For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Wednesday, July 1, 2020			 USDL-20-1309

Technical information:
 Employment:     sminfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/sae
 Unemployment:   lausinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/lau
	
Media contact:   (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


        METROPOLITAN AREA EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- MAY 2020


Unemployment rates were higher in May than a year earlier in all 389 metropolitan
areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. A total of 109 areas
had jobless rates of less than 10.0 percent and 16 areas had rates of at least
20.0 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment decreased over the year in 357
metropolitan areas and was essentially unchanged in 32 areas. The national
unemployment rate in May was 13.0 percent, not seasonally adjusted, up from
3.4 percent a year earlier.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly programs. The civilian
labor force and unemployment data are based on the same concepts and definitions
as those used for the national household survey estimates. These data pertain
to individuals by where they reside. The employment data are from an establishment
survey that measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. These
data pertain to jobs on payrolls defined by where the establishments are located.
For more information about the concepts and statistical methodologies used by
these two programs, see the Technical Note.

Metropolitan Area Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI, had the highest unemployment rate in May, 33.4
percent, followed by Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ, 32.4 percent. Logan, UT-ID,
had the lowest unemployment rate, 4.8 percent. The next lowest rates were in
Lincoln, NE, and Idaho Falls, ID, 5.0 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively. A
total of 245 areas had May jobless rates below the U.S. rate of 13.0 percent,
142 areas had rates above it, and 2 areas had rates equal to that of the nation.
(See table 1.)

The largest over-the-year unemployment rate increases occurred in Kahului-Wailuku-
Lahaina, HI (+30.9 percentage points), and Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ (+28.2
points). Rates rose over the year by at least 15.0 percentage points in an
additional 17 areas. The smallest jobless rate increase from a year earlier
occurred in Yuma, AZ (+0.6 percentage point).

Of the 51 metropolitan areas with a 2010 Census population of 1 million or more,
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV, had the highest unemployment rate in May, 29.0
percent. The next highest rates were in Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI, 23.7 percent,
and Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL, 22.6 percent. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ,
had the lowest jobless rate among the large areas, 8.3 percent, followed by
Birmingham-Hoover, AL, and Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT, 8.7 percent
each. All 51 large areas had over-the-year unemployment rate increases, the largest
of which were in Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (+25.0 percentage points);
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI (+19.9 points); and Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL
(+19.7 points). The smallest rate increase occurred in Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,
AZ (+4.3 percentage points).

Metropolitan Division Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

Eleven of the most populous metropolitan areas are made up of 38 metropolitan
divisions, which are essentially separately identifiable employment centers. In
May, Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI, had the highest unemployment rate among the
divisions, 26.4 percent. Silver Spring-Frederick-Rockville, MD, and Washington-
Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, had the lowest division rates, 9.0 percent
each. (See table 2.)

In May, all 38 metropolitan divisions had over-the-year unemployment rate increases,
the largest of which was in Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI (+21.8 percentage points).
The smallest rate increases occurred in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-
MD-WV (+6.0 percentage points), and Silver Spring-Frederick-Rockville, MD (+6.1
points).

Metropolitan Area Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

In May, 357 metropolitan areas had over-the-year decreases in nonfarm payroll
employment and 32 were essentially unchanged. The largest over-the-year employment
decreases occurred in New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (-1,811,400), Los
Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (-859,000), and Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI
(-576,700). The largest over-the-year percentage losses in employment occurred
in Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ (-32.3 percent), Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI (-30.5
percent), and Ocean City, NJ (-27.3 percent). (See table 3.)

Over the year, nonfarm employment declined in all of the 51 metropolitan areas
with a 2010 Census population of 1 million or more. The largest over-the-year
percentage decreases in employment in these large metropolitan areas occurred
in Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (-21.3 percent), Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI
(-19.9 percent), and Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY (-18.8 percent). 

Metropolitan Division Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

In May, nonfarm payroll employment decreased in all of the 38 metropolitan
divisions over the year. The largest over-the-year decrease in employment among
the metropolitan divisions occurred in New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ
(-1,330,800), followed by Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA (-602,600), and
Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights, IL (-455,200). (See table 4.)

The largest over-the-year percentage decreases in employment occurred in Detroit-
Dearborn-Livonia, MI (-20.7 percent), Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI (-19.4
percent), and Haverhill-Newburyport-Amesbury Town, MA-NH (-18.8 percent). 

_____________
The State Employment and Unemployment news release for June is scheduled
to be released on Friday, July 17, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). The Metropolitan
Area Employment and Unemployment news release for June is scheduled to be
released on Wednesday, July 29, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).


  ________________________________________________________________________________
 | 										  |
 | 		     Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on May 2020			  |
 | 		      Establishment and Household Survey Data			  |
 |										  |
 | BLS has continued to review all estimation and methodological procedures	  |
 | for the establishment survey, which included the review of data, estimation	  |
 | processes, the application of the birth-death model, and seasonal adjustment.  |
 | Business births and deaths cannot be adequately captured by the establishment  |
 | survey as they occur. Therefore, the Current Employment Statistics (CES)	  |
 | program uses a model to account for the relatively stable net employment	  |
 | change generated by business births and deaths. Due to the impact of COVID-19, |
 | the relationship between business births and deaths is no longer stable.	  |
 | Typically, reports with zero employment are not included in estimation. For	  |
 | the April final estimates, CES included a portion of these reports in the	  |
 | estimates and made modifications to the birth-death model. For the May 2020	  |
 | preliminary estimates, in addition to the inclusion of reported zeros and	  |
 | the modification of the model, the establishment survey included a portion	  |
 | of the reports that returned to reporting positive employment from reporting	  |
 | zero employment. For more information, see www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm.	  |
 |										  |
 | In the establishment survey, workers who are paid by their employer for all	  |
 | or any part of the pay period including the 12th of the month are counted as	  |
 | employed, even if they were not actually at their jobs. Workers who are	  |
 | temporarily or permanently absent from their jobs and are not being paid are	  |
 | not counted as employed, even if they are continuing to receive benefits. The  |
 | length of the reference period does vary across the respondents in the	  |
 | establishment survey; one-third of businesses have a weekly pay period,	  |
 | slightly over 40 percent a bi-weekly, about 20 percent semi-monthly, and a	  |
 | small amount monthly.							  |
 |										  |
 | For the May 2020 estimates of household employment and unemployment from the	  |
 | Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program, BLS continued to implement  |
 | level-shift outliers in the employment and/or unemployment inputs to the	  |
 | state models, based on statistical evaluation of movements in each area's	  |
 | inputs. Both the Current Population Survey inputs, which serve as the primary  |
 | inputs to the LAUS models, and the nonfarm payroll employment and unemployment |
 | insurance claims covariates were examined for outliers. The resulting	  |
 | implementation of level shifts preserved movements in the published estimates  |
 | that the models otherwise would have discounted, without requiring changes	  |
 | to how the models create estimates at other points in the time series.	  |
 | 										  |
 | The “Frequently asked questions” document at 				  |
 | www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf extensively	  |
 | discusses the impact of a misclassification in the household survey on the	  |
 | national estimates for May 2020. This misclassification was widespread	  |
 | geographically, with BLS analysis indicating that all states were affected	  |
 | to at least some degree. However, according to usual practice, the data from	  |
 | the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity,	  |
 | no ad hoc actions are taken to reclassify survey responses. Hence, the	  |
 | household survey estimates of employed and unemployed people that serve as	  |
 | the primary inputs to the state models were affected to varying degrees by	  |
 | the misclassification, which in turn affected the official LAUS estimates for  |
 | May. Similar misclassifications had occurred in the household survey for	  |
 | March and April, as documented at 						  |
 | www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-march-2020.pdf and		  |
 | www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-april-2020.pdf, respectively. |
 | 										  |
 | Household data for substate areas are controlled to the employment and	  |
 | unemployment totals for their respective model-based areas. Hence, the	  |
 | preliminary May and revised April estimates for substate areas reflect the	  |
 | use of level-shift outliers, where implemented, in the inputs for their model- |
 | based control areas. The substate area estimates for both months also were	  |
 | impacted by misclassification in the household survey, in proportion to the	  |
 | impacts of the misclassifications on the data for their model-based control	  |
 | areas.									  |
 | 										  |
 | Household data for Puerto Rico are not modeled, but rather are derived from	  |
 | a monthly household survey similar to the Current Population Survey. Due to	  |
 | the effects of the pandemic and efforts to contain the virus, Puerto Rico	  |
 | had not been able to conduct its household survey for March or April 2020.	  |
 | Although survey data collection resumed for May 2020, BLS has not had	  |
 | sufficient opportunity to evaluate the resulting estimates or begin the	  |
 | process of interpolating data for the missing months. Hence, May estimates	  |
 | for substate areas in Puerto Rico are not being published by BLS in		  |
 | conjunction with this news release.						  |
 |________________________________________________________________________________|