Preliminary June labor force data counts for San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties puts the unemployment rate at 9.8%, 8.0% and 8.9% respectively, up 0.7 percentage points for San Francisco and up 0.5 percentage points Marin and San Mateo in May.
The 9.8% unemployment rate for San Francisco in June represents a new 25 year high.
The number of unemployed in San Francisco increased by 3,300 from 40,800 to 44,100 in June while the number of employed fell by 1,300 (from 407,100 to 405,800) as the labor force increased by 1,900 (from 448,000 to 449,900), a net loss of 5,100 over the past three months.
∙ Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties: June 2009 (Preliminary) [EDD]
∙ San Francisco County Unemployment Up To 9.1 Percent In May ’09 [SocketSite]
No twitter bump? 🙂
No twitter bump! 🙁
Anyone want to guess which employees have fared the best so far in this recession?
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:X5_89UjZewUJ:www.sfced.org/assets/files/LARGEST%2520EMPLOYERS(1).pdf+san+francisco+largest+employers&hl=en&gl=us
^^^LOL at that link still getting posted. I’m still trying to figure out how more than 700,000 people work for the post office in the Bay Area, or if it’s showing all post office employees everywhere, how the Chronicle is a bigger total employer than Cisco, Intel, Oracle or dozens of other Silicon Valley companies.
i think the number of employees (700,000 in the case of usps) is the total nationwide (and worldwide for the corporations) but if you include only the bay area jobs, it ranks #7 at a number that is ironically not shown, since it is the whole point of the table to begin with.
The employee numbers are nationwide — however, CALMIS has basically the same breakdown of nongovernmental employees:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000075
Can somebody please post the numbers for the rest of the bay area?
[Editor’s Note: Try the link we provided above. It provides employment/unemployment data for all Bay Area and other California counties.]
Here’s some info for Silicon Valley, which is a much larger job center than the city and Marin:
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/07/13/daily96.html?ed=2009-07-17&ana=e_du_pub
SV unemployment at 11.8%, up from 11.4% last month and well above both the California and national numbers.
Legacy Dude – stats please showing Santa Clara and San Benito Counties (the “Silicon Valley” according to your link) have more jobs than San Francisco and Marin Counties combined, much less is a “much larger job center”.
Unfortunately unemployment turns last in a recession. I think the economy is trying to turn up. Real Estate has surely piocked up. Maybe the pain will start to end soon.
There are still a few shoes that are poised to fall in the banking system. I wouldn’t get too hopeful that we’re past the worst, this is at best a lull.
There’s european bank’s exposure to eastern europe.
Securitized commercial lending in the us.
Losses in Alt-A and Option ARMs coming up.
I’d also keep an eye on the kabuki play that is MGIC.
the details are really not important here.
10% in SF and 12% in SV are horrible numbers.
I think diemos is right – there are enough “external” event risks out there to keep UE flat at best for a while.
i hope you saw the wsj story about worldwide plaza in midtown manhattan just sold for 45 cents on the 2006 purchase dollar. this is a new “A” office building at what is now an A- location. if this is a harbinger it is bad.
Rising unemployment and plunging home prices in SV ought to put paid to the idea that tech millionaires will continue to support real estate valuations in SF. If you work down there, you’re probably worried about your job, and anyway more likely to buy a (suddenly much cheaper) residence close to work.
Anecdotally across-the-board pay cuts are now common in SV. If you’ve only given up 10% you consider yourself lucky.
anon wrote, “Legacy Dude – stats please showing Santa Clara and San Benito Counties (the “Silicon Valley” according to your link) have more jobs than San Francisco and Marin Counties combined, much less is a “much larger job center”.
Here you go:
http://www.eastbayeda.org/research_facts_figures/charts/workforce.aspx
The East Bay Economic Development Alliance tracks county-level stats from BLS. According to their charts, here are the stats as of November 2008 (most recent available):
San Francisco County: 426,700 of the workforce employed.
Marin County: 130,900, for a total of 557,600 jobs between the two.
Santa Clara County: 827,700 employed. They don’t track San Benito. But Santa Clara, by itself, has 270,000 jobs more than SF and Marin combined.
^^^That shows the percentage of the RESIDENTS of those counties that ARE employed, not WHERE they are employed, nor where the jobs are. SF County has significantly more jobs than 426,700. Since a MUCH larger percentage of SF’s jobs are from people commuting in, those numbers are meaningless.
“Since a MUCH larger percentage of SF’s jobs are from people commuting in, those numbers are meaningless.”
Really? Then why is there more traffic heading south out of the city in the morning than heading into the city?
But “anon”, you do not really believe S.F. has more jobs than the South Bay do you? If you add parts of the peninsula, there is no way our tourist driven economy can compete with the high paying jobs of the south.
Really? Then why is there more traffic heading south out of the city in the morning than heading into the city?
Because most commuters into the city are coming from the north and east, or via BART, Caltrain, or ferries. The focus by Socketsite commenters only on stuff to our south is mind-boggling. Amazing how all finance, law, and medical jobs disappear (even though SF has one of the highest concentrations of all three in the western half of the US).
I don’t think that SF has more jobs than Santa Clara County, no. But I think it is quite possible that SF + Marin does have more jobs than Santa Clara County. If you divide up San Mateo County, it all depends on the dividing line. Then, if you’re going to give San Mateo County to the South Bay, Contra Costa and Alameda County go where?
There is no doubt that the largest “clusters” of jobs are in Silicon Valley, downtown SF, downtown Oakland, and in the Pleasanton-Walnut Creek corridor, most likely in that order (the last two might be switched depending on your dividing line).
I don’t think that SF has more jobs than Santa Clara County, no. But I think it is quite possible that SF + Marin does have more jobs than Santa Clara County.
The BEA CA series reports jobs by place of work, not place of residence. There is a separate line item for place of residence.
Here is total employment data for the 9 counties in the Bay Area.
I’ve included the years 2001, 2004, 2007, to see the effects of the last recession.
County _____2001________2004_______2007
Alameda_____897170______870971_____918292
Con. Cost___482489______484928_____514931
Marin_______180277______177754_____185096
Napa________85714_______88077______92731
San Franc___743593______680663_____736416
San Mateo___490710______447888_____488238
San Clara___1241525_____1081736____1179511
Solano______165181______171572_____175998
Sonoma______277483______272701_____285490
So, Santa Clara has about 28% more jobs than SF + Marin, FWIW. Both SF and Santa Clara are still below
2001 employment, and San Mateo is stagnant. The job growth has been in the east bay. Anon has a good point about the focus on the south.
Note that this includes part time jobs, so the number of full-time equivalent jobs will be lower, particularly in counties with a lot of part time work. To better gauge the quality of the jobs, we can look at average wage per job (again, this is by place of work, not place of residence). “Wage” includes things such as medicare contributions on the employee’s behalf and employee stock options — i.e. it is total compensation. It does not include income derived outside of the job, such as social security payments, dividend income, etc.
County________2001_____2002_____2003_____2004_____2005_____2006_____2007
Alameda_______46029____46749____48243____50804____52868____55700____58014
ConCosta______44466____45457____46136____49310____51483____53125____55293
Marin ________42793____44244____46996____49173____51435____53275____54733
Napa__________34417____34865____36158____38493____40015____41941____44222
SanFranc _____60729____58318____58671____62562____66744____70905____75102
SanMateo _____61535____56504____58333____61072____65405____67070____71517
SantaClara____64991____62009____64652____69439____71894____76584____82003
Solano _______33477____34281____35438____37473____39082____40922____43383
Sonoma _______35715____35855____36560____38135____39902____41542____42810
So, you see how compensation on the peninsula remains king, and how unstable it is, in comparison
to the east bay (i.e. wages in Alameda and Contra Costa increased every year. Wages on the peninsula fluctuate more in
line with the financial markets). This is because wages in SF and Santa Clara are heavily dependent on asset prices (both real estate and stock compensation).
To get a better picture, you would still need to look at median wages, and the Gini coefficient. Unlike the previous tables, though, the Gini coefficient is by place of residence, not place of work.
County: Gini_Coefficient
Alameda: 0.46
Con Cost: 0.45
Marin: 0.51
Napa: 0.46
S.F: 0.52
San Mateo: 0.47
San Clara: 0.45
Solano: 0.40
Sonoma: 0.44
So those areas where wages are lower and more stable have lower gini coefficients. These are also the areas that have continued to add jobs. SF (and also Marin) have the highest inequality (e.g. the “coffee shop + boutique law firm” effect). However, Santa Clara has the lowest Gini coefficient on the peninsula, meaning that the average wage is more representative of the average earner. This also re-enforces the median vs. per capita distinction I pointed out earlier. SF’s wages are comparable on a per capita (i.e. average) basis with the peninsula, but substantially lower on a median basis.
Very informative, Robert. Thanks.
Thanks Robert. Very interesting stuff.