         |
Job Creation and Employment Opportunities:
The United States Labor Market, 1993-1996
A Report by the Council of Economic Advisers
with the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Chief Economist
April 23, 1996
Executive Summary
Introduction
Job Creation
The Quality of Jobs
The Challenges Created by A Dynamic Labor Market
Conclusion
- Since January 1993, employment has grown rapidly -- expanding by
8.5 million net new jobs. Based on comparable data, employment growth
has been stronger in the United States than in any of our G-7 partners.
- Two-thirds (68 percent) of the net growth in full-time employment
between February 1994 and February 1996 occurred in industry/occupation
groups paying above-median wages. Over half of the net growth
occurred in the top 30 percent of job categories. Although many of these
new jobs were in the service sector, they did not conform to stereotypes.
- The evidence suggests that the vast majority of the net new jobs
are full-time. Both the household and establishment survey suggests
that the proportion of employed persons working multiple jobs has
remained at about 6 percent.
- The share of workers holding multiple jobs has remained roughly
constant since the late 1980s. The household survey suggests that the
proportion of employed persons working multiple jobs has remained at
about 6 percent.
- The overall number of workers displaced was roughly the same
proportion of the workforce in 1991-2 as in 1981-2, although the
recession during the early 1980s was more severe than the one during the
early 1990s. However, it is difficult to determine precisely how to
account for the business cycle in assessing displacement rates. The
official data on displacement after 1993 are not yet available, but an
alternative job loss measure has fallen since then.
- The characteristics of displaced workers have changed somewhat.
Displacement rates for older, white-collar and better educated workers
have risen, although they remain low relative to those for younger,
blue-collar, and less educated workers.
- Despite some recent positive signs, long-term challenges
remain. Between the 1970s and the early 1990s, real wages stagnated
and income inequality widened. But in 1994, for the first time in 5
years, real median family income rose and the poverty rate fell. We must
continue to build on these gains to improve living standards and reduce
income inequality. And although many more jobs are being created than
destroyed, a dynamic economy inevitably imposes costs on some workers.
For example, data from 1981 to 1993 indicate that job losers were more
likely to be permanently dismissed (rather than temporarily laid-off),
that older workers were subject to greater risk of job displacement, and
that the average real wage loss due to displacement was significant and
persistent. In order to obtain the full benefits of a dynamic economy, we
must redice these adjustment costs.
Employment growth in the United States has been robust since January
1993, with nonfarm payroll employment expanding by 8.5 million. Based on
comparable data, U.S. employment growth has been stronger than in any of
our G-7 partners. The first purpose of this study is to sift through the
evidence to develop a more detailed picture of where the job growth is
occurring and the nature of the jobs being created.
The news is encouraging: employment has grown disproportionately in the
industry/occupation job categories paying above-median wages. Even in the
traditionally lower-paying service industry, a majority of the net
employment growth has been managerial and professional specialty
positions, which typically pay above-median wages. Contrary to
conventional wisdom, the new jobs are not disproportionately part-time,
low-skill positions.
The second purpose of the study is to examine job displacement. Although
the economy is generating millions of net new jobs, it is clear that the
speed of transformation in the U.S. labor market has left many American
workers anxious about their economic futures. A dynamic and growing
labor market can impose costs as well as offer opportunities, and policies
to help workers deal with job transitions are critical to reducing these
adjustment costs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics establishment survey, nonfarm
employment grew by 8.5 million (7.8 percent) between January 1993 and
March 1996. Private-sector payrolls (up 8.7 percent) grew even faster,
while federal payrolls (excluding the postal service) actually declined
by 11.4 percent, and state and local government payrolls combined grew by
on 5.0 percent (see Figure 1). The public sector's share of employment is
therefore falling.
The unemployment rate has fallen from over 7 percent in January 1993 to
5.6 percent in March 1996, and has been below 6 percent for 19
consecutive months. Given current demographic trends, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics projects the labor force to continue growing by approximately
1.1 percent annually between 1994 and 2005. Therefore, to keep
unemployment low, the economy needs to average a net increase of about
120,000 new jobs per month. Employment is now expanding at a pace
consistent with steady, sustainable growth and low unemployment.
International Comparisons. The United States has experienced
faster employment growth than any of the other G-7 countries. Only Canada
has experienced any significant employment growth, while the other G-7
members have experienced negligible job gains or outright declines. The
U.S. labor market performance is particularly impressive given that it has
occurred during a period in which the federal budget deficit was reduced
from 4.9 percent of GDP in FY 1992 to an estimated 1.9 percent in FY 1996.
According to data from the Current Population Survey, 38 percent of the
net employment growth between February 1994 and February 1996 occurred in
"service" industries.1 This section therefore
first examines job quality in the service sector. It then presents a
more detailed analysis of all sectors of the economy.
Higher-paid Jobs in the Service Sector. The "service sector" is
quite diverse. It includes many low-wage positions, but also many
high-wage positions in financial services, hospitals, and computer and
accounting services. For this reason, it is important to determine
whether employment growth within services has occurred primarily in the
high-skill managerial and professional specialty occupations or in
low-paying occupations. The Current Population Survey provides evidence
on employment growth by occupation.
The data show that recent net job growth in services has been
predominantly in managerial or professional specialty positions
(Figure 2). These are relatively high-paid occupations.
Thus, the conventional wisdom suggesting that the growth in service
sector employment is disproportionately concentrated in low-wage job
categories is wrong.
v
Growth of Higher-paid Jobs by Industry and Occupation. An even
more detailed picture of the nature of the new jobs created emerges from
an examination of industry/occupation categories. Using data from the
February 1994 and February 1996 Current Population Surveys, we sorted
full-time workers into 45 detailed occupations in 22 major industries. A
quarter of the sample reported earnings in addition to the industries and
occupations in which they worked. Although many of the possible 990
industry/occupation cells were small, only 6 percent of the
population-weighted sample was found in cells with 10 or fewer sample
members reporting earnings data for both surveys. In order to avoid the
high sampling variability associated with insufficient numbers of
observations, we eliminated these small cells from our analysis. There
were 287 job categories in each year after eliminating the cells with 10
or fewer sample members.2
The first step in our analysis was to rank the 287 occupation/industry
cells by the median weekly earnings of full-time workers. Approximately
half of all full-time employment in February 1994 was found in cells with
median weekly earnings above $480 (in February 1996 dollars). The
employment growth in these "high-wage" job categories can then be
compared to overall employment growth. Our key measure of job quality
is the percentage of total employment growth that occurred within the
occupation and industry categories that paid above-median wages in
February 1994. The results were striking.
Two-thirds (68 percent) of the net growth in full-time employment
between February 1994 and February 1996 was found in job categories
paying above-median wages.3
Another way to summarize the results from our industry/occupation
analysis is shown in Figure 3. Here we ranked the 287 industry/occupation
categories by their median weekly earnings for full-time workers, and
sorted them into 10 ordered groupings -- each with 10 percent of
employment in February 1994 -- by their earnings ranking. If all 10
groups had grown proportionately to their share of employment in February
1994, each would have accounted for 10 percent of the net new employment.
But rather than accounting for their proportional share of total
employment growth (30 percent), the top three deciles accounted for much
more (over 50 percent).
Over half (52 percent) of employment growth was found in the top
30 percent of job categories.
More Detailed Data on Occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
also publishes an annual series on wages and employment growth for an
extremely detailed set of occupational categories, based on pooling a
year's population survey responses. The survey included 488 categories
with data for both 1994 and 1995 (the 1996 annual estimates will not be
available until next year). The results from this data set give
additional support to the results reported above. Some of the categories
with the largest employment gains included "sales supervisors and
proprietors," "electricians," "managers of marketing and advertising,"
and "electrical and electronic engineers." And consistent with the above
calculations, the detailed occupations in the top half of the wage
distribution accounted for 70 percent of the net employment growth, while
the top 10 percent of the distribution produced a third of net
employment growth.
Employment in "hamburger-flipping jobs"4
actually fell between 1994 and 1995.
In sum, the data indicate the following about the nature of recent job
growth:
- Two-thirds of full-time job growth between February 1994 and February
1996 occurred in occupation/industry categories paying above-median wages.
- Over half of full-time job growth between February 1994 and February
1996 was in occupation/industry categories paying even higher wages (top
30 percent).
The New Jobs are Mostly Full-Time. Data from both the Current
Population Survey and the BLS establishment survey indicate that most of
the net new jobs are full-time. The Current Population Survey includes
data on part-time employment. Figure 4 portrays the proportion of
employed persons reporting that they worked part-time for "economic" as
well as "non-economic" reasons. Despite a shift in both series
corresponding to a redesign of the survey in January 1994, the proportion
of employed persons reporting to be employed part-time has actually
declined slightly. The declines have been even larger for those working
part-time for "economic" reasons, often referred to as the "involuntarily
underemployed."
The establishment data indirectly support the conclusions from the
household survey. If the net new jobs were disproportionately part-time,
we would expect average hours worked per job to fall.5 But the employment data show that average hours
worked for all jobs (including the new jobs) remained roughly constant:
the number of nonfarm payroll positions and the total number of hours
worked both grew at about the same rate over the past three years (see
table). This suggests that the new jobs have not been disproportionately
part-time.
Data collected from both households and companies indicate that
most of the net job creation over the past three years has been
full-time.
Employment and Hours Worked at Nonfarm Establishments
| January
1993 | March
1996 | Percent
Change |
| Employment millions | 109.5 |
118.0 | 7.8 |
| Hours worked (annual basis, billions) |
202.2 | 217.8 |
7.7 |
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Little Change in Multiple Job Holding. Some Americans decide to
hold more than one job, in order to save for a house or to meet
unexpected expenses. Nonetheless, multiple job holding would raise
concerns about the quality of jobs if an increasing number of Americans
have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. A frustrated worker is
said to have reacted to the news that 8.5 million new jobs have been
created by replying, "Yeah, and I have three of them." But the data
simply do not indicate any significant movement in multiple job holding.
The percentage of employed persons working multiple jobs has remained in
the neighborhood of 6 percent since the late 1980s.
Impact on Wages and Income Inequality. Between the 1970s and the
early 1990s, average real wage growth slowed and income inequality
widened. In recent years, however, there are some encouraging signs that
the tide may be turning on these labor market challenges. In 1994 -- the
most recent year for which data are available -- real median family
income rose and the poverty rate fell for the first time in 5 years.
Improving job quality can enhance these recent gains, although the
effects may only become manifest after an extended period of time. As
discussed above, most of the recent net increase in employment has
occurred in occupations and industries that typically pay above-median
wages. But the additions to the workforce have had only a marginal effect
on aggregate wage data, since net employment growth represents only a
relatively small percentage of total employment for the U.S. workforce.
Nevertheless, the news about the quality of net job growth is
encouraging, and bodes well for the future. Although there is still much
left to be done, recent trends show that the labor market is on the right
track.
A dynamic, health labor market creates enough jobs to accommodate a
growing labor force. But at the same time, jobs in a dynamic economy
continually shift away from certain areas and toward other areas with
greater growth opportunities. (For example, the decline in federal
payrolls has been more than offset by increases in private-sector
employment.) Meanwhile, research conducted by Robert Valletta and
published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that,
after controlling for the business cycle, the share of unemployment
attributable to permanent dismissals (rather than temporary layoffs) has
increased -- particularly from 1980 to 1993. A higher proportion of job
losers thus do not expect to be recalled by their former employers. As a
result of these labor market changes, many workers feel less secure about
their job prospects.
While the anxiety felt by many workers is real and important, it is also
important to take an objective look at the evidence. Not all sources
demonstrate increased economic anxiety. For example, the Michigan and
Conference Board surveys of consumer sentiment recently have been above
their historical averages. Respondents to those surveys apparently do not
view employment prospects as poor. Nevertheless, considerable evidence
suggest that many Americans are concerned, some very concerned, about job
displacement. In order to know how best to respond to these concerns, we
need a more precise assessment of the nature of the displacement problem.
Has job displacement in fact increased? Is it affecting different
categories of individuals today than it did ten years ago? This section
of the report examines these questions.
Evidence from the Displaced Worker Survey. The BLS conducts a
survey of displaced workers every two years, with the most recent
published data from February 1994. The table below summarizes the
displacement rates (defined as the number of workers displaced per 100
employed) for the 1981-82 and 1991-92 periods.
The overall number of workers displaced was roughly the same proportion
of the workforce in 1991-2 as in 1981-2, although the recession in the
early 1980s was more severe than the one in the early 1990s. However, it
is difficult to determine precisely how to account for the business cycle
in assessing displacement rates. A comparison of aggregate displacement
rates also conceals a fundamental change in the incidence of job
displacement. The table shows that older, white-collar workers were
considerably more at risk of displacement in 1991-92 than during the
previous recession. And further analysis shows that job displacement
rates rose for more educated workers. These changes in the incidence of
job displacement may be a reason for the reports of heightened anxiety
regarding job loss. Although blue-collar and less educated workers remain
more likely to be displaced than others, displacement rates have clearly
risen among those workers who had previously been largely immune from the
threat of job dislocation.
Displacement rates for older and more educated workers, who had
largely been unaccustomed to facing such risk, rose between 1981-2 and
1991-2.
Changing incidence of displacement
| | Displacement Rates* |
| | 1981-2 | 1991-2 |
| Total | 3.9 | 3.8 |
Occupations
White-collar | 2.6 | 3.6 |
| Blue-collar | 7.3 | 5.2 |
Age
25-34 years of age | 5.0 |
3.8 |
| 35-44 years of age | 3.8 | 3.9 |
| 45-54 years of age | 3.0 | 3.8 |
| 55+ | 3.6 | 4.3 |
* Expressed as a percent of workers with three or more years of tenure on
their current job.
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Indicators of Recent Job Displacement. As noted above, the
Displaced Worker survey is conducted only once every two years, and the
most recent published data are from the 1994 survey, which covers the
1991-93 period. Unfortunately, the official displacement data for the
period after 1993 are not yet available.6 (The
results of the 1996 Displaced Worker Survey, conducted in February,
should be available later this summer.) Until the official displacement
data are available, other measures can be used to get an indication of
how the labor market has been changing since 1993.
One indicator comes from unemployment data on job losers. Figure 5 shows
the job loss rate, defined as the ratio of recently unemployed job losers
-- those who are unemployed due to job loss (as opposed to job leavers or
labor market entrants), unemployed less than 5 weeks, and not on
temporary layoff -- to total employment in the Current Population Survey.
This job loss rate roughly approximates the net "flow" into unemployment
due to job loss, since it considers only those who have los their jobs
recently. As shown in Figure 5, the job loss rate has continued to fall
since 1992.
Official data on job displacement are not yet available beyond
1993. But based on unemployment data for job losers, the job loss rate
has declined since then.
The Costs of Job Displacement. The Displaced Worker Survey
provides information on the impact of job loss
White Papers Index
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House
White House for Kids | White House History
White House Tours | Help | Text Only Privacy Statement |
