Preliminary June labor force data counts for San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties pegs the unemployment rates at 7.8%, 6.6% and 7.1% respectively, up 0.4 points in San Francisco, up 0.3 points in both Marin and San Mateo.
On a revised basis, the number of unemployed in San Francisco increased by 2,000 in June (from 34,700 to 36,700) as the labor force increased by 2,600 (from 469,700 to 472,300) and the number of employed increased by 700 (from 435,000 to 435,700).
Employment in San Francisco remains up by 23,300 workers on a year-over-year basis, but remains 29,800 workers below a December 2000 dot-com peak (at which point the unemployment rate in San Francisco measured 3 percent).
Overall unadjusted California unemployment increased to 10.7% in June as the labor force increased by 13,300 workers while the ranks of the unemployed increased by 59,900.
Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties: June 2012 (Preliminary) [EDD]
Reported San Francisco Employment Unchanged In May [SocketSite]
San Francisco Employment Trends And Dot-Com Context [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Dan

    Looks like more people are returning to the workforce than are finding jobs.

  2. Posted by curmudgeon

    Dan, it’s called “graduation”

  3. Posted by dissent

    The unadjusted numbers are misleading. From the LA times:
    Despite weak job growth nationally, California’s labor market showed a second month of strong job gains, with employers adding 38,300 jobs in June.
    With the swelling in payrolls, the unemployment rate dipped to 10.7% in June, according to data released by the state’s Employment Development Department.
    California’s gains are a marked difference from the national employment report. U.S. employers added 80,000 jobs in June, the third straight month of weak job growth.
    “It’s an impressive number,” said Christopher Thornberg, founding principal at Beacon Economics. “This is very surprising.”
    In California, several sectors added jobs, with the largest gains in trade, transportation and utilities, which added 9,400 jobs; leisure and hospitality, with 9,200 new jobs; and construction, 8,100 jobs.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-cal-jobs-june-20120720,0,1679784.story
    [Editor’s Note: On an unadjusted basis (i.e., the actual count of people pulling paychecks), there were 47,000 fewer employed workers or jobs in California last month.]

  4. Posted by anon1

    After the City of San Francisco government, the 2nd largest employer in the city is UCSF. I think many people would be surprised at where the jobs still are concentrated in this city. The largest employers in SF are still Tourism, Govt., Education and Health Care.

  5. Posted by anon

    ^Aside from tourism, those are the largest employment categories in every city.

  6. Posted by Robert

    ^^ Yup. But SF needs to be reminded that is, deep down, a typical tourist city with a fairly typical economy.
    There are differences, but these are more flourishes and are not fundamental, economically speaking. Culturally, there are significant differences, but not economically.
    The odd thing here is that because the supply of housing is so restricted, minority effects can drive the marginal price over the short term, leading to the illusion that minority effects are driving the economy of the city as a whole just as they drive real estate prices.
    They are not. The SF economy is fundamentally that of a tourist/recreation center and not a high tech/finance mecca. We are a city of bartenders, waiters, and civil servants. Embedded within this larger fabric is a small group of high income tech and professional workers that drive real estate prices on the margin.
    If you were to move to a larger, unconstrained area, you would see the same fabric of low income service jobs with a small group of higher paid professionals, but because housing supply is less constrained, the top earners would not be driving land prices and would remain basically under the radar for sites like this.

  7. Posted by anon1

    ^^^Correct!^^^
    AND the reason that this is important is to serve as a reminder that the economy of San Francisco has more in common with the other urban areas of the USA than many boosters would want to admit. Our high cost of housing is driven more by constrained housing growth, both by natural boundaries and created slow growth policy, than by GOOGLE or TWITTER. Every city has unique advantages that help to make them expensive and job magnets, L.A. has the entertainment industry, Chicago has the Board of Trade, and its location at the center of the continent, Boston has a unique educational infrastructure and associated research facilities, Washington has the goverment, and New York has just about everything. The only two urban areas that I feel can really wear the crown of being immune from the rest of the country’s current economic ills are Washington and New York City. Outside of the favored neighborhoods of the tech buyers who I admit have had an influence, there are large parts of the Bay Area housing and job markets that have still not recovered. (Especially in the East Bay)

  8. Posted by Anon

    New York is not “immune” from the current economic ills affecting the country (lol), and is one of only a few places possibly more dependent on tourism than SF.

Add a Comment

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