Skip to content

Metro Area Unemployment and Employment – April 2013

Progress toward lower unemployment rates in Arkansas metro areas has ground to a halt.  Statistics for April show that unemployment rates were higher than a year earlier in all the state’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) except for Fayetteville.  The press release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that Fayetteville was one of 276 MSAs around the nation that saw a year-over-year decline.  The state’s other MSAs were among the 78 metro areas that saw higher unemployment rates.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

The year-over-year comparisons refer to data that are not seasonally adjusted.  For meaningful month-to-month comparisons, the BLS publishes smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates.  As shown in the table below, these estimates show that the unemployment rate was steady in Fort Smith and Jonesboro, but ticked up in the seven other metro areas that include parts of Arkansas.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

Underlying statistics from the household unemployment-rate data also showed a monthly uptick of employment in the state’s two largest metro areas, but reveal a downward trend in all of the state’s MSAs except for Fayetteville.  As illustrated in the figure below, the downturn in employment is particularly noticeable since the beginning of this year.  In Hot Springs and Texarkana, household employment is more than 2-1/2% lower than in January 2012.  The reason that unemployment rates haven’t risen in response to these employment declines is due to commensurate downward trends in labor force participation.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

In the statewide data, weak household employment data have contrasted with improving statistics from the payroll employment reports.  The same puzzle seems to exist in the MSA data.  As shown in the table below, nonfarm payroll employment increased in several of the state’s metro areas in April.  Compared to a year earlier, payroll employment was higher in Fayetteville, Hot Springs, Jonesboro, Little Rock, and Memphis.  Employment was flat in Fort Smith and down in Pine Bluff and Texarkana.  Pine Bluff remains the only metro area to have experienced continued contraction since the statewide employment trough of February 2010.  At the other extreme, both Fayetteville and Jonesboro have higher payroll employment in April 2013 than they did before the onset of the 21008-09 recession.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (CES)

The contrast between the household and payroll employment reports is a puzzle.  Typically, the payroll reports are considered to be more accurate, but are also subject to substantial revision.  For that reason, the renewed weakness in household employment is a concerning trend that we will continue to monitor closely.

 

Metro Area Unemployment and Employment – February 2013

Unemployment rates in Arkansas’ metro areas generally remain lower than a year ago, but smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates show recent increases in some areas of the state.

The not-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate data showed that February-to-February changes in unemployment rates ranged from -0.9% in Fort Smith to +0.1% in Memphis (Memphis is the only metro area that showed a year-over-year increase).   According to the news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates were lower in February than a year earlier in 287 of the nation’s 372 metro areas and higher in only 69 areas.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

In the most recent report on employment and unemployment for the state, we noted that the Arkansas labor force has been declining precipitously over the past year.  From February 2012 through February 2013, the state’s labor force declined by 2.8% (using not-seasonally adjusted data).  As shown in the table below, not all of Arkansas’ metro areas have experienced comparable declines.  Over the past 12 months, Fort Smith and Jonesboro have both seen increases in the size of their labor forces, while Fayetteville’s labor force is down only slightly.  The state’s largest declines are in Pine Bluff and Texarkana, with Hot Springs and Little Rock also showing contractions that are proportionally larger than the statewide total.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Monthly changes in the Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Estimates of metro area unemployment rates were mixed:  Rates were lower in Fayetteville and Fort Smith; unchanged in Hot Springs and Jonesboro; and were higher in Little Rock, Memphis, Pine Bluff and Texarkana.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

The February changes in unemployment rates contributed to some recent divergence among the state’s metro areas.  For example, the unemployment rate in Fort Smith has now fallen by 0.6% since last October, while the rate in Pine Bluff has risen by 0.4% since September.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

Payroll Employment
Data on nonfarm payroll employment showed month-to-month declines in Hot Springs (-1.0%) and Texarkana (-0.5%), but increases in the state’s other metro areas.  Compared to a year earlier, employment is higher in most metro areas, but down in Pine Bluff and Texarkana.  Pine Bluff is the only metro area that has experienced ongoing job losses since the employment trough of February 2010.  Two metro areas — Fayetteville and Jonesboro — have higher levels of employment now than before the onset of the 2008-09 recession.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics

 

 

Metro Area Unemployment & Employment – January 2013

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced new data on metro area employment and unemployment this morning. The BLS news release noted that unemployment rates were lower in January 2013 than a year earlier in 227 of the nation’s 372 metropolitan areas.  Most of Arkansas’ Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) fall into this category, with the exception of Memphis and Pine Bluff.  The largest year-over-year declines were in Fayetteville (-0.4%), Jonesboro (-0.3%), and Texarkana (-0.3%).

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

A look at the month-to-month changes in unemployment rates around the state might appear as cause for alarm.  As shown in the table below, unemployment rates were up sharply, with increases ranging from +0.6% in Fort Smith to +1.5% in Pine Bluff and Texarkana.

However, the primary explanation for these large increases is seasonal variation.  With the end of the holiday shopping season, cold weather suppressing construction activity, and many public schools still on winter break, unemployment always rises in January.  Indeed, the not-seasonally-adjusted numbers for statewide unemployment show an increase of more than a full percentage point in January — in contrast to the +0.1% (seasonally adjusted) that was headlined earlier this week.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

The figure below illustrates the annual seasonal pattern for statewide unemployment rates.  Seasonal patterns for metro areas often have distinctive characteristics, but generally follow a similar pattern.  On average, the unemployment rate rises from December to January by nearly a full percentage point — due solely to recurring seasonal factors.  Looking ahead, the good news is that seasonal factors typically drive the unemployment rate down by more than one-half of a percentage point in both March and April.

These recurring swings in unemployment are interesting illustration of the seasonal cycle, but they can get in the way of evaluating labor market conditions relative to the business cycle.  That is, if we are interested in evaluating the recovery of labor markets from the last recession, seasonal components can give misleading signals when comparing monthly changes in not-seasonally-adjusted data.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, author’s calculations

The value of seasonal adjustment is that it removes the seasonal component leaving only the cyclical component (ideally, at least).  Although national and state unemployment rates are routinely released in seasonally-adjusted form, the metro area data are not — at least not in the “headline” news release.  However, the BLS does publish Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Estimates, which are summarized for Arkansas’ metro areas for January 2013 in the table below.

By these estimates, unemployment rates were higher in Memphis, Pine Bluff, and Texarkana — but only by two- to three-tenths of a percentage point.  Rates were unchanged in Hot Springs, Jonesboro, and Little Rock.  After seasonal adjustment, unemployment rates were actually down for the month in Fayetteville and Fort Smith.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

These statistics are far from perfect, and one should never put too much emphasis on data for a single month.  Nevertheless, they provide better information on the cyclical state of labor markets in Arkansas (i.e., how they are recovering relative to the last recession) than the not-seasonally adjusted estimates.

Payroll Employment
The annual benchmark revisions to the metro area payroll employment statistics were described in a previous post.  The table below summarizes the newly-revised data for January 2013.  From December to January, payroll employment was up in Fayetteville, Fort Smith, Hot Springs and Jonesboro.  Declines were registered for Little Rock, Memphis, Pine Bluff, and Texarkana.

Compared to January 2011, employment is higher or essentially unchanged in all of Arkansas’ metro areas except Pine Bluff.  Pine Bluff is also the only metro area that has experienced an ongoing contraction since the statewide employment trough of February 2010.  With the newly-revised data, only Fayetteville and Jonesboro have employment levels higher than before the onset of the last recession (December 2007).

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (CES)

 

Revised Employment Data for Metro Areas

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) won’t release its summary of metro area employment data until this Friday (March 22), but the annual revisions to payroll employment data have been available since the revised state-level data came out on Monday. The table below summarizes the magnitude of the data revisions and their impact on year-over-year growth rates for Arkansas’ metro areas.   The revised data result in higher measured levels of employment in most of the metro areas, with the only downward revisions being Pine Bluff and Texarkana.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

In some cases, the level of 2012:Q4 employment was revised upward but the annual growth rate ended up lower.  Jonesboro is a prominent example.  The explanation for this phenomenon is that upward revisions to employment data for 2011:Q4 were even larger than the upward revisions for the end of 2012.  The set of figures below illustrates this pattern with particular clarity in the Jonesboro case.  Another interesting case is Fort Smith, which experienced the largest proportionate revision to the level of measured employment, but with little effect on its annual growth rate because the revision affected levels of employment for the entire year.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

A comparison of the actual data revisions with the expected revisions previously posted on Arkansas Economist reveals some notable differences.  For example, the expectation was for Fayetteville to experience a downward revision, when the actual revision was positive.  Data for Little Rock were expected to show little change, but the actual revision was fairly substantial.  There are two explanations for these forecast errors.  First, the data for metro areas are fundamentally more volatile than the state level data, making them more difficult to predict.  Idiosyncratic local circumstances can contribute to sharp swings in the metro area data that end up being netted-out in state-level and national data.

More important, the BEA updated its methodology for benchmark revisions this year, incorporating more up-to-date readings from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).  In particular, the BLS used QCEW data through September 2013 for this year’s revisions.  Our “forecasted revision of history” would have been more accurate if we had used QCEW data for the second quarter, but we still would have missed the information from the third quarter data (which are not yet publicly available).  Although the updated methodology makes it more difficult to anticipate the nature and magnitude of upcoming data revisions, the good news is that the revised data are now more accurate and up-to-date than they have been in the past.  This should reduce the impact of future benchmark revisions, making the annual benchmarking process less significant in evaluating recent trends.

Metro Area GDP for 2011

After a 5-month administrative delay, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has released new 2011 GDP data for the nation’s metropolitan areas.  The statistics are considered “advance statistics,” subject to considerable future revision.

Nationwide, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increased in 242 of the nation’s 366 metro areas in 2011, with an overall metro-area growth rate of 1.6%.   Here in Arkansas, growth rates were positive for Hot Springs, Little Rock, Memphis and Texarkana.  The economies of Fort Smith, Jonesboro and Pine Bluff contracted from the previous year, while Northwest Arkansas saw real GDP unchanged from the previous year.  Even among the Arkansas metro areas that expanded, growth rates were generally below the national average (with only Little Rock matching the U.S. average).

The preliminary nature of the “advance” estimates leaves a great deal of uncertainty about the magnitude of the reported growth rates.  Along with current growth rates, the table below also shows revisions to the data from previous years.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

In general, negative growth rates in 2009 were revised downward — indicating that the effects of the recession were more severe than previously reported.  The only Arkansas metro area with a positive growth rate in 2009 was Little Rock; but even this estimate was subject to a substantial downward revision.

In 2010, the newly-revised data generally show higher growth rates than the advance estimates published in September 2011.  Growth in the Fayetteville metro area, in particular, was marked up substantially.  At the other extreme, the new estimates show negative growth for Little Rock in 2010, compared to the small increase that was originally reported.

As demonstrated by the magnitude of the revisions for 2009 and 2010, it is quite likely that the 2011 growth rates will be revised considerably by the time the next metro area GDP report comes out this September.

Metro Area Employment and Unemployment — December 2012

Unemployment rates in Arkansas metro areas ratcheted up in December — a typical seasonal pattern.  After seasonal adjustment, however, rates were essentially unchanged across the state.  As shown in the table below, unemployment rates were lower than the previous year in all of Arkansas’ metro areas, with declines ranging from -0.3% in Memphis to -1.2% in Texarkana (not seasonally adjusted).  Across the nation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment rates were down from the previous year in 290 of the 370 metropolitan areas, higher in 68 metro areas, and unchanged in 14 areas.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)

December unemployment rates were up from the previous month, but such increases are typical of December when schools and universities break for the year-end holidays.  The BLS smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates provide a more informative comparison of month-to-month changes.  The smoothed seasonally adjusted numbers show little change in unemployment rates across the state.  Rates ticked down by 0.1% in Fort Smith and Texarkana and ticked up by 0.1% all the other metro areas except Jonesboro (which was unchanged).

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates)

Payroll Employment
Nonfarm payrolls expanded in December for Jonesboro (+1.0%) and Hot Springs (+0.3%), but were unchanged or lower the state’s other metro areas.  Compared to December of 2011, employment was up in Fayetteville, Jonesboro, Pine Bluff, and Texarkana.  However, it was unchanged or lower in Fort Smith, Hot Springs, Little Rock, and Memphis.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Employment Statistics)

As detailed last month, the next publication of metro area employment data will incorporate the annual benchmark revisions.  The revised data will show a somewhat different picture of employment conditions around the state, particularly in the figures for cumulative employment changes over time.  The table below details our best estimates of what the revised data will indicate.  The new figures will show that employment declined during 2012 in only two metro areas:  Little Rock and Memphis.  The revised data are expected to show a substantial upward revision to the data for Fort Smith, with the result that cumulative changes since the trough of February 2010 will be positive for all metro areas in the state.   On the other extreme, payroll data for Texarkana are expected to be revised downward — resulting in the reversal of cumulative gains since the pre-recession peak of December 2007.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement

These expected revisions are only estimates.  Data for metro areas can also be subject to substantial changes in estimated seasonal factors, so the post-benchmark data may differ from the figures summarized in the table above.  Nevertheless, the magnitude of expected revisions for Fort Smith and Texarkana, in particular, are likely to be notable.

Income and Price Parities – Implications for Arkansas

“After adjusting for a relatively low cost of living, incomes in Arkansas allow for a higher standard of living than in some of the higher-cost regions of the country.”

It is widely recognized that changes in income and spending over time should be adjusted for changes in prices; i.e., inflation.  Comparisons of income across countries are also routinely adjusted for differences in prices using exchange rates or other relative price measures.  Less common is the adjustment of state and local data to account for differences in relative prices across regions within the United States.  This type of inter-regional relative price adjustment is familiar to regular readers of the Arkansas Economist — in the context of interpreting poverty rates published by the Census Bureau (see, here and here, for example).  In recent years, researchers at the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) have been developing statistics on regional price differences that can be applied more generally to income and consumption data for the states and metropolitan areas of the U.S.  This year, the BEA is scheduled to publish the first set of annual updates for personal income adjusted by regional price parties (RPPs).

The baseline estimates for these regional price parties were published in the Survey of Current Business in August 2012 — Regional Price Parities for States and Metropolitan Areas, 2006–2010.   Using data on rents from the American Community Survey (Census Bureau), price data from the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and expenditure shares from the Personal Consumption Expenditure survey (BEA), the newly-developed RPP statistics allow for the comparison of the cost of living among states and metro areas in the U.S.

Normalizing the U.S. average to have an index value of 100, the estimate of Arkansas’ relative price level is calculated to be 89.3.  That is, the overall level of prices in Arkansas is more than 10% lower than the national average.  For the calculation period 2006-2010, the highest and lowers price parities in the nation were calculated for Hawaii (116.1) and South Dakota (87.2), respectively.  The Arkansas level of 89.3 ranked our state as having the 6th lowest prices in the nation.

This as in interesting finding in its own right, but is even more important in what it tells us about relative incomes and purchasing power.  For example it is widely known that Arkansas has one of the lowest levels of average income in the nation.  But to the extent that prices are also lower than in other regions, the differences in price-adjusted standards of living are less extreme than the unadjusted dollar-values suggest.  The map below, reproduced from the article in the Survey of Current Business, shows how per capita personal income changes after adjusting for regional price parities.  Arkansas is one of the states where the purchasing power of income is increased the most by the adjustment — specifically, price-adjusted per capita income for 2010 is 12.2% higher than unadjusted per capita income.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

The average per capita income in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia was $39,900 in 2010.  By construction, this is also the price-parity-adjusted level of income for the U.S.  Without price adjustment, Arkansas’ per capita income was $32,800 — approximately 82.2% of the national average.  After adjusting for the relatively low cost of living in Arkansas, however, the RPP-adjusted income in Arkansas was the equivalent of $36,800 — about 92.2% of the U.S. average.  The table below summarizes this comparison and presents data on RPP-adjusted incomes for the eight metropolitan areas that include parts of Arkansas.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

The RPP figures for Arkansas are all below the national average of 100, ranging from 82.8 in Jonesboro to 94.7 in the Memphis metro area.  In unadjusted dollar terms, per capita income in Arkansas metro areas range from 75.7% of the national average in Pine Bluff to 96.5% in Little Rock.  After adjusting for regional price parities, however, incomes in Pine Bluff rise to 86.2% of the national average and incomes in Little Rock are 3.5% higher than the national average.  In fact, after re-calculating incomes to account for their greater purchasing power, the RPP-adjusted measures of personal income are above the national average in three of the state’s metro areas.

The research on RPPs is still considered to be experimental, with economists at the BEA and elsewhere working to improve the quality of regional price data and the methodology for compiling them into regional index values.  The data will undoubtedly be refined and revised as research continues.  But the overall implications of the findings are clear:  after adjusting for a relatively low cost of living, incomes in Arkansas allow for a higher standard of living than in some of the higher-cost regions of the country.

 

Metro Area Employment and Unemployment – November 2012

New data on employment and unemployment in Arkansas’ metro areas generally show improvements in labor market conditions around the state.  This morning’s data release from the Bureau of Labor Statisics showed that unemployment rates in November were lower than a year ago in all eight of the metro areas that include parts of Arkansas.  The year-over-year declines range from -0.3 percentage points in Jonesboro to -1.4 percentage points in Memphis.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics)

The not-seasonally-adjusted unemployment rates were down from the previous month in all metro areas — quite sharply in some cases.  However, recurring seasonal patterns drove a large proportion of the changes.  Even after seasonal adjustment, however, unemployment rates were down for the month in most of Arkansas metro areas.  Data from the BLS smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates showed particularly sharp declines in unemployment for Memphis (-0.4%) and Texarkana (-0.3%).  The seasonally adjusted estimates showed that rates were unchanged in Jonesboro, Little Rock, and Pine Bluff.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates)

The chart below shows the path of seasonally-adjusted unemployment rates over the past three years.  Although some metro areas have seen temporary increases from month to month, the trend of lower rates has clearly prevailed since the latter part of 2011.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metroplitan Area Estimates)

Payroll Data
Data from the survey of employers told a similarly upbeat story.  From October to November, employment increased in all metro areas except Little Rock. Monthly increases exceeded a full percentage point in Hot Springs, Jonesboro, and Pine Bluff. Compared to the previous November, employment was higher in Fayetteville, Jonesboro, Little Rock, Pine Bluff and Texarkana. Only Fort Smith, Hot Springs, and Memphis showed lower level of employment than a year earlier. The currently-published data show that all of Arkansas’ metro areas except Fort Smith have shown positive growth since the statewide employment trough-date of February 2010.  But only Fayetteville, Jonesboro and Texarkana show employment above pre-recession levels.

Sourse: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Employment Statistics)

Expected Data Revisions
The employment data in the table above summarizes currently-published data.  When the payroll data are revised and benchmarked against more reliable data, however, the situation is likely to look quite different.  In previous posts (here for example), we have reported that recent employment data for the state of Arkansas is likely to be revised up by over 13,500 jobs (about 1.2%).  The data revisions for metropolitan areas are subject to greater uncertainty, but the underlying data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages suggest that some of the metro employment figures will be revised substantially.   As shown in the set of charts below, revisions will be particularly significant for Fort Smith, Jonesboro, and Texarkana.  In percentage terms, the largest revision (and arguably the most welcome) is expected to affect data for Fort Smith.  The new data will show that the currently published figures underestimate actual employment in Fort Smith by approximately 5,700 jobs, or 5.2%.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement

With these expected revisions, the November employment situation looks somewhat different.  The most recent change (from October to November) will not be affected.  However, the year-over-year, change-since-trough and change-since-peak comparisons will be affected.  The table below summarizes the revised situation (compare to the table above of the same title).

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement

Note that these are preliminary estimates calculated by the Institute for Economic Advancement.  The official benchmark revisions will not be published until March 2013.

Metro Area Employment & Unemployment – October 2012

New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that October unemployment rates were down from a year ago in 329 of the nation’s 372 metropolitan areas.  All of Arkansas’ metro areas are included in this total.  As shown in the table below, year-over-year changes in unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) ranged from -0.3% in Jonesboro to -1.3% in Texarkana.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

Monthly changes in smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates for October were mixed.   Unemployment rates were unchanged in Fayetteville, Hot Springs, and Little Rock.  Rates ticked up by one tenth of a percent in Fort Smith, Jonesboro, and Memphis.  Pine Bluff’s unemployment rate rose by 0.2% and Texarkana’s declined by 0.2%.  Four of the eight metro areas had unemployment rates lower than the statewide average of 7.2%.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

Payroll Data
Nonfarm payroll employment in October was unchanged in Fort Smith, Hot Springs and Memphis.  The state’s other metro areas saw fairly sizable increases.  Employment was up 1.0% in Fayetteville and Texarkana, up 1.2% in Little Rock, up 1.4% in Pine Bluff and up 0.8% in Jonesboro.  Each of these increases exceeded the statewide growth rate for the month (0.4%).   Employment was higher than a year earlier in most of the state’s metro areas, with the exceptions of Fort Smith and Hot Springs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (CES)

Metro Area Employment & Unemployment – September 2012

A new report on employment and unemployment in the nation’s metropolitan areas came out earlier this week.  It showed that unemployment rates were down from a year earlier in 345 of the 372 metro areas.  In Arkansas, the changes from a year ago ranged from -0.8% in Fort Smith to -1.7% in Pine Bluff.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics

From August to September, the jobless rate fell 0.2% in Arkansas and 0.3% nationwide.  Arkansas’ metro areas generally saw declines for the month as well.  The smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates in the table below show lower rates in Hot Springs, Little Rock, Memphis, Pine Bluff, and Texarkana.  Unemployment rates were unchanged in Fayetteville and Jonesboro, but the rate ticked up 0.1% in Fort Smith.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smoothed Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates

Payroll Employment
September figures on payroll employment suggest a weaker job-market picture than the results of the household survey.   Statewide employment was down 0.2% for the month, with both Fayetteville and Little Rock showing similar declines.  Employment dropped even more sharply in Texarkana, Pine Bluff and especially Jonesboro.  Fort Smith and Hot Springs, on the other hand, saw welcome improvement in the monthly employment figures.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics

Since employment hit a statewide trough in February 2010, most of the state’s metro areas have seen at least a partial recovery from the sharp declines of the recession.  Three metro areas — Fayetteville, Jonesboro, and Texarkana — actually have higher employment levels now than at the onset of the recession.   In contrast, Hot Springs, Pine Bluff, and Fort Smith have all seen continued declines in employment since the February 2010 turning-point.

The metro area employment data are subject to the same benchmark revision process as the statewide totals.  Based on estimates of how the revisions will affect Arkansas employment in general, the data for metro area job growth are likely to see upward revisions, particularly for late 2011 and the first part of 2012.  We’ll be presenting some estimates of those expected effects in an upcoming post here on the Arkansas Economist.