Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

8.3: Patterns of Unemployment

  • Page ID
    164223
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)
    Learning Objectives

    By the end of this section, you will be able to:

    • Explain historical patterns of unemployment in the U.S.
    • Identify trends of unemployment based on demographics
    • Evaluate global unemployment rates

    Let’s look at how unemployment rates have changed over time and how various groups of people are affected by unemployment differently.

    The Historical U.S. Unemployment Rate

    Figure 8.3 shows the historical pattern of U.S. unemployment since 1955.

    This graph illustrates the percent change in the unemployment rate over time. The y-axis measures the unemployment rate as a percent, from 0 to 12 in increments of 2 percent, and the x-axis shows the years, from 1960 to 2020. In 1960, the unemployment rate is slightly under 6 percent. It declines to under 4 percent in 1970. In the 1970s it generally increases, with intermittent years where it declines, and it is close to 10 percent in the early 1980s. It then generally decreases, with an increase in 1994, and is around 4 percent in 2000. It then increases to 2002, declines again to 2008, then spikes to 10 percent in 2009. It then decreases to 2019, and spikes past 8 percent in 2020.
    Figure 8.3 The U.S. Unemployment Rate, 1948–2020 The U.S. unemployment rate moves up and down as the economy moves in and out of recessions. However, over time, the unemployment rate seems to return to a range of 4% to 6%. There does not seem to be a long-term trend toward the rate moving generally higher or generally lower. (Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) research.stlouisfed.org/fred...UN64TTUSA156S0)

    As we look at this data, several patterns stand out:

    1. Unemployment rates do fluctuate over time. During the deep recessions of the early 1980s, 2007–2009, and 2021, unemployment reached roughly 10%. For comparison, during the 1930s Great Depression, the unemployment rate reached almost 25% of the labor force.
    2. Unemployment rates in the late 1990s and into the mid-2000s were rather low by historical standards. The unemployment rate was below 5% from 1997 to 2000, and near 5% during almost all of 2006–2007, and 5% or less from September 2015 through March 2020. The previous time unemployment had been less than 5% for three consecutive years was three decades earlier, from 1968 to 1970.
    3. The unemployment rate never falls all the way to zero. It almost never seems to get below 3%—and it stays that low only for very short periods. (We discuss reasons why this is the case later in this chapter.)
    4. The timing of rises and falls in unemployment matches fairly well with the timing of upswings and downswings in the overall economy, except that unemployment tends to lag changes in economic activity, and especially so during upswings of the economy following a recession. During periods of recession and depression, unemployment is high. During periods of economic growth, unemployment tends to be lower.
    5. No significant upward or downward trend in unemployment rates is apparent. This point is especially worth noting because the U.S. population more than quadrupled from 76 million in 1900 to over 324 million by 2017. Moreover, a higher proportion of U.S. adults are now in the paid workforce, because women have entered the paid labor force in significant numbers in recent decades. Women comprised 18% of the paid workforce in 1900 and nearly half of the paid workforce in 2021. However, despite the increased number of workers, as well as other economic events like globalization and the continuous invention of new technologies, the economy has provided jobs without causing any long-term upward or downward trend in unemployment rates.

    Unemployment Rate from 1948. Similar to the graph in the figure above, the rate moves up and down as the economy moves in and out of recessions.

    Unemployment Rates by Group

    Unemployment is not distributed evenly across the U.S. population. Figure 8.4 shows unemployment rates broken down in various ways: by gender, age, and race/ethnicity.

    There are three graphs illustrated here. The first shows male and female unemployment rates as two lines over time, with the y-axis showing the unemployment rate and x-axis showing years. The unemployment rate is measured in 2 percent increments, from 0 to 12, and time runs in years from 1974 to 2020. The male and female unemployment rates follow the same pattern of peaks and valleys, with the female unemployment rate generally higher than the male, until the early 1990s. In 1974, the line starts out at 6.6 percent for females. It jumps to above 9 percent in 1975 and 1982, then gradually declines until another peak in 2009, when it rises to 8 percent. It then gradually lowers to around 4 percent in 2019, when it then spikes again. In 1974 the line starts out at roughly 5 percent for males. It jumps to near 8 percent in 1975 and 10 percent in 1982, then gradually declines until another peak in 2009, when it rises to 10 percent. It then gradually lowers to around 4 percent in 2019, when it then spikes again. The next graph shows unemployment rates for women by age. There are four lines shown, each representing a different age group. The y-axis shows the unemployment rate and the x-axis measures time. The unemployment rate is measured in 2 percent increments, from 0 to 12, and time runs in years from 1974 to 2020. The highest unemployment rate over time is for women ages 16 to 19, followed by the 20 to 24 age group, then the 25 to 54 group, and the lowest is the age 55 and over group. For women ages 16 to 19, in 1974, it is roughly 16 percent, increases to 20 percent in 1975, decreases, increases to 23 percent in 1982, and then generally declines, with a brief spike in 1991, to 15 percent 2008. It increases in 2009 to above 25 percent, then decreases to 13 in 2019, and increases in 2020 to 18 percent. For women ages 20 to 24, the line starts out around 10 percent, goes up to 13 percent in 1975, declines until 1981, increases to 15 percent in 1982, then generally decreases to 8 percent in 2008, spikes to 15 percent in 2009, declines again to 6 percent in 2019, then increases in 2020 to 15 percent. For women ages 25 to 54, the line starts out slightly less than 5 percent, goes up to 6 percent in 1975, declines until 1981, increases to 7 percent in 1982, then generally decreases to 5 percent in 2008, spikes to 7 percent in 2009, declines again to 3 percent in 2019, then increases in 2020 to 6 percent. For women ages 55 and over, the line is nearly identical to the line for women ages 25 to 54, with very similar if not identical unemployment rates over time. The last graph illustrates three lines, the unemployment rate over time for Black, Hispanic, and White. The y-axis shows the unemployment rate and the x-axis measures time. The unemployment rate is measured in 2 percent increments, from 0 to 12, and time runs in years from 1974 to 2020. The highest unemployment rate is for blacks, followed by Hispanics, and the lowest is for Whites. For Blacks, the line starts out at 10 percent, goes up to nearly 15 percent in 1975, declines until 1981, increases to nearly 20 percent in 1982, then generally decreases to 8 percent in 2008, spikes to 16 percent in 2009, declines again to 6 percent in 2019, then increases in 2020 to 12 percent. For Hispanics, the line starts out at 9 percent, goes up to around 12 percent in 1975, declines until 1981, increases to 13 percent in 1982, then generally decreases to 5 percent in 2008, spikes to 13 percent in 2009, declines again to 5 percent in 2019, then increases in 2020 to 12 percent. For Whites, the line starts out at 5 percent, goes up to 6 percent in 1975, declines until 1981, increases to 7 percent in 1982, then generally decreases to 4 percent in 2008, spikes to 7 percent in 2009, declines again to 3 percent in 2019, then increases in 2020 to 6 percent.
    Figure 8.4 Unemployment Rate by Demographic Group (a) By gender, 1948–2020. Unemployment rates for men used to be lower than unemployment rates for women, but in recent decades, the two rates have been very close, often– and especially during and soon after the Great Recession – with the unemployment rate for men somewhat higher. (b) By age, 1948–2020. Unemployment rates are highest for the very young and become lower with age. (c) By race and ethnicity, 1974–2020. Although unemployment rates for all groups tend to rise and fall together, the unemployment rate for Black people is typically about twice as high as that for White people, while the unemployment rate for Hispanic people is in between. (Source: www.bls.gov)

    The unemployment rate for women had historically tended to be higher than the unemployment rate for men, perhaps reflecting the historical pattern that women were seen as “secondary” earners. By about 1980, however, the unemployment rate for women was essentially the same as that for men, as Figure 8.4 (a) shows. During the pandemic-induced recession of 2020 and in the immediate aftermath, the unemployment rate for women exceeded the unemployment rate for men. Subsequently, however, the gap has narrowed.

    Link It Up

    Read this report for detailed information on the 2008–2009 recession. It also provides some very useful information on the statistics of unemployment.

    Younger workers tend to have higher unemployment, while middle-aged workers tend to have lower unemployment, probably because the middle-aged workers feel the responsibility of needing to have a job more heavily. Younger workers move in and out of jobs more than middle-aged workers, as part of the process of matching of workers and jobs, and this contributes to their higher unemployment rates. In addition, middle-aged workers are more likely to feel the responsibility of needing to have a job more heavily. Elderly workers have extremely low rates of unemployment, because those who do not have jobs often exit the labor force by retiring, and thus are not counted in the unemployment statistics. Figure 8.4 (b) shows unemployment rates for women divided by age. The pattern for men is similar.

    The unemployment rate for African-Americans is substantially higher than the rate for other racial or ethnic groups, a fact that surely reflects, to some extent, a pattern of discrimination that has constrained Black people’s labor market opportunities. However, the gaps between unemployment rates for White, Black, and Hispanic people have diminished in the 1990s, as Figure 8.4 (c) shows. In fact, unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic people were at the lowest levels for several decades in the mid-2000s before rising during the recent Great Recession.

    Finally, those with less education typically suffer higher unemployment. In November 2021, for example, the unemployment rate for those with a college degree was 2.3%; for those with some college but not a four year degree, the unemployment rate was 3.7%; for high school graduates with no additional degree, the unemployment rate was 5.2%; and for those without a high school diploma, the unemployment rate was 5.7%. This pattern arises because additional education typically offers better connections to the labor market and higher demand. With less attractive labor market opportunities for low-skilled workers compared to the opportunities for the more highly-skilled, including lower pay, low-skilled workers may be less motivated to find jobs.

    Breaking Down Unemployment in Other Ways

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics also gives information about the reasons for unemployment, as well as the length of time individuals have been unemployed. Table 8.2, for example, shows the four reasons for unemployment and the percentages of the currently unemployed that fall into each category. Table 8.3 shows the length of unemployment. For both of these, the data is from November 2021.(bls.gov)

    Reason Percentage
    New Entrants 6.5%
    Re-entrants 31.8%
    Job Leavers 12.5%
    Job Losers: Temporary 11.8%
    Job Losers: Non Temporary 37.3%
    Table 8.2 Reasons for Unemployment, November 2021
    Length of Time Percentage
    Under 5 weeks 22.3%
    5 to 14 weeks 22.3%
    15 to 26 weeks 17.6%
    Over 27 weeks 37.7%
    Table 8.3 Length of Unemployment, November 2021

    Link It Up

    Watch this speech on the impact of droids on the labor market.

    International Unemployment Comparisons

    From an international perspective, the U.S. unemployment rate typically has looked a little better than average. Table 8.4 compares unemployment rates for 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 (just before the Great Recession), and 2019 (just before the pandemic-induced recession) from several other high-income countries.

    Country 1991 1996 2001 2006 2019
    United States 6.8% 5.4% 4.8% 4.4% 3.7%
    Canada 9.8% 8.8% 6.4% 6.2% 5.7%
    Japan 2.1% 3.4% 5.1% 4.5% 2.4%
    France 9.5% 12.5% 8.7% 10.1% 8.5%
    Germany 5.6% 9.0% 8.9% 9.8% 3.1%
    Italy 6.9% 11.7% 9.6% 7.8% 10.0%
    Sweden 3.1% 9.9% 5.0% 5.2% 7.0%
    United Kingdom 8.8% 8.1% 5.1% 5.5% 3.9%
    Table 8.4 International Comparisons of Unemployment Rates

    However, we need to treat cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates with care, because each country has slightly different definitions of unemployment, survey tools for measuring unemployment, and also different labor markets. For example, Japan’s unemployment rates appear quite low, but Japan’s economy has been mired in slow growth and recession since the late 1980s, and Japan’s unemployment rate probably paints too rosy a picture of its labor market. In Japan, workers who lose their jobs are often quick to exit the labor force and not look for a new job, in which case they are not counted as unemployed. In addition, Japanese firms are often quite reluctant to fire workers, and so firms have substantial numbers of workers who are on reduced hours or officially employed, but doing very little. We can view this Japanese pattern as an unusual method for society to provide support for the unemployed, rather than a sign of a healthy economy.

    Link It Up

    We hear about the Chinese economy in the news all the time. The value of the Chinese yuan in comparison to the U.S. dollar is likely to be part of the nightly business report, so why is the Chinese economy not included in this discussion of international unemployment? The lack of reliable statistics is the reason. This article explains why.

    Comparing unemployment rates in the United States and other high-income economies with unemployment rates in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia is very difficult. One reason is that the statistical agencies in many poorer countries lack the resources and technical capabilities of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. However, a more difficult problem with international comparisons is that in many low-income countries, most workers are not involved in the labor market through an employer who pays them regularly. Instead, workers in these countries are engaged in short-term work, subsistence activities, and barter. Moreover, the effect of unemployment is very different in high-income and low-income countries. Unemployed workers in the developed economies have access to various government programs like unemployment insurance, welfare, and food stamps. Such programs may barely exist in poorer countries. Although unemployment is a serious problem in many low-income countries, it manifests itself in a different way than in high-income countries.


    This page titled 8.3: Patterns of Unemployment is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by OpenStax via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.