Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vol.9 No.12 A joint publication of the Connecticut Department of Labor & the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development
December 2004
ECONOMIC DIGEST Improvements Coming to Labor
THE CONNECTICUT
Force Estimates
The Connecticut Economic Digest is
published monthly by the Connecticut
mong the important eco- A hierarchy of estimation
Department of Labor, Office of Research and
the Connecticut Department of Economic and
Community Development, Compliance Office
A nomic data developed by
state workforce agencies and the
methods is used to produce state
and local labor force data based in
and Planning/Program Support. Its purpose is
to regularly provide users with a
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), large part on the availability and
comprehensive source for the most current, up- labor force data (including unem- quality of data from the CPS. The
to-date data available on the workforce and ployment estimates) for states and strongest estimating method
economy of the state, within perspectives of local areas are viewed as key signal-plus-noise models for
the region and nation. indicators of local economic condi- current estimation and annual
The annual subscription is $50. Send tions. Currently, monthly estimates average CPS benchmarksis
subscription requests to: The Connecticut of resident employment, unemploy- employed at the state level. While
Economic Digest, Connecticut Department of
Labor, Office of Research, 200 Folly Brook ment, and the unemployment rate not reliable enough to use directly,
Boulevard, Wethersfield, CT 06109-1114. are prepared for around 7,000 the monthly CPS values are inte-
Make checks payable to the Connecticut areasregions, divisions, all states gral to the signal-plus-noise esti-
Department of Labor. Back issues are $4 per and the District of Columbia, mation. In order to ensure compa-
copy. The Digest can be accessed free of metropolitan and small labor rability across states, the annual
charge from the DOL Web site. Articles from
The Connecticut Economic Digest may be market areas, counties and many average employment and unem-
reprinted if the source is credited. Please send cities and towns. Among the many ployment levels from the CPS are
copies of the reprinted material to the Managing users of these data, state and local used as the benchmarks for the
Editor. The views expressed by the authors are governments use the estimates for modeled estimates.
theirs alone and may not reflect those of the planning and budgetary purposes
DOL or DECD.
and as determinants of need for Current Modeling and
Contributing Staff: Rob Damroth (CCT), local services and programs. The Benchmarking Procedure
Cynthia L. DeLisa, Salvatore DiPillo, Lincoln
S. Dyer, Arthur Famiglietti, Daniel W. Kennedy,
state labor force estimates are one A number of methodological
Ph.D., David F. Post, Mark Prisloe (DECD), of the timeliest subnational eco- and analytical issues have surfaced
Joseph Slepski, Mark Stankiewicz and Kolie nomic measures, as figures are in the current estimation/bench-
Sun (DECD). Managing Editor: Jungmin released by BLS and the states mark procedures. These include
Charles Joo. We would also like to thank our within five weeks after the refer- reintroduction of sampling error to
associates at the Connecticut Center for
Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut,
ence week, and just two weeks monthly estimates, discontinuities
for their contributions to the Digest. after the national estimates re- between December benchmarked
lease. and January model estimates,
BLS is responsible for the impaired comparability of data over
Connecticut concepts and definitions, technical the year, and inability to address,
Department of Labor procedures, and review, analysis on a timely basis, shocks to the
Shaun B. Cashman, Commissioner and publication of labor force model such as the September 11
Thomas E. Hutton, Deputy Commissioner estimates. State agencies (in terrorist attacks and the onset of
Connecticut, the Labor an economic recession.
Roger F. Therrien, Director
Office of Research
Departments Office of Research) In the current methodology, the
200 Folly Brook Boulevard are responsible for the production state model estimates are devel-
Wethersfield, CT 06109-1114 of the estimates and analysis and oped independent of the national
Phone: (860) 263-6275 dissemination of the data to their CPS. Although the monthly state
Fax: (860) 263-6263
E-Mail: dol.econdigest@po.state.ct.us data users. A key element of the CPS input data sum to the national
Website: http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi Bureaus approach to subnational measures, the sum of the state
labor force estimation is to ensure model output estimates generally
Connecticut Department that these estimates are compa- do not equal the national CPS
of Economic and rable to the official concepts and estimates. In general, the current
Community Development measures of the labor force as
reflected in the Current Population
method of model estimation results
in an overestimate of employment
James F. Abromaitis, Commissioner Survey (CPS). The CPS is the and an underestimate of unem-
Ronald Angelo, Deputy Commissioner
Jennifer Smith Turner, Deputy Commissioner monthly survey of households that ployment and the unemployment
is designed to provide reliable rate in states as compared to the
Compliance Office and Planning/Program monthly labor force estimates for national CPS estimates.
Support
the nation. To support reliability of A Fiscal Year 2001 federal
505 Hudson Street
Hartford, CT 06106-2502 subnational estimates, the CPS budget initiative provided BLS with
Phone: (860) 270-8000 employs a state-based sample resources to improve the methods
Fax: (860) 270-8200 design. used to develop state and area
E-Mail: decd@po.state.ct.us
Website: http://www.decd.org
labor force estimates, including
Willimantic-Danielson
Torrington
Hartford
Waterbury
Danbury
Norwich-New London
New Haven
Bridgeport-Stamford
Connecticut
2000Labor
Census-based Labor
Market Areas Market
- 2000 Areas
Census-based
(Effective with January 2005 data estimates)
upgrading and enhancing the of-year revisions will be signifi- monthly model estimate. In this
modeling approach, extending it to cantly smaller. manner, the monthly state employ-
more areas, and incorporating The BLS and states are now in ment and unemployment estimates
decennial updates to procedures, a one-year dual estimation period add to the national levels, preclud-
data inputs, and geography. As that allows for the evaluation of the ing differences between the sum of
part of this major redesign, BLS proposed methods and systems, states and the national estimates.
developed an innovative alternative and the impact on estimation. Annual historical benchmarking
to model benchmarking that will be will still continue for state esti-
part of improved monthly model- General Methodological mates with the updating of model
based estimation. This alternative Approach inputs, model re-estimation, and
addresses longstanding issues Under real-time benchmarking, incorporation of updated popula-
related to accuracy and end-of-year a tiered approach to estimation is tion controls performed each year.
revision, and also enhances the used. Model-based estimates are However, the impact on the histori-
analytical capability of the esti- developed for the nine Census cal series of these benchmark
mates. The redesigned method of divisions that geographically activities is expected to be fairly
estimation ensures that state exhaust the nation. Connecticut small, especially in comparison
estimates add up to the national belongs to the New England divi- with annual revisions using the
estimates of employment and sion. The division estimates are current methodology.
unemployment each month. In benchmarked to the national levels
doing so, the benchmark will of employment and unemployment Estimation Period and
change from annual average state- on a monthly basis. The Implementation Plan
level estimates of employment and benchmarked division estimates As part of implementation, a
unemployment to monthly national are then used as the benchmarks dual estimation period began with
estimates of these measures, and for the states within each division. January 2004 data so that the
will be part of current monthly That is, state model-based esti- proposed methodology and opera-
estimation. In this way, economic mates are controlled to add to the tional systems could be reviewed in
changes will be reflected in the divisions employment and unem- a real-time environment and the
state estimates on a real-time basis ployment. The distribution of the impact on estimation could be
(real-time benchmarking), and end- monthly benchmark adjustment to
the states is based on each states
--Continued on page 5--
100 P ea k
03/80 T ro u gh
100 02/92
90
P ea k T r o u gh
P e ak
90 05/74 01/ 83
12/69
80
80
70 T ro u gh
T ro u gh 11/75
1 0/71
70 60
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
The distance from peak to trough, indicated by the shaded areas, measures the duration of an employment cycle recession. The vertical scale in both
charts is an index with 1992=100.
Projected Budget Gaps for the Next Two Years May Spell Trouble for Connecticut
he hotly contested sequential month-to-month basis, initial claims for unemployment
T presidential election is the revised CCEA-ECRI Connecticut insurance, and a lower short
finally over with a clear winner. coincident employment index rose duration (less than 15 weeks)
This lifted at least one uncertainty slightly from 107.797 in August unemployment rate are the four
surrounding the economy. This, 2004 to 107.803 in September positive contributors. Lower average
together with the better than 2004, reversing the downward trend weekly hours worked in
expected job growth in October, led of the last three months. A lower manufacturing and construction is
to a rally in the financial markets. insured unemployment rate, higher the sole negative contributor to this
The FOMC, at its meeting on total non-farm employment and index, while the Hartford help-
November 10, raised the Federal total employment contributed wanted advertising index remained
Funds rate by 25 basis point to 2.00 positively to the index. Somewhat stable for September 2004.
percent. This was probably an surprisingly, the total Total non-farm employment
appropriate move given the strong unemployment rate rose from 4.6% increased by about 900 jobs in
job growth and the threat of to 4.7% in September, after holding September, this represents a net
inflation coming from high energy steady for the previous five months. gain of about 4,000 jobs since the
costs. However, all is not rosy on The revised CCEA-ECRI beginning of this year. Total
the national front. The index of Connecticut leading employment unemployment rate rose to 4.7
Leading Indicators fell for the fifth index provided mixed news. It rose percent in September, which was
straight month in October. And from 114.83 in September 2003 to the same level as January but below
recently, Alan Greenspan, Chairman 116.44 in September 2004. Four the 4.9 percent in March. Overall,
of the Federal Reserve, sounded an components of this index are the picture that emerges for
alarm about the high budget and positive contributors, with a lower Connecticut after the first nine
current account deficits. While I do Moodys Baa corporate bond yield, months in 2004 is one of sluggish
not wholly agree with Chairman higher total housing permits, lower growth. The surprising news
Greenspans assessments, his initial claims for unemployment recently is the projected budget
opinions are bound to have an insurance, and a lower short deficits for the next two fiscal years,
impact on the economy. duration (less than 15 weeks) after an unexpected surplus this
This month, the two employment unemployment rate. Lower average past fiscal year. This should
indices provide some encouraging weekly hours worked in present a policy dilemma for the
signs. The revised CCEA-ECRI manufacturing and construction next legislative session. Tax
Connecticut coincident employment and a lower Hartford help-wanted increases and/or reductions in fiscal
index rose on a year-to-year basis advertising index are the two spending to close the projected
from 106.21 in September 2003 to negative contributors. On a budget gaps are not particularly
107.80 in September 2004. All four sequential month-to-month basis, attractive options because they can
components of this index are the revised CCEA-ECRI Connecticut hurt Connecticuts fragile economic
positive contributors, with a lower leading employment index fell recovery. Unfortunately, we can do
insured unemployment rate, a lower slightly from 116.46 in August to nothing at this point but to wait and
total unemployment rate, higher 116.44 in September 2004. A lower see. n
total non-farm employment, and Moodys Baa corporate bond yield,
higher total employment. On a higher total housing permits, lower
Francis W. Ahking, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269. Phone: (860) 486-3026. Stan McMillen
[(860) 486-0485, Storrs Campus], Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut, provided research support.
Leading and coincident employment indexes were developed by Pami Dua and Stephen M. Miller, in cooperation with Anirvan Banerji
at the Economic Cycle Research Institute. Components of the indexes are described in the Technical Notes on page 23.
evaluated. An analysis of the and unemployment rates and a cal series from January 1976
numbers produced by states so far mix of higher and lower employ- forward will be replaced with
indicates consistency with the ment estimates in the redesign estimates based on the redesigned
redesign objectives of addressing figures for the months estimated models. Additionally, revised data
issues in current estimation. In so far in 2004.) The new estimates from 2000 forward will reflect
general, the new models with real- of both employment and unem- Census population estimates
time benchmarking result in higher ployment of State residents are updated to account for changes in
estimates of unemployment and the expected to be more accurate using births, deaths and migration that
unemployment rate, and lower the new methodology than with the have occurred since the decennial
estimates of employment, and thus current procedures. Census. n
remedy the consistent under- and The redesigned estimation
over-estimation mentioned earlier. methodology is planned to be
(A comparison of Connecticuts implemented with labor force, Primary Source:
redesign estimates to those made employment and unemployment U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
using the present methodology, estimates for January 2005 to be
also shows higher unemployment published in March 2005. Histori-
HOUSING UPDATE
Permit Activity Slows in October
Commissioner James F. Abromaitis The Department further indicated Eight of the ten Labor Market
of the Connecticut Department of that the 862 units permitted in Areas showed losses compared to
Economic and Community Devel- October 2004 represent a 23.1 a year ago. Bridgeport led all
opment (DECD) announced that percent decrease from the 1,121 municipalities with 46 units,
Connecticut communities autho- units permitted in September 2004. followed by Danbury with 40 and
rized 862 new housing units in The year-to-date permits are up 15.1 Hartford with 28. From a county
October 2004, a 23.1 percent percent, from 8,390 through October perspective, only Hartford and
decrease compared to October of 2003, to 9,659 through October Tolland counties showed year-to-
2003 when 1,121 units were 2004. date losses.
authorized.
See data tables on pages 19 and 22.
Sources: *The Connecticut Economy, Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut
**Banknorth Bank
The Connecticut Economy's General Drift Indicators are composite measures of the four-quarter change in three coincident (Connecticut Manufac-
turing Production Index, nonfarm employment, and real personal income) and four leading (housing permits, manufacturing average weekly hours,
Hartford help-wanted advertising, and initial unemployment claims) economic variables, and are indexed so 1986 = 100.
The Banknorth Business Barometer is a measure of overall economic growth in the state of Connecticut that is derived from non-manufacturing
employment, real disposable personal income, and manufacturing production.
Source: Connecticut Department of Labor (see page 12 for other industries, not seasonally adjusted)
* Includes Native American tribal government employment
30-year conventional
INTEREST RATES
mortgage rate fell to 5.72
OCT SEP OCT
percent over the month.
1FSDFOU
2004 2004 2003
Prime 4.75 4.58 4.00
Federal Funds 1.76 1.61 1.01
3 Month Treasury Bill 1.79 1.65 0.92
6 Month Treasury Bill 2.05 1.87 1.00
1 Year Treasury Bill 2.23 2.12 1.42
3 Year Treasury Note 2.85 2.83 2.69
5 Year Treasury Note 3.35 3.36 3.60
7 Year Treasury Note 3.75 3.75 4.17
10 Year Treasury Note 4.10 4.13 4.70
20 Year Treasury Note 4.85 4.89 5.47
Conventional Mortgage 5.72 5.76 5.95
Sources: Federal Reserve; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
60
May 64.0 61.2 62.0
50 Jun 63.7 61.1 61.8
Jul 63.0 61.7 62.4
40
Aug 62.6 61.8 62.6
30 Sep 62.3 61.8 62.5
Oct 62.2 62.0 62.5
20
Nov 61.9 61.9
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Dec 61.1 61.4
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
*Total excludes workers idled due to labor-management disputes. **Includes Indian tribal government employment.
For further information on the Bridgeport Labor Market Area contact Arthur Famiglietti at (860) 263-6297.
For further information on the Danbury Labor Market Area contact Arthur Famiglietti at (860) 263-6297.
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
*Total excludes workers idled due to labor-management disputes.
For further information on the Hartford Labor Market Area contact Arthur Famiglietti at (860) 263-6297.
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
*Total excludes workers idled due to labor-management disputes.
For further information on the New Haven Labor Market Area contact Joseph Slepski at (860) 263-6278.
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
*Total excludes workers idled due to labor-management disputes. **Value less than 50
various types of information available from ATUS are data on working at home. For example, in 2003 on days that they
worked, about 1 in 5 employed persons did some or all of their work at home. Self-employed persons were far more
likely than wage and salary workers to have done some work at home--51 versus 16 percent. Multiple jobholders also
were much more likely to work at home than were persons with one job.
(The Editor's Desk, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 15, 2004)
n Part-time workers: who they are and how much they earn
Women (in U.S.) who worked part time--that is, fewer than 35 hours per week--made up 25 percent of all female wage
and salary workers in 2003. In contrast, just 11 percent of men in wage and salary jobs worked part time. Median
weekly earnings of female part-time workers were $197, compared with $180 for male part-time workers. Among part-
time workers, men had lower earnings than women because male part-timers tend to be highly concentrated in the
youngest age groups, which typically have low earnings. Over half of male part-time workers were 16 to 24 years old,
compared with about 30 percent of female part-timers. These data on earnings are produced by the Current Population
Survey. For more information see "Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2003," BLS Report 978 (PDF 208K).
(The Editor's Desk, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 4, 2004)
For further information on the Waterbury Labor Market Area contact Joseph Slepski at (860) 263-6278.
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
*Total excludes workers idled due to labor-management disputes.
NOTE: More industry detail data is available for the State and its ten labor market areas at: http://
www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/covered.htm. The data published there differ from the data in the preced-
ing tables in that they are developed from a near-universe count of Connecticut employment covered by
the unemployment insurance (UI) program, while the data here is sample-based. The data drawn from
the UI program does not contain estimates of employment not covered by unemployment insurance,
and is lagged several months behind the current employment estimates presented here.
BRIDGEPORT LMA Civilian Labor Force 228,500 229,800 -1,300 -0.6 225,700
Employed 217,200 215,400 1,800 0.8 214,600
Unemployed 11,300 14,400 -3,100 -21.5 11,100
Unemployment Rate 5.0 6.3 -1.3 --- 4.9
DANBURY LMA Civilian Labor Force 119,100 117,100 2,000 1.7 117,600
Employed 115,800 113,100 2,700 2.4 114,400
Unemployed 3,300 4,100 -800 -19.5 3,200
Unemployment Rate 2.8 3.5 -0.7 --- 2.7
DANIELSON LMA Civilian Labor Force 36,900 36,500 400 1.1 36,500
Employed 35,300 34,500 800 2.3 35,000
Unemployed 1,600 1,900 -300 -15.8 1,500
Unemployment Rate 4.3 5.3 -1.0 --- 4.2
HARTFORD LMA Civilian Labor Force 600,900 607,900 -7,000 -1.2 597,000
Employed 572,900 575,500 -2,600 -0.5 569,600
Unemployed 28,000 32,300 -4,300 -13.3 27,500
Unemployment Rate 4.7 5.3 -0.6 --- 4.6
LOWER RIVER LMA Civilian Labor Force 13,800 13,400 400 3.0 13,800
Employed 13,500 13,000 500 3.8 13,400
Unemployed 300 400 -100 -25.0 300
Unemployment Rate 2.4 3.1 -0.7 --- 2.3
NEW HAVEN LMA Civilian Labor Force 285,900 290,100 -4,200 -1.4 283,500
Employed 273,600 275,400 -1,800 -0.7 271,400
Unemployed 12,200 14,600 -2,400 -16.4 12,100
Unemployment Rate 4.3 5.0 -0.7 --- 4.3
NEW LONDON LMA Civilian Labor Force 168,000 168,800 -800 -0.5 170,200
Employed 161,800 161,400 400 0.2 164,000
Unemployed 6,200 7,400 -1,200 -16.2 6,300
Unemployment Rate 3.7 4.4 -0.7 --- 3.7
STAMFORD LMA Civilian Labor Force 193,100 193,500 -400 -0.2 192,600
Employed 188,200 187,100 1,100 0.6 187,700
Unemployed 5,000 6,400 -1,400 -21.9 4,900
Unemployment Rate 2.6 3.3 -0.7 --- 2.5
TORRINGTON LMA Civilian Labor Force 40,800 40,600 200 0.5 40,900
Employed 39,300 39,100 200 0.5 39,500
Unemployed 1,500 1,500 0 0.0 1,400
Unemployment Rate 3.7 3.7 0.0 --- 3.5
WATERBURY LMA Civilian Labor Force 117,600 118,500 -900 -0.8 116,800
Employed 111,100 110,500 600 0.5 110,300
Unemployed 6,500 8,100 -1,600 -19.8 6,500
Unemployment Rate 5.6 6.8 -1.2 --- 5.6
UNITED STATES Civilian Labor Force 147,978,000 146,787,000 1,191,000 0.8 147,186,000
Employed 140,447,000 138,619,000 1,828,000 1.3 139,641,000
Unemployed 7,531,000 8,169,000 -638,000 -7.8 7,545,000
Unemployment Rate 5.1 5.6 -0.5 --- 5.1
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
CONNECTICUT AVG WEEKLY EARNINGS AVG WEEKLY HOURS AVG HOURLY EARNINGS
OCT CHG SEP OCT CHG SEP OCT CHG SEP
/PUTFBTPOBMMZBEKVTUFE
2004 2003 Y/Y 2004 2004 2003 Y/Y 2004 2004 2003 Y/Y 2004
MANUFACTURING $783.53 $750.31 $33.22 $775.64 41.9 41.8 0.1 41.5 $18.70 $17.95 $0.75 $18.69
DURABLE GOODS 810.00 779.27 30.73 804.23 42.1 42.1 0.0 41.8 19.24 18.51 0.73 19.24
Fabricated Metal 735.29 695.41 39.88 713.09 43.1 42.9 0.2 42.7 17.06 16.21 0.85 16.70
Machinery 809.25 782.69 26.56 800.10 41.5 41.9 -0.4 41.2 19.50 18.68 0.82 19.42
Computer & Electronic 642.80 616.74 26.06 629.60 40.0 41.7 -1.7 40.0 16.07 14.79 1.28 15.74
Transport. Equipment 1,003.86 951.79 52.07 1,009.65 42.9 41.8 1.1 42.8 23.40 22.77 0.63 23.59
NON-DUR. GOODS 720.03 678.97 41.05 707.16 41.5 41.1 0.4 40.9 17.35 16.52 0.83 17.29
CONSTRUCTION 929.81 908.80 21.01 892.80 39.6 40.0 -0.4 38.4 23.48 22.72 0.76 23.25
LMAs AVG WEEKLY EARNINGS AVG WEEKLY HOURS AVG HOURLY EARNINGS
OCT CHG SEP OCT CHG SEP OCT CHG SEP
MANUFACTURING 2004 2003 Y/Y 2004 2004 2003 Y/Y 2004 2004 2003 Y/Y 2004
Bridgeport $825.10 $759.53 $65.57 $817.59 41.4 39.6 1.8 40.9 $19.93 $19.18 $0.75 $19.99
Danbury 687.60 640.08 47.52 707.25 41.1 38.1 3.0 41.0 16.73 16.80 -0.07 17.25
Danielson*
Hartford 884.36 804.33 80.03 867.01 43.5 42.2 1.3 42.9 20.33 19.06 1.27 20.21
Lower River*
New Haven 621.75 662.97 -41.22 630.65 41.7 41.0 0.7 41.3 14.91 16.17 -1.26 15.27
New London 801.91 769.14 32.77 786.61 42.7 42.4 0.3 42.2 18.78 18.14 0.64 18.64
Stamford*
Torrington*
Waterbury 806.91 674.75 132.16 754.24 39.4 38.1 1.3 38.6 20.48 17.71 2.77 19.54
Current months data are preliminary. Prior months data have been revised. All data are benchmarked to March 2003.
*Due to staff cuts, data for the Danielson, Lower River and Torrington labor market areas are no longer being prepared for publication. Manufacturing
hours and earnings estimates for the Stamford labor market area will no longer be published due to their not meeting sample reliability tests.
OCTOBER 2004
LMA/TOWNS LABOR FORCE EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED % LMA/TOWNS LABOR FORCE EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED %
BRIDGEPORT 228,503 217,181 11,322 5.0 HARTFORD cont....
Ansonia 9,070 8,550 520 5.7 Burlington 4,591 4,446 145 3.2
Beacon Falls 3,002 2,874 128 4.3 Canton 4,925 4,765 160 3.2
BRIDGEPORT 62,592 57,928 4,664 7.5 Chaplin 1,212 1,136 76 6.3
Derby 6,592 6,274 318 4.8 Colchester 7,477 7,181 296 4.0
Easton 3,590 3,508 82 2.3 Columbia 2,720 2,624 96 3.5
Fairfield 28,476 27,586 890 3.1 Coventry 6,340 6,119 221 3.5
Milford 28,087 26,859 1,228 4.4 Cromwell 6,938 6,669 269 3.9
Monroe 10,223 9,968 255 2.5 Durham 3,536 3,445 91 2.6
Oxford 5,481 5,301 180 3.3 East Granby 2,592 2,523 69 2.7
Seymour 8,308 7,954 354 4.3 East Haddam 4,454 4,327 127 2.9
Shelton 20,486 19,635 851 4.2 East Hampton 7,320 7,108 212 2.9
Stratford 25,279 24,027 1,252 5.0 East Hartford 25,874 24,374 1,500 5.8
Trumbull 17,316 16,717 599 3.5 East Windsor 5,404 5,167 237 4.4
Ellington 7,616 7,331 285 3.7
DANBURY 119,057 115,755 3,302 2.8 Enfield 23,027 22,111 916 4.0
Bethel 9,888 9,593 295 3.0 Farmington 12,212 11,842 370 3.0
Bridgewater 990 977 13 1.3 Glastonbury 16,802 16,383 419 2.5
Brookfield 8,717 8,490 227 2.6 Granby 5,626 5,468 158 2.8
DANBURY 41,009 39,843 1,166 2.8 Haddam 4,055 3,965 90 2.2
New Fairfield 7,274 7,076 198 2.7 HARTFORD 50,305 45,631 4,674 9.3
New Milford 15,204 14,615 589 3.9 Harwinton 2,840 2,735 105 3.7
Newtown 13,176 12,838 338 2.6 Hebron 4,600 4,444 156 3.4
Redding 4,569 4,469 100 2.2 Lebanon 3,639 3,484 155 4.3
Ridgefield 13,049 12,804 245 1.9 Manchester 28,748 27,370 1,378 4.8
Roxbury 1,159 1,128 31 2.7 Mansfield 9,781 9,554 227 2.3
Sherman 2,162 2,125 37 1.7 Marlborough 3,042 2,945 97 3.2
Washington 1,860 1,798 62 3.3 Middlefield 2,234 2,166 68 3.0
Middletown 23,188 22,237 951 4.1
DANIELSON 36,872 35,287 1,585 4.3 New Britain 33,991 31,312 2,679 7.9
Brooklyn 4,139 3,981 158 3.8 New Hartford 3,506 3,341 165 4.7
Eastford 973 953 20 2.1 Newington 15,567 14,934 633 4.1
Hampton 1,250 1,213 37 3.0 Plainville 9,300 8,831 469 5.0
KILLINGLY 9,492 8,959 533 5.6 Plymouth 6,082 5,814 268 4.4
Pomfret 2,408 2,332 76 3.2 Portland 4,599 4,417 182 4.0
Putnam 4,690 4,476 214 4.6 Rocky Hill 10,115 9,781 334 3.3
Scotland 955 941 14 1.5 Simsbury 11,944 11,613 331 2.8
Sterling 1,809 1,725 84 4.6 Somers 4,343 4,220 123 2.8
Thompson 4,795 4,572 223 4.7 Southington 21,422 20,515 907 4.2
Union 448 434 14 3.1 South Windsor 13,896 13,498 398 2.9
Voluntown 1,539 1,469 70 4.5 Stafford 5,603 5,333 270 4.8
Woodstock 4,373 4,230 143 3.3 Suffield 6,850 6,622 228 3.3
Tolland 7,591 7,377 214 2.8
HARTFORD 600,891 572,936 27,955 4.7 Vernon 15,664 14,942 722 4.6
Andover 1,683 1,626 57 3.4 West Hartford 28,399 27,494 905 3.2
Ashford 2,194 2,128 66 3.0 Wethersfield 12,255 11,824 431 3.5
Avon 8,168 7,959 209 2.6 Willington 3,413 3,295 118 3.5
Barkhamsted 2,031 1,943 88 4.3 Winchester 5,594 5,213 381 6.8
Berlin 9,563 9,226 337 3.5 Windham 10,586 9,883 703 6.6
Bloomfield 10,088 9,548 540 5.4 Windsor 14,581 13,881 700 4.8
Bolton 2,820 2,748 72 2.6 Windsor Locks 6,609 6,310 299 4.5
Bristol 31,337 29,757 1,580 5.0
OCTOBER 2004
LMA/TOWNS LABOR FORCE EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED % LMA/TOWNS LABOR FORCE EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED %
LOWER RIVER 13,834 13,499 335 2.4 STAMFORD 193,124 188,164 4,960 2.6
Chester 2,216 2,169 47 2.1 Darien 9,720 9,554 166 1.7
Deep River 2,812 2,738 74 2.6 Greenwich 30,948 30,346 602 1.9
Essex 3,772 3,685 87 2.3 New Canaan 9,519 9,388 131 1.4
Lyme 1,212 1,187 25 2.1 NORWALK 48,482 46,941 1,541 3.2
Westbrook 3,823 3,720 103 2.7 STAMFORD 66,106 64,135 1,971 3.0
Weston 5,142 5,047 95 1.8
NEW HAVEN 285,876 273,637 12,239 4.3 Westport 14,256 13,961 295 2.1
Bethany 2,972 2,890 82 2.8 Wilton 8,952 8,792 160 1.8
Branford 16,660 16,136 524 3.1
Cheshire 14,621 14,211 410 2.8 TORRINGTON 40,829 39,324 1,505 3.7
Clinton 7,396 7,188 208 2.8 Canaan** 754 737 17 2.3
East Haven 15,541 14,767 774 5.0 Colebrook 856 848 8 0.9
Guilford 12,144 11,852 292 2.4 Cornwall 829 817 12 1.4
Hamden 31,195 30,038 1,157 3.7 Goshen 1,596 1,542 54 3.4
Killingworth 3,277 3,199 78 2.4 Hartland 1,068 1,046 22 2.1
Madison 9,264 9,036 228 2.5 Kent** 2,041 2,013 28 1.4
MERIDEN 30,734 29,111 1,623 5.3 Litchfield 4,366 4,205 161 3.7
NEW HAVEN 57,520 53,841 3,679 6.4 Morris 1,295 1,252 43 3.3
North Branford 8,032 7,785 247 3.1 Norfolk 916 885 31 3.4
North Haven 12,786 12,385 401 3.1 North Canaan** 2,252 2,216 36 1.6
Orange 6,905 6,737 168 2.4 Salisbury** 2,462 2,430 32 1.3
Wallingford 23,886 23,038 848 3.6 Sharon** 2,137 2,120 17 0.8
West Haven 28,473 27,078 1,395 4.9 TORRINGTON 19,579 18,554 1,025 5.2
Woodbridge 4,470 4,346 124 2.8 Warren 677 659 18 2.7
*NEW LONDON 149,711 144,096 5,615 3.8 WATERBURY 117,621 111,086 6,535 5.6
Bozrah 1,587 1,530 57 3.6 Bethlehem 1,989 1,944 45 2.3
Canterbury 2,957 2,811 146 4.9 Middlebury 3,531 3,418 113 3.2
East Lyme 10,861 10,600 261 2.4 Naugatuck 16,850 15,918 932 5.5
Franklin 1,217 1,177 40 3.3 Prospect 4,944 4,720 224 4.5
Griswold 6,224 5,958 266 4.3 Southbury 7,533 7,263 270 3.6
Groton 17,863 17,125 738 4.1 Thomaston 4,204 4,003 201 4.8
Ledyard 8,569 8,325 244 2.8 WATERBURY 52,567 48,900 3,667 7.0
Lisbon 2,507 2,418 89 3.6 Watertown 12,024 11,503 521 4.3
Montville 11,888 11,488 400 3.4 Wolcott 8,636 8,258 378 4.4
NEW LONDON 13,634 12,926 708 5.2 Woodbury 5,340 5,158 182 3.4
No. Stonington 3,119 3,019 100 3.2
NORWICH 20,140 19,110 1,030 5.1
Old Lyme 4,516 4,415 101 2.2 Not Seasonally Adjusted:
Old Saybrook 6,408 6,255 153 2.4 CONNECTICUT 1,786,300 1,711,000 75,400 4.2
Plainfield 8,569 8,128 441 5.1 UNITED STATES 147,978,000 140,447,000 7,531,000 5.1
Preston 2,754 2,667 87 3.2
Salem 2,424 2,362 62 2.6 Seasonally Adjusted:
Sprague 1,794 1,691 103 5.7 CONNECTICUT 1,788,300 1,705,800 82,500 4.6
Stonington 11,090 10,840 250 2.3 UNITED STATES 147,850,000 139,778,000 8,072,000 5.5
Waterford 11,591 11,250 341 2.9
*Connecticut portion only. For whole MSA, including Rhode Island towns, see below. **The Bureau of Labor Statistics has identified these five towns as a separate area to
NEW LONDON 167,960 161,783 6,177 3.7 report labor force data. For the convenience of our data users, data for these towns are
Hopkinton, RI 4,712 4,557 155 3.3 included in the Torrington LMA. For the same purpose, data for the town of Thompson,
Westerly, RI 13,537 13,130 407 3.0 which is officially part of the Worcester, MA MSA, is included in the Danielson LMA.
For further information on the housing permit data, contact Kolie Sun of DECD at (860) 270-8167.
INITIAL CLAIMS
Average weekly initial claims are calculated by dividing the total number of new claims for unemployment insurance received in the month by
the number of weeks in the month. A minor change in methodology took effect with data published in the March 1997 issue of the DIGEST.
Data have been revised back to January 1980.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has identified the five towns of Canaan, Kent, North Canaan, Salisbury and Sharon as a separate area for
reporting labor force data. For the convenience of our data users, data for these towns are included in the Torrington Labor Market Area. For the
same purpose, data for the town of Thompson, which is officially part of the Worcester Metropolitan Statistical Area, are included in the
Danielson Labor Market Area. Also, data for Hopkinton and Westerly, Rhode Island are included in the New London Labor Market Area.
UI COVERED WAGES
UI covered wages is the total amount paid to those employees who are covered under the Connecticuts Unemployment Insurance (UI) law for
services performed during the quarter. The fluctuations in the 1992-93 period reflect the effect of the changes in the tax law and the massive
restructuring in the states economy.
Leading Employment Index .......... +1.4 Business Activity Tourism and Travel
Coincident Employment Index ...... +1.5 New Housing Permits ................... -23.1 Info Center Visitors ......................... -5.2
Leading General Drift Indicator ..... +1.8 Electricity Sales ............................... -3.4 Attraction Visitors ........................... +1.4
Coincident General Drift Indicator . -0.3 Retail Sales .................................... -0.6 Air Passenger Count ...................... +8.7
Banknorth Business Barometer ... +2.0 Construction Contracts Index ........ -15.0 Indian Gaming Slots ....................... +3.2
New Auto Registrations ................. -34.1 Travel and Tourism Index ............... -1.0
Total Nonfarm Employment .......... +0.3 Air Cargo Tons ............................... +3.0
Exports ........................................... -4.8 Employment Cost Index (U.S.)
Unemployment ................................ -0.9 Total ............................................... +3.7
Labor Force .................................... -0.6 Wages & Salaries .......................... +2.6
Employed ....................................... +0.3 Business Starts Benefit Costs ................................. +6.8
Unemployed ................................. -16.2 Secretary of the State ..................... -1.5
Dept. of Labor ................................. -1.3 Consumer Prices
Average Weekly Initial Claims ...... -11.9 Connecticut ...................................... NA
Help Wanted Index -- Hartford ..... +42.9 Business Terminations U.S. City Average .......................... +3.2
Average Ins. Unempl. Rate .......... -0.67* Secretary of the State ..................... -0.1 Northeast Region ........................... +3.6
Dept. of Labor ............................... -30.9 NY-NJ-Long Island ......................... +3.7
Average Weekly Hours, Mfg .......... +0.2 Boston-Brockton-Nashua ............... +1.5
Average Hourly Earnings, Mfg ...... +4.2 Consumer Confidence
Average Weekly Earnings, Mfg ..... +4.4 State Revenues ................................ NA Connecticut .................................. +40.6
CT Mfg. Production Index .............. +2.8 Corporate Tax ................................... NA New England ............................... +12.3
Production Worker Hours ................ -0.4 Personal Income Tax ........................ NA U.S. ............................................. +13.6
Industrial Electricity Sales .............. +0.5 Real Estate Conveyance Tax ............ NA
Sales & Use Tax ............................... NA Interest Rates
Personal Income ............................ +4.0 Indian Gaming Payments ................ +3.8 Prime .......................................... +0.75*
UI Covered Wages ......................... +0.2 *Percentage point change; **Less than 0.05 percent;
Conventional Mortgage ................ -0.23*
NA = Not Available
THE CONNECTICUT
ECONOMIC DIGEST
We would appreciate your input:
o What article topics would you like to see covered in future issues?
A joint publication of o What additional data would you like to see included in the Digest?
The Connecticut Departments of Labor and
Economic and Community Development Please send your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding
the Digest to dol.econdigest@po.state.ct.us. Thank you!
q If you wish to have your name removed from our mailing list, please
check here and return this page (or a photocopy) to the address at left.
q If your address has changed, please check here, make the necessary
changes to your address label and return this page to the address at left.
Mailing address: q If you receive more than one copy of this publication, please check
here and return this page from the duplicate copy to the address at left.
Connecticut Economic Digest
Connecticut Department of Labor
Office of Research First Class Mail
200 Folly Brook Boulevard U.S. Postage
Wethersfield, CT 06109-1114
PAID
PERMIT # 5
The Connecticut Economic Digest BLOOMFIELD, CT
is available on the internet at:
http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi