Preliminary May labor force data counts for San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties puts the unemployment rate at 9.2%, 7.9% and 8.8% respectively, down 0.4 percentage points in all three counties.
On a revised basis, the number of unemployed in San Francisco fell by 1,900 (from 43,500 to 41,600) in May as the number of employed increased by 1,300 (from 411,400 to 412,700) and the labor force decreased by 600 (from 454,900 to 454,300).
Overall California unemployment fell by 0.3 percentage points to 11.9% as the labor force fell by 25,700 and employment increased by 40,000.
∙ Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties: May 2010 (Preliminary) [EDD]
∙ San Francisco County Unemployment At 9.6 Percent In April [SocketSite]
Interesting to check out the rates in July/August/Sept as the University of California will implement cuts big time. That in an of itself will wipe out the SF 1,900
The apparent (fingers-crossed) reversal of the worsening trend is certainly great news. Unemployment is a very big problem right now. As for the impact on housing, I’m speculating that SF housing prices will stop falling when the SF unemployment rate is back under 5%, the level of two years ago. I think they’ll move sideways for many years after that, but they won’t stop falling before then. Just a SWAG — the correlation between unemployment and housing prices is real, but far from perfect.
I’m doubt the unemployment rate has much to do with prices.. maybe psychologically, but that’s about it.. The unemployment rate on folks that can afford a house in SF is very small.. Here’s national figures from end of 2009:
Range of incomes (by decile) unemployment rate $12,160 or less 30.8%
$12,160-$20,725 19.1%
$20,725-$29,680 15.3%
$29,680-$39,000 12.2%
$39,000-$50,000 9.0%
$50,000-$63,000 7.8%
$63,000-$79,100 6.4%
$79,100-$100,500 5.0%
$100,150-$138,700 4.0%
$138,700+ 3.2%
From: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/02/10/rich-people-still-have-jobs-poor-people-dont/#ixzz0rEo21jnl
^Did you actually read the article? You get laid off for a year and your “income bracket” now includes your unemployment benefits. LOL!!
By definition, people who have been laid off don’t have much income.
Fail.
“By definition, people who have been laid off don’t have much income.”
Spot on Tipster. If you lose your job generally you’re going to fall into a lower income range. It makes this “research” somewhat questionable.
R – Employment is critical not only in the heartland but here in the Bay Area too. Thinking that it’s not really doesn’t make any sense.
R,
I don’t take much comfort in the numbers you present (or that the researchers present) for two reasons:
1. Unemployment is low in upper income ranges precisely because without income derived from work, people drop out of those brackets. Unemployed people are likely to have far lower incomes than employed people, even when family incomes are included (as is the method here).
2. The tip of this pyramid is very tall and narrow, while the base is much wider. The numbers at the top are tiny, even in SF. Median HH income in SF is probably in the mid 60s these days, and our poverty rate is still in the low double digits. Even if the unemployment rates approach zero at the top of the income pyramid, it wouldn’t do the RE market much good. That pool is diminishing and its former occupants drop into lower and lower brackets. It’s the way of recessions.
Fundamentally, the city is hurting, even if our wealthier ranks are hurting less. I find it hard to believe that the RE market wouldn’t be hurting too.
Unemployment payments to end for some
The state is sending notices to the unemployed this week. Janice Shriver, with the state’s Employment Development Department, expects it to jump start people’s job search.
“I think you’ll see a lot of people taking survival jobs that they may not have considered before,” says Shriver.
“It is disappointing, but it’s good they have a cap or something because I’ve noticed some people continue to be on unemployment,” says Hasegawa.
Man, everything is black or white on this board.. No shades of gray.
Are the numbers from that article infallible? No, of course not.
But to state the 9.2% SF unemployment rate and say that this is directly related to housing costs is silly. Regardless of the methodology of this study, it is clear that lower income folks are vastly more affected by high unemployment rates than higher income folks. And lower income folks ain’t buying houses in San Francisco… last year, this year, or next year.
And lower income folks ain’t buying houses in San Francisco.
That’s the point. You lose your job and you move into the lower income bracket and so you don’t buy a house. If you have a house you might need to sell it.
I’d be interested to see how the census hiring affected these numbers. my brother was unemployed for 3 years. he was recently hired by the census department. evidently, he worked for like 1-2months, now they’re laying him off for a month, and will re-hire him again next month.
Nonetheless, there has clearly been a slowdown in layoffs nationwide for some time now.
the problem is that we’re still waiting for those re-hirings. (which may never come)
yet another job-loss “recovery”.
🙁
but I’d rather have unemployment to fall 0.4% than rise 0.4%… it is unequivocably good news, especially if the trend holds.
“But to state the 9.2% SF unemployment rate and say that this is directly related to housing costs is silly.”
Well, that depends on what you mean by “directly related.” I agree there is almost certainly no 1:1 correlation between the two — in which for every 1% of added unemployment real estate prices drop by X%. But I’m also quite confident that rising and high unemployment correlates to declining real estate prices, in SF and everywhere else.