PRINCETON, NJ -- Â鶹´«Ã½AV's U.S. Job Creation Index held steady in June at +22, identical to May -- the highest monthly score since April 2008. The June data confirm that job creation rebounded this spring after , and it now exceeds the relatively positive figures recorded in mid-2012.
Focusing on the June data for each year since 2008 holds any seasonal effects in the trend constant across years. This shows that after hiring was depressed from 2009 to 2011, it recovered in 2012 to a level similar to what it is today, as well as matched the level seen in June 2008, just before the U.S. economic crisis began.
Hiring has improved in each region of the country since January, but the more recent uptick since April is seen mainly in the South and West. Hiring in the Midwest has been flat since April. More generally, hiring has tended to be weakest in the East all year, and that continued in June with the index at +19 in the East, versus at least +22 in the other regions.
Index Components Show Little Change in Past Month or Compared With June 2012
June's results are based on 37% of U.S. adult workers saying their employers are hiring and expanding the size of their workforces and 15% saying their employers are letting workers go and reducing the size of their workforces. These figures are also unchanged from May.
Private-Sector Hiring Unchanged in June
Nongovernment workers' perceptions of hiring and firing where they work continue to be fairly positive, with a +25 Job Creation Index score among this group in June, on par with +24 measured in May. That compares with net negative perceptions of hiring among federal workers, with a -5 score, similar to the -7 in May. The June figures are up from the low point in January, while similar to June 2012.
While perceptions of job conditions among federal workers continue to be negative, on balance, those of local and state government workers remain somewhat positive, at +11 and +12 respectively.
Bottom Line
U.S. workers have been slightly more positive about their workplace hiring conditions in May and June than they were earlier this year. This aligns with Americans' broader views of national economic conditions, which have in recent months. The improvements are small, to be sure, but enough to maintain the long-term recovery in the index, which now matches the level seen in April 2008 and move the index closer to the initial level of +26 Â鶹´«Ã½AV recorded in January 2008. The January 2008 reading likely reflected some turmoil in the stock market that month which sent economic confidence tumbling, but before the Wall Street financial crisis later that year sent a major shock wave through the economy that many Americans continue to feel.
Â鶹´«Ã½AV.com reports results from these indexes in daily, weekly, and monthly averages and in Â鶹´«Ã½AV.com stories. Complete trend data are always available to view and export in the following charts:
Daily: , , ,
Weekly: , , ,
about Â鶹´«Ã½AV's economic measures.
our economic release schedule.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Â鶹´«Ã½AV Daily tracking June 1-30, 2013, with a random sample of 17,703 adults, aged 18 and older, employed full or part time, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of employed adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cellphone numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, cellphone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Â鶹´«Ã½AV's polling methodology, visit .
