Preliminary December labor force data counts for San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties puts the unemployment rate at 9.4%, 7.8% and 8.6% respectively, down 0.3 percentage points in San Francisco and San Mateo and down 0.2 percentage points in Marin.
While the number of unemployed in San Francisco fell by 1400 (from 43,100 to 41,700) in December, the number of employed fell by 1,400 (from 401,500 to 400,100) as the labor force contracted by 2,800 (from 444,600 to 441,800).
Overall California unemployment fell by 0.1 percentage points to 12.1% as the labor force contracted by 118,900 (1%).
UPDATE: A piece of the bigger picture via Bloomberg:

Employment dropped in 39 U.S. states in December, seven more than in the prior month, indicating job losses were widespread.

Payrolls in California showed the biggest decline, falling by 38,800 last month, according to figures issued today by the Labor Department in Washington. Texas followed with a 23,900 decline and Ohio was next with a 16,700 drop.

Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties: December 2009 (Preliminary) [EDD]
San Francisco County Unemployment At 9.7 Percent In November [SocketSite]
California, Texas, Ohio Showed Biggest Job Losses [Bloomberg]

64 thoughts on “San Francisco County Unemployment At 9.4 Percent In December”
  1. And as Supertramp would say to that, “Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer”
    Take a look at the stock market recently?

  2. What’s behind labor force shrinking? People leaving SF or CA? Natural aging of the population? Less immigration due to lack of jobs?

  3. What’s behind the labor force shrinking? It’s the fact that the political office who collects the statistics reports to the politician who gets voted out of office if the unemployment rate is too high.
    So the politician leans on the guy who collects the stats to try to steer people to answering questions the right way to allow the stats to show up rosier.
    “I assume with the bad job market, you didn’t apply to too many jobs” “Not many, OK, I’ll mark you down as not looking for work”.
    The lower labor force then translates to a rosier unemployment number.
    That’s politics.

  4. Big tech did well by cost cutting. Revenues are not up in general, just profits.
    They squeeze their local suppliers dry. They work their employees to death without hiring more, while freezing salaries and telling the employees they are lucky to have jobs.

  5. That’s not what today’s Google story said. Nor the recent Apple stories, nor what Intel is looking at either. In fact, why am I talking to you. You don’t care about beign truthful on here. ONly talking out your a**

  6. Google is down, what? almost 6% today?
    Apple down 5%? Hiring? WTF?
    Intel? Hasn’t hired in the bay area in a long time.
    You should pin your hopes on those guys! LOL!

  7. ^ Odd companies to spotlight. All three were down big because of weaker outlooks. Besides, none of them is in SF. But go ahead and resort to cheap profanity to try to buttress a weak argument.

  8. “Pin hopes” and stock quotes when you just were talking about revenues a moment ago. Whatever man. You’re utterly fake in every way.

  9. “All three were down big because of weaker outlooks”
    Do ya think they’ll hire big time, with terrible outlooks, Einstein?
    “stock quotes when you just were talking about revenues a moment ago. ”
    Their stock prices are down because their revenues disappointed. Stock prices and revenues are kind of related just a teensy bit. Practically the whole valley is down hard today because of revenues.
    More hiring? Uh, no.

  10. And in comes the anonymous nitwit. Yeah man. Those companies hold no water when it comes to tech’s outlook. My bad for offending your delicate sensibilites.
    To recap, I initially said, “Tech did OK foruth quarter. Maybe they will hire.”
    Tipster said, “They did well by cost cutting. Revenues are down.”
    I responded by referring to a slew of recent articles saying differently. Here’s one: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/22/BUVG1BLJFA.DTL You can google more if you wish.
    Where was there a place for you to talk to me , there? Other than offending your dainty sensibilities, what do you have to say?
    Nothing, right? So buzz off. Oh wait. Was buzz too strong a word? (I realize a** hurt your feelings?)

  11. Yeah Tipster. That’s what the articles are saying all right. Um. Wait a minute. No they’re not.
    I’m supposed to take your assessment over what I read in the business section?
    LOL.

  12. “Things are looking up and they’ll only get better. The future’s so bright that I have to wear shades.”
    ZZ Top

  13. Now it’s “cheerleading statements by the company itself” is it? Oh OK. They weren’t actual numbers now? You seem to be parsing “exceeded expectations” and “disappointed analysts” to a degree that the story you quoted did not. Why is that?
    The stock probably dropped today probably because Google announced Brin and Page were selling some shares.
    So whatever, pal. For someone who wants everyone to think he’s plugged in, you sure are drawing direct results from stock quotes. AGAIN.
    Why do I say again? Maybe because if I had the time or inclination to drill down on this website about a year or so, your name would be repeated in every thread mentioning the obsoliteness of Google back when it was at 300 or so.
    Recurring theme today. You keep saying the same things despite learning to the contrary. Earlier it was, “Agents keep prices low.” Now it’s “stock quote = success of company.” Huh.

  14. “The stock probably dropped today probably because Google announced Brin and Page were selling some shares.”
    That was announced after the markets closed.
    Anonn, you just cannot admit it when you spout something that you have no clue about. This is your general m.o. on this board. Spout some unsubstantiated crap, then write post after post ad nauseum addressing everyone who calls you on it. Boring. It’s largely why this board is 1/10 as interesting as it was 6 months ago. The editor’s posts continue to be very good, but you lard up the comments with one load after another.

  15. Shut up anon. YOu never say a single thing of substance, and that’s why you’re always deleted. Pick a name too, coward.

  16. Funny, almost all of the tech stocks fell today on revenues. Did Brin and Page sell shares in those companies too?

  17. I said “probably.” You don’t know what rumors were floating about. Neither do I. I took notice of what time the story broke. But go ahead and have your little ah ha moment in that tiny brain of yours.
    While defending Tipster.
    Who was drawing direct correlations from stock quotes.
    After being shown that he was making up things about revenue.
    Long after talking about the demise of Google last year.
    Nice spot to pick, anon. End sarcasm.

  18. Tipster, try to go two days without saying something completely untrue. Go work out on an elliptical machine or something instead. Good call on GOOG last year. You’re really on it. Thanks for helping everyone with your insight.

  19. Huh. Yeah, that looks about right. My clients turned down about four offers in that range on pretty much the same house last summer. It’ll probably go pretty easily for that price. They’re small houses but North Slope, the view is nice, and the lots are attractive.

  20. In terms of employment loss, the dot-com bust was much worse – as I recall, San Francisco proper lost something on order of 80k jobs. We’ve never had as many jobs before or since. Until the last couple of years we had significantly recovered from those job losses.

  21. Funny anecdote. Those same realtors went through my listing and I could tell they thought we were not priced right. Flash forward a few months and voila, they’re looking squarely at what I pulled off.

  22. 116 Manchester is an interesting 875 sqft 2/1 at $749K. It is very close to an apple. According to the permits (claimed under $40K), it looks like all they did were some minor repairs, shore up the bay windows a bit, replace the tub with a shower, replace the sink, and replace the toilet with 1.6 gal toilet.
    Prior sale in 2002 was $630K (inflation-adjusted $751K in 2009 dollars).
    Was 17 Elsie an REO?

  23. My clients turned down about four offers in that range on pretty much the same house last summer.
    Nice job holding the line for your ‘clients’. From my armchair, 116 Manchester looks to be a bit better property (check out how they opened up the kitchen). If it only goes for asking, I’d say the market is still hemorrhaging; at $800k, you’d have an argument that we are flat.
    BTW, there is a NOD showing up on Treat Ave. according to RealtyTrac. (Somewhere around 1590, but I haven’t been able to nail it down because there are a couple of good candidates at 1250 sq.ft. and it’s not showing up on the Recorders website).

  24. Do tell. Well I’ll view the property before I start throwing around words like hemorrhaging or better or flat if you don’t mind.

  25. What’s behind labor force shrinking? People leaving SF or CA? Natural aging of the population? Less immigration due to lack of jobs?
    some of it is that, but much of it is also that some people leave employment. For instance, they become stay-at-home parents or students, they retire early, or they just give up finding a job. sometimes they get a black-market job (selling off Ebay without reporting, illegal business like drugs/prostitution, job for barter, etc)
    in the end the important number IMO would be the number of employed and not the unemployment number.
    more employed people buy more houses
    between 1400 and 2800 people lost jobs in SF last month. That’s 1400-8400 less incomes to buy things.

  26. “in the end the important number IMO would be the number of employed and not the unemployment number.”
    I would say total compensation was the important number as that measures the number of dollars flowing into the economy to drive other activity.

  27. Do tell. Well I’ll view the property before I start throwing around words like hemorrhaging or better or flat if you don’t mind.
    Nice little house. The treatment is the opposite of its twin. They opened up the front on that one, the rear on this one. Also that lot had no rear neighbors. But there’s a key difference. They didn’t develop the attic on 116, so no market hemophilia can be detected.

  28. They didn’t develop the attic on 116, so no market hemophilia can be detected.
    I just looked at the pair on Mapjack again. At first glance, they look identical, but then I noticed the steeper roof on the developed attic at 118 Manchester. Thanks for checking it out. So, call the market ‘flat’ if 116 gets their asking price?

  29. It’s all micro on the North Slope. And we know that the nearly $900 per sq. ft. includes man cave development potential on the lowest level.
    Speaking of Bernal, any comments on the million+ dollar Prentiss properties?

  30. Despite your mapjack analysis, it probably has development potential both down and up. I’m not saying that isn’t priced in, either. I haven’t followed the Prentiss properties.

  31. @jon who asks 12.1%, Wasn’t this state rich at one time?
    People would come here to work.

    Sure. It was rich. Until the muscle-head idiot from Austria took his movie line “I’ll be BACK” too serious and never stopped running for Governor of California again and again (and winning) despite utter failure.

  32. and oh, why is everyone beating up on tipster ? What he/she said about the current atmosphere in big tech companies is 100% true, word to word (reposted below).
    Is it that somehow we have reached such epic levels of political correctness in this country that we have started refusing to acknowledge the truth just because it feels depressing and unfair and vilifying those that do speak out ???
    tipster said
    “Big tech did well by cost cutting. Revenues are not up in general, just profits.
    They squeeze their local suppliers dry. They work their employees to death without hiring more, while freezing salaries and telling the employees they are lucky to have jobs.”

  33. Would tend to agree with Chad911. Google’s “80/20” policy is really 100/20 — i.e. if you do the 20, you’re doing 120%.
    And certainly lots of layoffs in tech.
    And note that tipster said something similar on another thread recently too, with more explanation — that it was tech companies of all sizes first, and now appears to be the little guys, on not being able to pay bills:
    https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/01/san_francisco_recorded_sales_activity_in_december_up_36.html

  34. I finally zeroed in on the Treat Ave. (Bernal North Slope!) NOD that I talked about in the post on January 22, 2010 5:41 PM. The property at 1587 Treat Ave. (1250 sq.ft.) is scheduled to hit the auction block tomorrow, March 19. Evidently, it’s been in the family for a while as the tax basis is less then $30k. Refied with World Savings for $365k in 2002 (and back to the well in 2005). Subsequent loans were with LLCs.
    Currently, the North Slope appears to be on fire (in a good way — at least for sellers). We’ll see if pent up supply rains on anyone’s parade…

  35. Thanks EBGuy. For a second there I thought I was headed down to the ‘steps tomorrow. But that lot is only 1359 feet.

  36. Speaking of the North Slope, here’s some more pent up supply; I’m willing to bet this one goes this distance as this is the state of affairs between the co-owners. It looks like 130 Ripley went condo (duplex) around five years ago; one of the units (2/2 2420sq.ft.) was sold for $1.2million in August 2007. A NOD was filed on March 4, 2010. One of the co-owners also owns the Medici Lounge, which is for sale, and, according to lawsuits, had some unpaid bills and outstanding credit card debt. All around bad timing for buying real estate and opening a restaurant.

  37. I just don’t understand why you keep wanting to call things that are probably being fought for tooth and nail “supply” when they’re not, one. Two, I’ve seen 130 Ripley. If you had, you’d agree that it gets 1.2 tomorrow probably. Unless they thrashed it.

  38. Three, people have business problems that cause them to miss payments on mortgages year in and year out. Creepy, by you.

  39. If you had, you’d agree that it gets 1.2 tomorrow probably.
    Again, I’ll waive my usual referral fee. Slip a CMA under this guy’s door; he could use some good news. I haven’t seen a NOD get canceled with someone owing more than $10k to AmEx (see Ms. Unique Global Estates for the latest casualty), but hey, there’s a first time for everything.

  40. You’re not talking about the real estate market when you out business lawsuits and NODs barely a week old. I’m not sure why the editor allows your ghoulish habit in this space. Seriously, you seen like a nice guy. But knock it off.

  41. “You’re not talking about the real estate market when you out business lawsuits and NODs barely a week old.”
    Yes he is. Look at the subject of this thread (more recent data show the SF unemployment picture continues to worsen). The point is that we are in a tough economy, and with more people in trouble with their business more people are unable to afford the homes bought in SF on the assumption that somehow higher incomes would be forthcoming. You like to portray a city full of trust fund babies, and EBGuy simply digs up valuable facts illustrating that just ain’t so.

  42. The subject of the thread has nothing to do with this. The subject of the thread is not, “People Who Open Restaurants Often Face Financial Difficulties.” Who is to say that the individual in question is not a “trust fund baby”? Valuable? in what way? The property in question MIGHT go to foreclosure in 6 months, and MIGHT sell for the same it was bought for previouslY? What would that do to the market? I’ll tell you. Zilch.
    Come on. Looks a whole lot like airing somebody else’s laundry. Have a heart. The house isn’t anywhere near the market. You’re ridiculous for defending EB Guy’s ridiculous little gossiping hobby.

  43. The question here is often whether or not property owners are distressed. No one objects when a tipster provides inside info, but somehow linking to or alluding to publicly available info is a problem? Keep up the good work, EBGuy.

  44. He’s telling a story, tho, one that he really only knows a few things about. If you like that sort of thing that also tells a story to me — a story about your nature. Here is another story. example. The restaurant is for sale. Flash forward two months. It has sold. Money problems solved. The end. So, um, why is this on here again?
    But I understand your perspective. If I were you I’d be upset with EBGuy. Where are all the parking violation details that may or may not have gotten a car booted or towed, which also costs money?
    Come on already. If it’s on the market, then fine. Material facts may effect a sales outcome, I guess, (even tho y’all are just e-lookee loo’s anyway.) In that case, go ahead and look at public info. But if it isn’t even on the market,? Please. You cannot justify publishing that stuff in a blog in any way.

  45. Flatly, public domain info is public domain info. Is this a flat depiction of that info tho? No, it’s not. Even putting it into this context changes things. A story is being told. Can you argue against that? Let alone the whole “supply” nonsense about a NOD two weeks old. I guess your guys’ mileage varies. I’m driving an older Audi. Y’all seem to be driving that souped up hearse that the Munsters drove.

  46. Funny, if there was some inside information on how many offers a home got, that gets blabbed all over creation. No realtor ever objects.
    I think you suddenly feel sympathy for this guy because it provides evidence of people having problems and real estate values falling as a result. He isn’t the only business owner having problems right now.
    It’s good, solid information that anyone can get. Republishing already published information has no morality problems that I can see.
    You just don’t like it because it interferes with the happy stories of real estate going up, up up that you’d like to portray. Please. Save it. Coming from a Realtor especially, your new found sympathy for distressed homeowners has nearly zero credibility.
    Business owners are in trouble. We had assets we could draw on to delay our day of reckoning, but those assets are running out. That’s the reality. It’s only getting worse for us. If you don’t like someone pointing that out, tough.

  47. Funny yourself, bud. This isn’t on the market. Why that distinction is difficult to grasp I do not know. But unlike Rillion and EBGuy, you’re nobody I care to listen to or read. So whatever.

  48. “This isn’t on the market.”
    You mean this isn’t on a listing that some agent has distorted photoshopped photos of on a tightly controlled MLS site, with a blue sky and no power lines?
    Reality is much uglier, I agree. To bad you don’t want people to know about the struggling business owners having difficulty paying their mortgages and nearing default.
    As for there being a distinction, who cares. It’s posted on the internet for all to see. EBGuy just reposted it here.

  49. Not saying it was particularly relevant to this topic or that it was useful. Just saying that linking that information doesn’t need to be justified. Would it be preferrable if were actually useful? Sure but if all useless posts were deleted from any website there would be almost nothing left to read.

  50. Something about the North Slope brings out the best in all of us. Well, since we’re there, 92 Elsie sold for $875k on March 3; it was bought for $640k in 2003 (no significant improvements, just a new roof, according to permits). Refied for $680k in 2007…

  51. Clearly I was saying “up up up” and you sidetracked me. That’s why I got mad. Also I have no track record of objecting to this sort of information getting posted, and putting things in new contexts with insinuation attached never effects meaning. Not to a clear eyed unbiased observor like you, Tipster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *