toledo: +10.8% +1,000 2. Columbus: +7.2% +1,800 3. Akron: +5.4% +500 4. Cincinnati: +0.9% +300 5. Cleveland: +0.4% +100 6. Youngstown: -1.4% -100 7. Dayton: -4.1% -400 Mining/Logging/Construction Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Cleveland: +0.4% +100 2. Akron: 0.0% 0 3. Cincinnati: -0.3% -100 4. Columbus: -0.4% -100 5. Toledo: -1.9% -200 6. Dayton: -2.1% -200 7. Youngstown: -4.1% -300 Manufacturing Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: +5.9% +6,100 2. Akron: +5.0% +1,900 3. Cleveland: +3.6% +4,200 4. Toledo: +3.1% +1,200 5. Youngstown: +1.7% +500 6. Dayton: -1.0% -400 7. Columbus: -1.9% -1,200 Manufacturing Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Cleveland: +1.5% +1,800 2. Akron: +1.1% +400 3. Toledo: +0.3% +100 4. Cincinnati: -0.1% -100 5. Dayton: -0.5% -200 6. Youngstown: -1.0% -300 7. Columbus: -1.3% -800 Trade/Transportation/Utilities Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Toledo: +2.5% +1,400 2. Columbus: +1.3% +2,200 3. Cleveland: +1.2% +2,000 4. Dayton: +1.1% +700 5. Youngstown: +0.9% +400 6. Cincinnati: +0.8% +1,600 7. Akron: +0.2% +100 Trade/Transportation/Utilities Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: -0.2% -300 2. Toledo: -0.7% -400 3. Columbus: -0.9% -1,600 4. Cleveland: -1.0% -1,800 5. Dayton: -1.1% -700 6. Youngstown: -1.3% -600 7. Akron: -1.8% -1,100 Information Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Youngstown: +4.5% +100 2. Columbus: +0.6% +100 3. Akron: 0.0% 0 4. Toledo: 0.0% 0 5. Cincinnati: -0.7% -100 6. Dayton: -2.0% -100 7. Cleveland: -2.6% -400 Information Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 All cities changed 0.0% Financial Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Columbus: +2.7% +1,900 2. Cleveland: +1.2% +800 3. Akron: 0.0% 0 4. Dayton: 0.0% 0 5. Youngstown: 0.0% 0 6. Toledo: -1.8% -200 7. Cincinnati: -6.0% -3,800 Financial Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Youngstown: +1.1% +100 2. Columbus: +0.4% +300 3. Akron: 0.0% 0 4. Dayton: 0.0% 0 5. Toledo: 0.0% 0 6. Cleveland: -0.2% -100 7. Cincinnati: -0.3% -200 Professional and Business Services Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Dayton: +6.9% +3,200 2. Toledo: +5.8% +1,900 3. Youngstown: +3.3% +700 4. Columbus: +2.2% +3,200 5. Cincinnati: +1.7% +2,500 6. Cleveland: +1.1% +1,500 7. Akron: +0.2% +100 Professional and Business Services Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Toledo: +3.9% +1,300 2. Columbus: +1.4% +2,100 3. Akron: +1.3% +600 4. Cleveland: +1.3% +1,700 5. Younstown: +0.9% +200 6. Cincinnati: +0.7% +1,000 7. Dayton: -1.4% -700 Education and Health Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Columbus: +7.9% +10,100 2. Cincinnati: +2.3% +3,400 3. Toledo: +1.0% +500 4. Akron: +0.4% +200 5. Cleveland: +0.2% +400 6. Youngstown: 0.0% 0 7. Dayton: -0.3% -200 Education and Health Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Dayton: +2.2% +1,500 2. Cleveland: +2.1% +3,900 3. Columbus: +2.0% +2,700 4. Toledo: +1.2% +600 5. Akron: +0.6% +300 6. Cincinnati: +0.6% +900 7. Youngstown: -0.2% -100 Leisure and Hospitality Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: +7.8% +7,400 2. Toledo: +6.5% +1,900 3. Dayton: +4.4% +1,500 4. Youngstown: +4.0% +800 5. Columbus: +2.4% +2,000 6. Cleveland: -5.0% -4,000 7. Akron: -6.5% -1,800 Leisure and Hospitality Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Akron: +1.6% +400 2. Toledo: +1.6% +500 3. Columbus: +1.5% +1,300 4. Cincinnati: +0.5% +500 5. Youngstown: +0.5% +100 6. Dayton: -1.6% -600 7. Cleveland: -2.3% -1,800 Other Services Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Columbus: +1.7% +600 2. Toledo: +0.9% +100 3. Cleveland: +0.7% +300 4. Dayton: +0.7% +100 5. Cincinnati: -0.5% -200 6. Youngstown: -1.0% -100 7. Akron: -1.5% -200 Other Services Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Toledo: +1.6% +200 2. Cleveland: +1.2% +500 3. Columbus: +0.9% +300 4. Akron: +0.8% +100 5. Dayton: +0.7% +100 6. Youngstown: 0.0% 0 7. Cincinnati: -1.0% -400 Government Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: -0.2% -200 2. Youngstown: -0.6% -200 3. Akron: -0.8% -400 4. Dayton: -1.2% -800 5. Columbus: -3.0% -4,800 6. Toledo: -3.1% -1,500 7. Cleveland: -3.5% -5,300 Government Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Akron: +4.5% +2,100 2. Toledo: +3.3% +1,500 3. Cleveland: +2.9% +3,700 4. Cincinnati: +2.5% +3,100 5. Dayton: +1.7% +1,100 6. Columbus: +1.1% +1,600 7. Youngstown: +0.7% +200
April 21, 201213 yr I have different numbers for these three MSAs. Here are the job numbers I've found for 2012 so far with the officially official numbers for January and February with provisional numbers for March from here: http://www.bls.gov/eag/ Non-Farm Wage and Salary Jobs, January 2012 to March 2012 (in thousands) January------February-------March------Total change Cincinnati 977.8 982.2 996.9 +19,100 Columbus 911.2 917.0 920.5 +9,300 Cleveland 966.3 977.3 980.2 +13,900 This numbers are not consistent with other job numbers reported here. I hope my link helps to clear up these inconsistencies.
April 21, 201213 yr I have different numbers for these three MSAs. Here are the job numbers I've found for 2012 so far with the officially official numbers for January and February with provisional numbers for March from here: http://www.bls.gov/eag/ Non-Farm Wage and Salary Jobs, January 2012 to March 2012 (in thousands) January------February-------March------Total change Cincinnati 977.8 982.2 996.9 +19,100 Columbus 911.2 917.0 920.5 +9,300 Cleveland 966.3 977.3 980.2 +13,900 This numbers are not consistent with other job numbers reported here. I hope my link helps to clear up these inconsistencies. March is preliminary, that's why I didn't bother. I had a spreadsheet with February's preliminary numbers and when the official ones came out today, there were changes in just about every single catergory, some significant. I would expect that total amount to change once the official March numbers come out, probably by +/- thousands.
April 21, 201213 yr I have different numbers for these three MSAs. Here are the job numbers I've found for 2012 so far with the officially official numbers for January and February with provisional numbers for March from here: http://www.bls.gov/eag/ Non-Farm Wage and Salary Jobs, January 2012 to March 2012 (in thousands) January------February-------March------Total change Cincinnati 977.8 982.2 996.9 +19,100 Columbus 911.2 917.0 920.5 +9,300 Cleveland 966.3 977.3 980.2 +13,900 This numbers are not consistent with other job numbers reported here. I hope my link helps to clear up these inconsistencies. I would expect that total amount to change once the official March numbers come out, probably by +/- thousands. Why? Cincinnati's were only a few hundred off, Columbus by only 1,100, and Cleveland by 1,500; all too low.
April 21, 201213 yr ^ Thanks, Matt, for your succinct summary of a sea of figures--the actual job growth of the 3-Cs can now be easily recognized and appreciated.
April 21, 201213 yr ^ Thanks, Matt, for your succinct summary of a sea of figures--the actual job growth of the 3-Cs can now be easily recognized and appreciated. Yeah, because it's very hard to read and understand an easily stated catergory and time frame with % and total jobs for the period, pretty much the exact same thing that Matt gave, but his weren't even with final numbers. Should I expect a new stalker?
April 21, 201213 yr I don't know what is meant by "final numbers." If it means an absolutely unquestionable incontravertable statistical 'truth', then there is no such thing. If final means most recent, then that must mean my post, since my post is the only one that includes estimates for March.
April 21, 201213 yr ^Yeesh. It's responses like that that make it seem like there's some credence to Matthew Hall's attacks on you in whatever thread that was. If you really only want to post numbers, what difference does it make that he is posting the year-to-date job numbers for the 3-C's? I have to be honest, while I find the 5-year comparison numbers helpful, the year-over-year numbers are not nearly as helpful as the month-to-month numbers posted in the format he just did for 2012. It's like when I hear about car sales--year-over-year numbers are nice, but it also helps to see how things are going chronologically, too. Not sure why you'd be so upset about those numbers posted in this thread.
April 21, 201213 yr ^ I don't think it's the numbers that upset him, I think it's all the bitterness.
April 21, 201213 yr ^Yeesh. It's responses like that that make it seem like there's some credence to Matthew Hall's attacks on you in whatever thread that was. If you really only want to post numbers, what difference does it make that he is posting the year-to-date job numbers for the 3-C's? I have to be honest, while I find the 5-year comparison numbers helpful, the year-over-year numbers are not nearly as helpful as the month-to-month numbers posted in the format he just did for 2012. It's like when I hear about car sales--year-over-year numbers are nice, but it also helps to see how things are going chronologically, too. Not sure why you'd be so upset about those numbers posted in this thread. If you think I'm upset about jobs numbers, you have no idea what's going on. I just get tired of the 5th grade tactics that go on. Other people may not see it because they don't know our history, but I do and I want no part of it. If that means that all these type of threads end up closed, so be it. It was a mistake on my part to start them.
April 23, 201213 yr ^ I don't think it's the numbers that upset him, I think it's all the bitterness. ... Matthew Hall's attacks Yep. And yep. Anyone who wishes to post legitimate information on UrbanOhio (such as U.S. Census information and employment data) should not have to defend themselves from accusations of "boosterism", "shilling for a city" or an "insidious deluge of statistics". Neither should the posting of that legitimate information on UrbanOhio be compared to Hitler. That's how bad it got! If the author of this thread wishes to post further updates to the information previously posted here, please PM me and I will unlock this thread so you can do so. And if other posters wish to repeat the idiotic behavior I described above, please be advised that this site's administrators and moderators will be watching for this and anything else that would earn you an official time-out from this site.
April 23, 201213 yr ... if other posters wish to repeat the idiotic behavior I described above, please be advised that this site's administrators and moderators will be watching for this and anything else that would earn you an official time-out from this site. Indeed. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 30, 201213 yr For March, I'm going to try to make it as simple as possible, and also add some state information as well. These are for metro areas. March 2012 and Change since March 2011 Civilian Labor Force Akron: 367,800 -5,600 Cincinnati: 1,095,600 +5,500 Cleveland: 1,085,700 +17,000 Columbus: 953,500 +4,000 Dayton: 406,700 -2,100 Toledo: 317,800 -1,000 Youngstown: 264,500 -2,200 Employment Akron: 339,300 -200 Cincinnati: 1,010,200 +17,300 Cleveland: 1,009,100 +24,200 Columbus: 888,900 +13,100 Dayton: 373,300 +2,900 Toledo: 290,000 +3,600 Youngstown: 241,900 +2,100 Unemployment Akron: 28,500 -5,400 Cincinnati: 85,300 -11,900 Cleveland: 76,600 -7,100 Columbus: 64,500 -9,200 Dayton: 33,400 -5,100 Toledo: 27,800 -4,500 Youngstown: 22,700 -4,100 Unemployment Rate Akron: 7.8% -1.3 Cincinnati: 7.8% -1.1 Cleveland: 7.1% -0.7 Columbus: 6.8% -1.0 Dayton: 8.2% -1.2 Toledo: 8.8% -1.3 Youngstown: 8.6% -1.5 As far as specific industries, I'm not going to break them down again unless people are interested in seeing that data. Here are the non-farm job totals, though. Non-Farm Jobs March 2011-March 2012, Total and Change Akron: 314,900 -100 Cincinnati: 996,600 +21,600 Cleveland: 980,800 -800 Columbus: 921,200 +15,700 Dayton: 375,200 +3,700 Toledo: 299,800 +4,400 Youngstown: 222,200 +2,100 Unemployment Rates by Specific Area, March 2011-March 2012 and Change City Akron: 8.6% -1.2 Cincinnati: 8.1% -1.1 Cleveland: 9.3% -0.8 Columbus: 6.8% -0.8 Dayton: 9.9% -1.2 Toledo: 9.2% -1.4 Youngstown: 10.4% -1.7 County Cuyahoga: 7.1% -0.8 Franklin: 6.8% -0.9 Hamilton: 7.5% -1.1 Lucas: 8.6% -1.3 Mahoning: 8.8% -1.5 Montgomery: 8.5% -1.1 Summit: 7.8% -1.2 EDIT: Made some changes to the first sets of numbers as the final ones came out today and some of them changed a bit.
May 30, 201213 yr jbcmh81, any chance you could post a link to the source when you post data updates? With the different versions out there of similar numbers, it would help a ton to know much weight to put on it. Thanks!
May 30, 201213 yr Cleveland's MSA added 27,600 farm jobs in the past year?? Am I interpreting these numbers correctly? That can't be right....
May 30, 201213 yr jbcmh81, any chance you could post a link to the source when you post data updates? With the different versions out there of similar numbers, it would help a ton to know much weight to put on it. Thanks! I get the data from: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.oh.htm However, I compile the data myself from the historic data on the site, so you won't find the year to year changes all laid out.
May 30, 201213 yr Cleveland's MSA added 27,600 farm jobs in the past year?? Am I interpreting these numbers correctly? That can't be right.... No, the 26,800 for Cleveland was for the increase in people who became employed over the last year. It's not the same thing as number of non-farm jobs, where Cleveland actually lost 800 in the last year.
May 30, 201213 yr Something strange is happening with the Cleveland MSA numbers, as the two data series (household and establishment survey) don't line up, even a little. According to the household survey, we're in solid jobs recovery, according to the establishment survey, quite the opposite. This disparity isn't the case with other metros.
May 30, 201213 yr Cleveland's MSA added 27,600 farm jobs in the past year?? Am I interpreting these numbers correctly? That can't be right.... No, the 26,800 for Cleveland was for the increase in people who became employed over the last year. It's not the same thing as number of non-farm jobs, where Cleveland actually lost 800 in the last year. I'm still lost. 26,800 people "became employed" over the last year...... I would think that means that there are 26,800 jobs which weren't there last year. How does it add up?
May 30, 201213 yr Something strange is happening with the Cleveland MSA numbers, as the two data series (household and establishment survey) don't line up, even a little. According to the household survey, we're in solid jobs recovery, according to the establishment survey, quite the opposite. This disparity isn't the case with other metros. Might be the interaction with neighboring MSAs. E.g., some portion of the recovery enjoyed by residents of the Cleveland MSA could be due to jobs located in the Akron MSA. I don't think the other big C MSAs would have this same issue (or not to the same degree).
May 30, 201213 yr ^^The first set of numbers are residents located in the MSA; the jobs numbers are for jobs located in the MSA. Due do "bleeding" between MSAs, they don't necessarily line up. Also, a single employed person can have two jobs.
May 30, 201213 yr No, look at the numbers just posted; Akron didn't add those jobs either. The problem is probably methodological. I guarantee that there aren't 27,000 jobs outside the MSA that Clevelanders are all of a sudden commuting to. More likely, one or both series has gone wide for some reason.
May 30, 201213 yr Also, a single employed person can have two jobs. That would explain if we were adding jobs, but keeping the same number of employed people, we're doing the opposite. According to the numbers we have more employed people than jobs, and that disparity is growing. One possible explanation for these numbers (in which they aren't "wrong") is that Clevelanders are "self employing" or working in small family businesses for no pay in massive numbers. They show up as employed people in the household survey, but their jobs don't show up in the establishment survey. Another possibility is that the establishment survey is missing lots of new businesses and their jobs, but who's employees are showing up as employed people. edit- it's also possible that we're seeing the inverse of what you're suggesting. People with two jobs are quitting one job for some reason, which is then being filled by another person.
May 30, 201213 yr Yeah, I'm stumped. I agree that the inter-MSA commuting probably can't explain more than a little of the growth in the disconnect, if that.
Create an account or sign in to comment