Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from December 2024 that was published in January 2025. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Despite the expectation-exceeding quarter of a million net jobs added last month across the US, unemployment actually increased in 6 states and only decreased in 2 states, with the remaining 42 states and Washington DC showing no significant movement in either direction.
Payroll figures were even more steady month-to-month, with 48 states and DC seeing almost no change in payroll during December while only 2 states saw a net increase in payroll figures.
Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for January 2025.
Nevada had the highest unemployment rate for the second consecutive month, holding steady at 5.7%, followed by California and Washington DC at 5.5%, Kentucky and Illinois at 5.2%, and Michigan at 5.0% unemployment.
All other states have unemployment rates that are at or below the national average of 4.1%
Mississippi and Alabama had the largest jumps in unemployment rate last month - both climbing from 3.1% to 3.3%. Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania each saw their state unemployment rate climb by 0.1%, as well.
Over the last year, 28 states in total have recorded an increase in unemployment rate, with the steepest rises occurring in South Carolina (1.7%), Rhode Island (1.2%), Colorado (1.1%), and Indiana and Kansas at 1.1% each.
South Dakota has maintained the lowest unemployment rate in the country for the last 12 months in a row, staying consistently at 1.9% unemployment for the last 3 months.
Vermont has the next lowest unemployment rate at 2.4% followed by North Dakota at 2.5%.
In total, 21 states have employment rates below the US average of 4.1%.
Only 2 states recorded a decrease in unemployment over the last month - Minnesota, which saw its unemployment rate drop from 5.5% to 5.3%, and Montana, which saw its unemployment rate fall by 0.1% from 3.2% to 3.1%.
Over the last 12 months, 6 states in total have seen net unemployment rate reductions, led by Connecticut, which saw its unemployment rate decrease by 1.2% over the year, followed by Wisconsin and Arizona at minus 0.4% each.
No state recorded net job losses over the last month or the last year.
Texas and Missouri were the only states that had a net increase in payroll last month, adding about 37 thousand and 11 thousand jobs respectively.
Over the last year, 33 states have seen an increase in their payroll figures, with Texas and California reporting the largest number of net jobs added while Idaho had the largest percentage increase in payroll figures at plus 3.6%, followed by Missouri and South Carolina at 2.8% each.
Despite the downtick in the unemployment rate and huge over-performance of jobs reflected in this month’s Employment Situation release, there was relatively little evidence of those gains seen in the states, which were a model of stability nearly across the board.
Data from different labor surveys can and will often lead to results that don’t necessarily align, and that appears to be the case here.
Next month might provide some additional context that may help better interpret the disconnect between employment reports showing growth and those showing stability, but next month’s report will cover data collected on both sides of the transition from one session of Congress and one presidential administration to the next.
Whether there is much insight yet to be obtained about economic data at the close of the previous term will quickly become overshadowed by the potential economic implications of new policies that are proposed and enacted over these first few months of 2025.
With a flurry of activity both at the federal and state level already, including both legislation and executive orders that carry significant economic implications, that’s where we’ll be keeping an eye out in the months ahead as the economic and workforce impacts take shape.
Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer blog.
Key Takeaways
The Employers’ Guide To The H-1B Visa Debate
Despite having Republican’s sweep the November elections and win control of not only the White House, but also both chambers of Congress in Washington DC, a stark divide within the party emerged on the issue of H-1B Visas prior to taking formal control of the federal government.
On one side of the debate, head of the Department of Government Efficiency and advisor to the incoming president Elon Musk has taken a strong stance in favor of the H-1B visa program, which has resulted in considerable pushback from a significant portion of President Trump’s MAGA voter base.
In response to the growing debate, President Trump sided with Musk in support of H-1B visas, which seemed effective at preventing the dispute from escalating further, but it remains to be seen if/how that ideological division between MAGA leadership and the MAGA movement will impact H-1B policy going forward as actual legislation and regulation are put on the table in the coming months.
In light of the uncertainty about the fate of the program in the future, we thought it would be worth taking a look at H-1B visas to get a better understanding of the size of the program, the scope of impact that potential that could result from any proposed changes, and what industries and organizations are likely to bear the brunt of the potential impacts.
H-1B Visa Program Background
The H-1B visa program launched in 1990 as a means for employers to obtain temporary work visas for highly skilled foreign professionals who work in ‘specialty occupations’ - often requiring a college degree or higher and specialized, relevant skills - or as fashion models of distinguished skill.
While the program has evolved some over the years, for the last 2 decades the number of H-1B visas issued each year has been statutorily capped at 65,000 for standard H-1B visas plus an additional 20,000 for applicants with a master's degree or higher obtained from a US college or university.
H-1B visas are distributed via a lottery system and last for a duration of 3 years, although applicants frequently seek and are granted extensions beyond their initial term for a maximum of 6 years, after which time the applicant will need to reapply and obtain a new H-1B visa or the visa-holder must leave the country.
The H-1B Debate
The central question in the debate over H-1B visas is whether or not the H-1B program provides US companies with the talent necessary to keep ahead of and/or keep up with global competitors, or whether the H-1B visa program effectively suppresses wages for US workers by enabling US companies to access specialized labor at a discounted price.
In defense of the H-1B visa, Musk credited the H-1B program as the reason he’s in America, and he said it is responsible for bringing in so many critical people who helped build companies that made America strong.
Opponents of the H-1B visa program often concede that the program can serve a valid purpose in a relatively small portion of cases where a person with unique or rare skills, abilities, and experience must be recruited from outside the US.
In practice, however, opponents argue that the program is primarily used to recruit foreign workers with qualifications that are readily available among the US workforce but who are willing to accept lower wages in order to obtain a US visa, which works against the interests of similarly skilled US workers.
H-1B Visas By The Numbers
There are approximately 600 to 700 thousand foreign workers operating in the US under H-1B visas, but the H-1B visa-holding population tends to fluctuate cyclically.
The low point for the H-1B holders population comes at the end of each fiscal year when some foreign workers begin leaving the country to pursue new opportunities outside of the US before their visas expire, meanwhile, the annual H-1B cap has already been hit so no new foreign workers can replace them until the beginning of the next fiscal year, as depicted in the chart below.
Last year, employers submitted more than 850 thousand applications for H-1B visas, which is more than 10 times the 85,000 annual cap for new H-1B visas, so the demand for these specialized foreign workers among US companies significantly outpaces the available supply.
Demand for these visas among foreign workers is strong , with workers from India and to a lesser degree China accounting for the vast majority of H-1B visa-holders. For example, in 2023, 76% of H-1B visas were issued to workers from India, with the next largest proportion going to Chinese applicants (12%). Men also tend to be disproportionately represented, accounting for 71% of successful H-1B applicants in that same dataset.
The average salary for H-1B visa holders is just under $120,000 per year as of 2024, which is up slightly from about $115,000per year in 2023. As of the most recent data available, about 75% or 3 out of 4 jobs filled by H-1B visa-holders last year paid $150,000or less.
H-1B applications tend to be concentrated in computer science, IT, and/or finance-related work across a relatively limited range of industries, with a handful of tech companies dominating the H-1B lottery, followed by accounting/auditing firms, universities, investment banks, and consultancies.
Mployer’s Take
In the recent H-1B debate, both sides are right in a sense.
The H-1B program has been bringing top (largely tech) talent to the US since the days when the internet was coming through the phone lines, and that talent certainly contributed to building the global digital infrastructure that we’ve come to know today.
It’s also clear that the size of the tech industry where H-1B holders have largely landed and the demand for tech talent in general has grown much faster over the years than the number of H-1B visa holders available to fill that growing demand, so the impact of H-1B visas on the US tech labor force has actually shrunk over most of the last 35 years.
On the other hand, with potentially fewer than 6 million tech workers currently employed in the US, if 75% of H-1B visa-holders are doing or supporting tech work, that could account for almost 10% of jobs in the space and would drive down wages for US tech workers enough to validate their opposition to the program.
Given both Musk and Trump’s stated support, along with significant bipartisan endorsement, the H-1B program does not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon., Even if the program were significantly pared down, the resulting impact on wages would be negligible everywhere outside the tech industry.
That said, the impact of significantly reducing the H-1B program on US tech worker wages could be meaningful, and that is especially true when the tech industry is in a state of contraction itself.
Still, expansion of the H-1B program seems more likely than reduction, but in light of the pushback against H-1Bs we’ve seen from the Republican voter bloc over the last couple of months, any expansion that may be trial-ballooned is unlikely to bring the program back to anywhere near the level of influence it had on the tech industry in eras past.
Under business-as-usual circumstances, the H-1B program would carry on operating undisturbed just as it has for most of the past 20 years and the recent debate would be replaced by another that is just as soon forgotten, but with would-be agents of change like Musk bringing the issue to the spotlight, it is impossible to count out the possibility that the H-1B program could see a massive overhaul of one sort or another in the near future.
If expansion of the H-1B program is proposed in the next few years, it seems a strong possibility that it would be coupled with some kind of accompanying US technical skill training program to help offset any blowback from the base.
Regardless of how the H-1B program is managed over the next 4 years, however, the only real certainty is that the demand for these types of visas will remain strong among employers for as long as they are available, and that demand will likely continue to outpace the supply.
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from December 2024 that was published in January 2025. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
US employers added about 256 thousand jobs last month, which exceeded economists predictions of about 150 thousand jobs by nearly 79%.
The national unemployment dropping to 4.1% also bet forecasts, which were predicting the national unemployment rate from holding steady at 4.2%.
The number of people who permanently lost their job last month was down significantly from the month prior as well, down from almost 1.9 million people in November prior to 1.7 million as of the latest report.
There wasn’t much change in terms of the number of long-term unemployed and the labor force participation rate, which held steady at 1.6 million and 62.5%, respectively.
People working part time due to economic reasons (4.4 million) and people who want a job but haven’t looked for one in the last 4 weeks (5.5 million) also was similarly unchanged over the month, as was the 1.6 million people who are categorized as marginally attached to the workforce, meaning they want a job and had looked for one at some point in the past 12 months but had not done so in the past 4 weeks.
Of the net 256 thousand net new payroll entries over the course of December, the healthcare industry was responsible for the largest portion at 46 thousand new jobs, with the retail industry close behind at 45 thousand net new jobs after suffering a net job loss in November’ report.
About 33 thousand and 23 thousand government and social assistance jobs were added last month, as well, while most of the remaining industries saw little change in payroll figures during the month, including leisure & hospitality, natural resource extraction, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, information, financial activities, and professional and business services as well as other services.
Average hourly pay continued rising, this time by about 10 cents to $35.69 per hour (an increase of 0.3%), while the average workweek held steady at 34.3 hours per week.
This latest employment report marks the second consecutive month of job growth that far outpaces expectations, but those two strong months come on the heels of an especially weak one in October.
Still, given that strikes, natural disasters, and related data collection issues were significantly responsible for the down month, the two latest strong months look all the better by comparison.
The recent job market strength, however, bolsters the Federal Reserve’s case for delaying additional rate cuts and makes it very unlikely that we’ll see any rate cuts over the next several months, especially in light of uncertainty about whether the incoming Trump administration will follow through with tariffs and if so, how broadly impactful they may be, which the Fed will monitor closely in relation to any inflationary pressure the tariffs may cause.
While we won’t know much more about how the months and years ahead are primed to play out until power formally changes hands, it’s worth taking a look at some of the milestones from the past year as we wrap up some of the last data points from 2024.
Over the last year, US payrolls have increased by 2.2 million, for an average monthly net job gain of 186 thousand. Unemployment is up three-tenths of a point from a year ago, while average hourly wages are up almost 4%.
Other than comparing last year to 2023, when more than 3 million net jobs were added for an average monthly increase of more than a quarter million, it is hard to look at the 2024 numbers and not be impressed at the strength and resiliency of the labor market and economy generally throughout the year.
With the new year comes new data, new milestones to mark, and in this case, new policies that will shape the labor market and economy going forward for years to come, but overperformance has become the new normal over the past several years, even when plenty of economists were expecting economic downturn, and overperformance is almost certainly unsustainable in the long run as expectations adjust to correct for previous errors.
We would be lucky to keep up the streak, to be sure, but regardless, we will continue keeping an eye on the labor market and economy as new developments come about.
Check out the Mployer blog here.
Key Takeaways
ARTICLE I Do Your Employee Benefits Make The Grade?
We are thrilled to announce the launch of Insights+, a first-of-its-kind solution that helps employers understand exactly how their benefits compare to the market and communicate that value effectively. For a limited time, qualified employers can access Insights+ at no cost through the end of 2024.
In today’s competitive talent market, employee benefits play a critical role in attracting and retaining top talent. Employers invest millions into their benefit programs every year, yet many struggle to prove the value of their offerings to employees and job candidates. This creates a costly communication gap where employers provide significant benefits that employees fail to recognize—often undervaluing them by over 50%. On average, that represents about $12,000 in annual value per employee that goes unacknowledged.
With Insights+, we solve this challenge by combining data-driven benchmarking with tools to highlight the value of your benefits in a clear and meaningful way. Employers can now see exactly how their offerings compare to competitors in their region, industry, and size—then showcase this independent validation to their employees and recruits.
Click here to see if you qualify for the free Insights+ early adopter opportunity!
FREE Insights+ Reports For Qualifying Employers -
How Insights+ Works
The process is simple. Employers submit their current employee benefits guide or, if one isn’t available, complete a short questionnaire. Using our proprietary database of more than 20,000 employers, Insights+ analyzes the full scope of your benefits, including medical, ancillary, leave, and retirement offerings. Within days, you’ll receive a detailed, 25+ page report that benchmarks your plan against similar employers.
But Insights+ doesn’t stop there. Employers also receive customized recognition tools—including badges and shareable materials—that can be used to communicate the value of benefits during recruitment and to current employees. These materials are designed to help employers bridge the perception gap by providing employees and job seekers with an objective and transparent view of the benefits being offered.
Click Here For A FREE 15 Minute Insights+ Expert Consultation
Why Insights+ Matters
Employers dedicate substantial resources to employee benefits, with the average annual medical benefits investment per employee reaching $23,200. Despite this significant expenditure, employees often fail to recognize the full value of what they receive, estimating the investment at just $11,200. This disconnect between actual and perceived value leaves employees undervaluing their benefits by more than half, which diminishes the impact of those benefits on both satisfaction and retention.
This perception gap isn’t just a communication failure—it’s a lost opportunity. Benefits are a key driver of employee satisfaction, yet when employees don’t understand their value, employers struggle to fully leverage their offerings. Insights+ solves this challenge by providing a transparent, independent analysis of benefit offerings that validates their true worth. Employers receive tools to effectively communicate the significance of their benefits package to both employees and recruits, ensuring that these investments drive the retention, satisfaction, and loyalty they are designed to achieve.
By bridging the gap between what employers provide and what employees perceive, Insights+ helps organizations unlock the full potential of their benefits program, ultimately improving workforce morale and amplifying their competitive advantage in the talent market.
Employee Benefits: A Missed Opportunity for Employers
Employee benefits consistently rank as one of the most important factors in hiring decisions. According to our research, 88% of job seekers evaluate benefits as part of their job search, yet only 22% of employers actively promote their benefits during recruitment. This creates a substantial gap between what candidates need to make informed decisions and what employers provide. For organizations that already offer strong benefits packages, this lack of communication is a missed opportunity to differentiate themselves in a competitive hiring environment.
The failure to clearly convey benefits not only impacts recruitment but also employee retention. When employees lack a proper understanding of their benefits, they are less likely to appreciate their employer’s investment in their well-being. For instance, many employees vastly underestimate how much their employer contributes to their healthcare, with responses ranging from less than 20% to over 80%. These varying perceptions reveal how poorly benefits information is understood across workforces, making it harder for employers to build trust and satisfaction.
Insights+ addresses these issues by offering tools that allow employers to present their benefits clearly, transparently, and effectively. With customized, shareable materials and independent verification of benefit value, employers can close the communication gap and ensure that employees and candidates alike fully understand what is being offered. This transparency enhances recruitment efforts, strengthens retention, and builds a more engaged workforce by helping employees see their employer as a true partner in their well-being.
The Bottom Line for Employers
Insights+ represents a major step forward for employers looking to maximize the impact of their benefits investments. For organizations already offering competitive benefits, Insights+ provides a way to highlight and promote their offerings to recruits and employees. For those whose benefits lag behind, the detailed benchmarking analysis identifies clear opportunities for improvement, helping employers align their benefits strategy with workforce expectations.
Even companies not looking to expand their benefits offerings can use Insights+ to identify cost-effective strategies for targeting candidates whose expectations align with their current plans. In every case, Insights+ delivers actionable insights that help employers achieve faster hiring, stronger retention, and better ROI on their benefits spending.
Mployer’s Take
We believe that transparency and data are critical to helping employers make smarter, more strategic decisions about their benefits. Insights+ delivers on this belief by giving employers the tools they need to evaluate, validate, and communicate the value of their benefits offerings.
For a limited time, we are offering Insights+ at no cost for qualified employers. Don’t miss this opportunity to see how your benefits stack up—and start using the tools that can transform your recruitment and retention efforts.
If you’re interested in seeing how your plan compares, click here to access your free Insights+ report for qualifying employers - otherwise, keep an eye out in future newsletter installments and on the Mployer blog for more information about the program coming soon!
Each month, Mployer collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources.
Beginning on January 13, 2025, the extension period for certain renewal Employee Authorization Document (EAD) applications filed on May 4, 2022 or later is now formalized at 540 days.
You can read more here.
As of January 1, 2025, the IRS mileage reimbursement rate for road miles driven for business purposes increased by 3 cents per mile from 67 to 70 cents per mile driven.
The IRS released a statement announcing a 25-cent increase in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fees for covered plan years ending on or after October 1, 2024, and before October 1, 2025.
The new fee is $3.47 per covered life.
You can read more here.
In response to a Federal Court of Appeals Decision that vacated the so-called 80/20/30 rule that was instituted in 2021, the Department of Labor officially reverted to the previous tip credit rule.
You can read more here.
In the final days before Christmas a few weeks ago, the Paperwork Burden Reduction Act and the Employer Reporting Improvement Act both became law.
The former will provide an alternative means for employers to distribute forms 1095-B and 1095-C to employees, and the latter extends the time employers have to respond to IRS notice of audit 226-J forms from 30 days to 90 days.
In 2025, the threshold for what qualifies as affordable coverage also increases from 8.39% to 9.02%, which means that an employee’s required contribution to the plan can be no more than 9.02% of their salary in order for the plan to be considered affordable and to avoid potentially paying the penalty.
You can read more about the affordability threshold here.
A federal court in Texas determined that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority last summer by increasing the minimum pay thresholds for employees to qualify under the executive, administrative, and professional and highly-compensated employee exceptions to minimum wage and overtime protections.
Those minimum pay thresholds have reverted to their prior levels - back to $684 per week for the EAP exemption (down from $844 per week under the now defunct rule), and back to $107,432 per year for the HCE exemption (down from $132,964 per year under the now defunct rule).
The National Labor Relations Board has issued a decision prohibiting employers from forcing employees under threat of punishment to attend meetings during which the employer will share views on unionization or its impacts.
Employers are allowed, however, to convene employees and share their views on unionization and potential impacts so long as employees are not disciplined or adversely affected in any way for not attending (or leaving early). Employers should not even keep or maintain such attendance records.
You can read more here.
Colorado: The City of Boulder increased the minimum wage to $15.57 ($12.55 for tipped employees) as of January 1, 2025.
Oregon: As of January 1, 2025, Paid Leave Oregon provides leave for employees completing necessary legal steps associated with adopting and/or fostering children.
New York: New York employers that receive criminal history records for applicants and employees must now provide those applicants and employees with a copy of those records and a copy of the applicable New York corrections law as well as an opportunity to correct any inaccurate information that may be contained in those records.
Further, as of January 1, 2025, New York employers are required to provide 20 hours of paid prenatal leave during a 52 week period. Also, as of the new year, the characteristics to which equal protection was extended via the New York State Human Rights Law and the resulting protections are formally enshrined in the New York State Constitution. Those characteristics include: age, disability, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, pregnancy, and anything else related to reproductive healthcare.
You can read more here.
You can find the complete IRS 2025 benefit contribution limit list here.
As of January 1, 2025, the minimum wage for work conducted in association with federal contracts covered by Executive Order 13658 is $13.30 ($9.30 for tipped employees), while the minimum wage paid for work conducted in association with federal contracts covered by Executive Order 14026 is $17.75 per hour for both tipped and non-tipped employees.
Additional guidance about which kinds of contracts are covered by which executive order can be found here.
You can find guidance for ERISA 403(b) plan eligibility requirements for long-term, part-time employees according to the updated standards from the Secure ACT 2.0 here.
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from November 2024 that was published in December 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Last month, the national unemployment rate rose to 4.2% (up one-tenth of a percentage point), but only 6 states saw their state-level unemployment go up while one state saw a decrease in unemployment and all the rest saw no significant change in state employment levels.
US employers added more than a quarter of a million jobs at the same time, but only 4 states plus Washington DC recorded a net increase in payroll figures, while the remaining 46 states saw no noteworthy change over the month.
Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for October 2024.
Nevada had the highest unemployment rate last month at 5.7%, which is up almost one-tenth of a point over the month and about four-tenths of a point over the last year.
Washington DC has the next highest unemployment rate at 5.6%, followed by California at 5.4% and Illinois at 5.3% unemployment.
Those are the only states that currently have unemployment rates above the national average of 4.2%, with Idaho having the next highest unemployment rate at 3.7%.
Last month, 6 states recorded a higher unemployment rate than the month before, led by Alabama, Maine, and Mississippi, which all saw their unemployment rates climb from 2.9% to 3.1% over the course of the month. Iowa (now 3.1%), Kansas (now 3.5%), and Vermont (now 2.4%) all saw the unemployment rates in their states increase by 0.1%.
Over the last year, 26 states have experienced rising unemployment, with the largest percentage increases going to South Carolina (plus 1.8%), Rhode Island (plus 1.4%), and Colorado (plus 1.0%).
South Dakota is now 1 month shy of hitting the 1-year mark of consecutive months with the lowest unemployment rate among states - this month holding steady month-to-month at 1.9%.
The next lowest unemployment rate was 2.4% - recorded by both North Dakota and Vermont - which is more than half of a percentage point above South Dakota’s level, which further reinforces just how strong South Dakota’s labor market has been.
Delaware was the only state that experienced a net reduction in unemployment over the month, dropping one-tenth of a point from 4.0% to 3.9%.
Over the last 12 months, 6 states have recorded a net decrease in unemployment, but the largest reduction by far occurred in Connecticut where unemployment fell by 1.2% over the last year, followed by Wisconsin and Arizona, which each fell by only half a point each.
No state recorded net job losses over the last month or the last year.
Employers in the state of Florida added more net jobs last month than any other state, increasing payrolls by more than 60 thousand, while Washington state had the next largest gain, adding a little more than 30 thousand net jobs over the month.
Washington also had the largest percentage gain, increasing their workforce by 0.9%, followed by Alaska and Washington DC at 0.7% each, Florida at 0.6%, and Kansas at plus 0.5%.
Over the last year, 33 states have recorded statistically significant increases in net jobs.
Texas and California had the largest net increase in raw job figures at about 274 thousand and 208 thousand, respectively, while Idaho had the largest percentage growth (3.1%) followed by Alaska (2.8%), Missouri (2.7%), and Montana (2.4%).
Not much has changed on the surface, but several external factors are in flux that could significantly shift the economic outlook over the coming months (and years) depending upon how they resolve.
The current report is the third to last such dataset that will be compiled by the outgoing Biden administration, and there are still a number of uncertainties that remain about the priorities of the incoming administration and how the transfer of power will impact the economy and labor market, both in the short and long term.
While Congress was able to avert a government shutdown at the end of last week by passing a last-minute continuing resolution, that bill will only keep the government funded for a couple of months through the middle of March when Republicans will control all 3 branches of the federal government, and how they elect to respond to current inter and intra party disputes will have significant ramifications outside of DC, of course.
The end of last week also brought another quarter-point interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve, but that news wasn’t entirely well-received given that it was accompanied by statements from Fed Chair Jerome Powell indicating the Fed will probably only cut another half point from interest rates over the course of 2025, which is half of what many analysts were expecting.
The stock market ended the week on an upturn due to better-than-expected inflation data, but that upturn followed nearly 2 weeks of consecutive losses punctuated by an almost 3% drop on the day of the Fed’s announcement, and while the markets are up close to 10% over the last 6 months, they are down more than 2% over the week/month.
While there are certainly many questions up in the air about how the economic road ahead will unfold, we are unlikely to get many meaningful answers for at least another month and likely more.
Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer blog.
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from November 2024 that was published in December 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The national unemployment rate average ticked up one-tenth of a point to 4.2% last month as US employers added 227 thousand jobs, outpacing the approximate 200 thousand jobs that economists were predicting.
The number of unemployed people held comparably steady at about 7.1 million, as well, with about 1.7 million (17%) qualifying as long-term unemployed. The number of unemployed people has risen by around 800 thousand over the last 12 months, while the number of long-term unemployed has risen by about 500 thousand over the same time period.
Those figures, however, do not account for the nearly 5.5 million people who are not counted as unemployed because they have not been actively looking for work in the past 4 weeks.
Also, it’s worth noting that about 4.5 million people are currently employed part time for economic reasons, which is up from about 4 million people who fell into that category a year ago.
Altogether, the figures show general resilience and a strong rebound from last month’s hurricane and strike-induced dip, but the full economic picture is not entirely sunny, and evidence of some softening in the labor market persists.
That said, there’s not much of said evidence to be found in the jobs numbers, however, with 227 net new payroll entries over the month, but it could be argued that the concentration of new jobs across a relatively few industries is less than ideal.
For example, the healthcare industry and leisure & hospitality industry each added about 54 thousand net jobs, which collectively account for nearly half of the total job additions last month. Further, both the healthcare and leisure & hospitality job figures last month were essentially on par with their monthly averages, meaning that last month’s payroll additions were essentially right on the trendline.
Employment figures in government and transportation equipment manufacturing each rose by about a little over 30 thousand jobs, while the social assistance industry saw a net addition of about 20 thousand jobs.
There was little to no noteworthy change in the other industries with the exception of the retail industry which saw a net loss of nearly 30 thousand jobs over the course of November.
Average hourly pay continued its general upward trend climbing 13 cents to $35.61 per hour while the average workweek climbed one-tenth of an hour to 34.3 hours per week.
Average hourly pay is up 4% over the last 12 months.
In light of this most recent batch of economic data, last month’s report of only 12 thousand new jobs looks more like an outlier than evidence of a rapid cooling in the job market.
Although the upward revision to last month’s numbers of about 36 thousand jobs could look huge by some measures (plus 200% upward revision) or fairly insignificant by others (post-revision new payroll entries in October were still only about 25% of the average 186 thousand new jobs added each month over the last 12), the reality is that last month’s performance reflected hurricane and strike related data aberrations more than changing macroeconomic conditions.
Despite this positive jobs report, markets have not been dissuaded from believing another interest rate cut is likely in store when Federal Reserve leadership convenes again later this month.
Still, the outlook is not entirely positive across the board, with a decreasing number in job postings across nearly every industry, for example, indicating the job market is expected to continue cooling - which is in part why continued rate cuts are forecast.
What likely matters more at the moment than the bigger picture environmental factors that are shaping the current economic trends, however, are the political and regulatory factors that will begin impacting the labor market and US/world economies in general when control of the White House and US senate changes hands in the new year.
Even with Republicans in control of all 3 branches of the federal government, there remains a great deal of uncertainty both about which proposals they will pursue and prioritize, many of which can have significant impacts to the economy and labor force (e.g. tariffs, taxes, collective bargaining legislation).
That lack of clarity will begin coming into focus in 2025.
Check out the Mployer blog here.
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from October 2024 that was published in November 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
There was no significant change in the national unemployment rate, which held steady at 4.1% over the month, nor was there any meaningful movement in national payroll figures, which fell far short of expectations and amounted to a net increase of only about 12,000 jobs.
The vast majority of states saw comparably little change in their in-state unemployment rates and payroll figures, although 3 states recorded an increase in unemployment throughout October (while 1 state recorded an unemployment rate reduction) and 2 states recorded a net decrease in jobs.
Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for October 2024.
Washington DC had the highest unemployment rate among ‘states’ for the 6th month in a row - holding steady at 5.7% - joined this month by Nevada which saw its unemployment rate climb by one-tenth of a point over the month up from 5.6%.
California and Illinois are the only other states to have unemployment rates higher than the US national average. Those rates are currently 5.4% and 5.3%, respectively.
Over the course of the last month, Iowa is the only other state that saw its unemployment rate rise by a significant margin, rising from 2.9% to 3%.
In the last year, 25 states have seen their unemployment rates go up, led by South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Indiana with unemployment rate increases of 1.7%, 1.2%, and 0.9%, respectively over the last 12 months.
For the 10th consecutive month, South Dakota has recorded the lowest unemployment rate in the country, dropping one-tenth of a point to 1.9% after holding steady at 2% unemployment for several months prior.
Those figures put South Dakota’s unemployment rate nearly half a point below the next lowest unemployment rate among states, which is Vermont at 2.3%, followed by North Dakota and New Hampshire at 2.4% and 2.5%, respectively.
Besides South Dakota, the only other states to record a decrease in unemployment rate over October are Connecticut and Delaware, which saw their in-state unemployment rates reduced by 0.2% each last month.
Over the last year, 6 states in total have seen a net reduction in unemployment, with the largest unemployment rate decrease over the last 12 months being recorded by Connecticut (minus 1.2%), followed by Arizona (minus 0.6%), Maine and Wisconsin (minus 0.5%), Arkansas (minus 0.4%), and Kentucky (minus 0.2%).
Florida and Washington state both recorded net job losses last month amounting to about 37 thousand jobs each representing 0.4% and 1% in-state workforce losses, respectively.
No state recorded net job losses over the last 12 months.
No state recorded a significant net increase in jobs over the last month, but just over half of all states (27) recorded net job gains over the last year.
In terms of raw job figures, Texas saw the largest number of new job additions at about 275 thousand payroll entries through the last 12 months, followed by California at about 212 thousand, and New York and Florida at about 133 thousand net jobs each.
Idaho has the largest net job gains over the last year as a percentage of in-state workforce (plus 3.1%), followed by Missouri and South Carolina at plus 2.7% each.
In some ways, this latest market employment report looks like a picture of stability at face value given that the unemployment and job numbers have barely budged since last month’s report.
What’s missing from the report, however, is consistency and predictability, as evidenced by the job forecasts exceeding the actual number of net new jobs recorded by a factor of 10.
To be clear, these job numbers are difficult to take at face value, as well, in light of the disruptions to both data collection and hiring caused by external factors such as hurricanes and strikes that occurred when this data was being reported and compiled.
That said, given that the average monthly job growth over the past year has been nearly 200 thousand net new jobs per month, it is exceedingly unlikely that those external factors can account for the entirety of the shortfall.
The labor market certainly seems to be continuing to soften to some degree, though the extent remains to be seen, but that softening was very much expected and in fact is an intended result of the interest rate hikes to help reduce inflation without triggering a recession.
With inflation down to 2.6% annualized and no apparent imminent recession on the way, and with the Federal Reserve already having cut baseline interest rates by half a point over the last couple of months while signaling more cuts for 2025, the soft-landing sought by the Fed seems to have been successfully executed.
Of course, there is no hard cut-off date by which the success of the interest-rate-hiking campaign and the soft landing will ultimately be evaluated, and the current inertia of the labor market could result in continued softening even with interest rates already starting to come down.
While there is no set bookend for evaluating the Fed’s soft-landing, however, there likely is a bookend on Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s remaining time in his current role given that his term is set to expire in May of 2026.
Assuming Chairman Powell serves out the remainder of his term, which he appears intent to do, we can reasonably expect continuity at the Fed and whatever economic consistency that continuity helps foster for nearly another year and a half after power in the White House and US Senate changes hands in the new year.
The bigger questions in the nearer term are what new policies we are going to see as a result of the shifting power (e.g. tariffs, tax cuts, work visas, labor regulations) and how those policies affect the current economic trajectory and momentum.
We will be keeping an eye on those policies as they emerge and take shape through the governing process in the months ahead.
Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer blog.
Key Takeaways
ARTICLE | 3 Questions That Will Determine How The 2024 Elections Impact Employer-Sponsored Healthcare
The 2024 elections are now in the books, and while votes are still being counted and will continue being counted for the next week or two at least, there are only a few handfuls of races at this point where there remains much uncertainty about the outcome.
As of this writing, control of the US House of Representatives has yet to be officially called, but in order to take the majority Democrats would essentially need to flip 6 of 8 swing districts that have yet to announce winners, all of which are seats held by Republicans currently, so it’s a tall order for Dems to say the least.
Given these odds and given that Donald Trump and a majority of Senate Republicans have already decisively won their respective elections, it is very likely the case that Republicans will soon control just about all the levers of power in the federal government, including a supermajority of Republican appointees on the Supreme Court.
Although the Senate majority will not be filibuster-proof, which is the one check on power that Democratic politicians in the federal government will maintain over the next 2 years, it’s fair to say that Republicans have a pretty clear path for the foreseeable future to enact whatever policies they choose.
With that in mind, we wanted to take a look at the 3 most significant open questions concerning how the incoming GOP majority will govern with respect to the US healthcare system - specifically in terms of how such changes may impact employer-sponsored health insurance - in order to shine some light on where we may be heading in the coming term.
One of the biggest unanswered questions at the moment with the greatest potential to impact employer-sponsored healthcare is whether or not the GOP will attempt again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and if so, what if anything will they replace it with?
Of all the potential changes a future Trump administration and Republican Congress/Judiciary might make/allow, repealing the ACA may have the most far-reaching and significant implications from an employer’s perspective.
For employers, repeal of the ACA as-is would mean not only the elimination of penalties for failing to offer minimum-standard-meeting health insurance to employees (or possibly the reduction of those penalties in the event of repeal and replace), repeal of the ACA would also remove/reduce the minimum standards that those policies must meet in order to be brought to market in the first place.
From a practical standpoint, the elimination or reduced efficacy of the exchange system will likely have some major repercussions as well, as will ending coverage protection for people with pre-existing conditions, both of which will increase the perceived value of strong employer-sponsored benefit packages and can support talent attraction and retention efforts.
There are also a number of somewhat less significant potential outcomes that could be expected in the wake of ACA repeal and are still impactful enough to be worth noting, including reduced administrative requirements/costs and reduced or eliminated wellness program subsidies.
The downsides to eliminating everything from subsidies to preexisting condition coverage protections and the exchanges themselves will be substantial, however, given that the number of uninsured people would climb significantly in each case and the costs resulting from their lack of preventative care and emergency room dependence will ultimately make its way to commercial group plans and employer bottom lines.
To be clear, it is not at all a foregone conclusion that the GOP will use their control of government to repeal the ACA within the next couple of years.
For one, the ACA was only about 7 years old the last time that the GOP was in power and initially attempted to repeal it, and it’s been about 7 years since then during which time ACA provisions and expectations have become all the more entrenched within our healthcare system.
Further, while the outspoken calls for repeal of the ACA from both Republican leadership and Republican rank-and-file alike have never gone away entirely, they have become much quieter in recent years, perhaps partly in response to the pandemic and the attention it drew to both public and personal health matters.
There is certainly a degree of disagreement within the Republican party about the best path forward in terms of improving the US healthcare system, especially as it relates to the ACA, and in fact many individual Republican politicians have had different views on these matters at different times themselves, adding additional complication to the task of anticipating how it will play out when power transfers in the new year.
In a previous piece, we covered some of President-elect Donald Trump’s positions on various healthcare-related issues including the ACA as outlined by the actions he took during his previous administration as well as statements he made on the topic at the time and since.
Early in his first term, for example, Trump supported the attempted repeal of the ACA, but it is not at all certain that he will support doing so again given competing priorities and given that the healthcare exchanges and ACA infrastructure are further established and ingrained in our healthcare system now than when repeal last failed.
In fact, in a statement from March of this year, Trump said that he was not running to ‘terminate’ the ACA and instead wanted to improve it and make it less expensive, although he did not supply further detail as to how these goals would be accomplished.
During his first term, Trump did implement some ACA cost-saving measures such as allowing enhanced ACA direct enrollment through online brokers and reducing funding for outreach and enrollment assistance, but he also weakened individual mandate enforcement, resulting in reduced revenue to offset the costs of the program.
If cost-cutting is the goal and if they revive the strategy of reshaping the ACA via relatively small changes as opposed to a one-fell-swoop overhaul/repeal, it’s a good bet that the premium tax credits through the exchanges will not be renewed when they expire in 2025, for one.
Exempting employers from ACA contraception coverage requirements is another action the previous Trump administration took and the future Trump administration is likely to revisit, as is reinstating short-term non-ACA-compliant insurance options, as well.
Of course, Trump isn’t the only Republican leader who has offered somewhat mixed messages with regard to the future of the ACA.
After declaring ‘no Obamacare’ at a rally in Pennsylvania, when reports interpreted this statement as an indication of his intent to repeal the ACA, Johnson clarified that is not what he said.
Trump’s running mate and soon-to-be Vice President JD Vance, on the other hand, has signaled more direct support for the ACA, even telling an anecdote at the vice presidential debate about how his mother bought health insurance via Obamacare.
That said, Vance has also floated proposals for plans that undermine and run counter to the ACA, like allowing health insurers to stratify their groups which would reduce premium expenses for younger and healthier people but would cause them to increase significantly for older people and people with pre-existing conditions.
Perhaps the biggest question mark about the future of the ACA involves the incoming Senate Majority leader. With Mitch McConnell set to step down as top Republican in the Senate, however, and with no obvious successor at the moment, there is no clear answer about how the ACA will be approached by the leader of the House of Congress that is likely to play the most significant role in determining the future of the ACA.
One fairly consistent theme across much of the ideology expressed by Republicans has been giving more power to states in making policy decisions in many situations.
In Trump’s first term, we saw this transfer of power manifest via Medicaid block grants and allowing states to mandate work requirements, for example, and has reemerged in Trump’s promises for his second term as well, exemplified by the stated plan to dismantle the Department of Education and allow each state to manage its internal public education without much federal assistance or oversight.
As laws and regulations become decentralized, however, keeping up with compliance can become more cumbersome, especially for large employers operating in multiple states, and that problem gets amplified as the variance in rules between states grows over time.
Furthermore, differences in policy from one state to another can have significant effects on attracting and retaining talent in some areas of the country, which can be a benefit to attraction and retention efforts in cases such as low/no income tax states, but state-level policy can be a detriment to talent attraction and attention when those policies are contentious and considered off-putting to various groups of potential candidates, especially when it comes to health issues.
There are more than a few such contentious state health-related policy considerations that can affect candidate perception of a potential relocation site including issues ranging from disability accommodations to gender-affirming care access and vaccine mandates, but there is no more contentious now-state-level healthcare issue than abortion, which has significant implications for employers not only with regard to talent recruitment but also family planning as it relates to business operational efficiency.
While some Republican leaders have called for a national abortion ban over the last couple of years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Trump has repeatedly stated that he favors leaving abortion up to the states and that he will not sign a national abortion ban.
Speaker Johnson, however, appears less opposed to a national abortion ban, but he recently stated that he thinks it would be too soon to introduce such a ban within the next year without having first built political consensus for such a measure.
Perhaps the biggest question marks surrounding these statements for both supporters and opponents of abortion rights, however, is whether or not the statements refer exclusively to an outright ban or if they also encompass achieving the same or similar results via other means, such as banning abortion drug mifepristone, enacting fetal personhood, and/or legislating additional abortion restrictions that don’t constitute a total national ban.
Even in the event of additional national abortion restrictions of some kind, however, it’s important to keep in mind that those restrictions are likely to set a minimum standard that states can then go beyond in terms of implementing additional restrictions if they elect to do so.
As a result, both the perception and the reality of abortion access and the correlated access to other reproductive healthcare may continue to grow as factors influencing candidates’ willingness to work in certain locations.
Further, a piecemeal approach to abortion and reproductive healthcare access across states will make issues involving contraception access all the more relevant, especially in places with more limited abortion access.
As already noted, Trump exempted employers from complying with ACA contraception requirements based on moral and religious grounds, which is a policy that seems likely to be reinstated.
That policy, however, may make certain aspects of family planning considerably more complicated for a large number of employees, which in turn may negatively impact employers not only by shrinking the talent pool of labor willing to work for some employers in the first place but also by reducing the potential availability of the labor that is accessible to them as a result of employees having less control over if and when they have children.
In attempting to reform the healthcare system absent successfully repealing ACA, the first Trump administration turned much of its attention to addressing the rapidly rising costs of care.
Some of those cost-saving measures that were implemented were systemic reforms that share wide bi-partisan support such as efforts to lower prescription drug prices, increase cost transparency, and improve provider billing practices, all of which are goals that the Biden administration has pursued in the interim as well, so there shouldn’t be a much of a shift on these fronts when Trump retakes office.
The Biden administration, however, did not continue some other measures related to privatization and consolidation that the first Trump administration implemented with an aim to reduce healthcare expenses, for example promoting Medicare Advantage at the expense of Medicaid and showing a greater willingness to greenlight mergers and acquisitions across the healthcare business spectrum.
A second Trump administration is expected to continue its support for both Medicare Advantage and a robust M&A environment in the healthcare space, which will likely be a benefit to companies that are able to join forces and diversify via merger, but the ultimate impact on costs for employer-sponsored plans from these consolidations remains to be seen.
As healthcare and healthcare-adjacent companies consolidate, grow, and absorb accounts and market share over the next couple of years, employers would be wise to stay proactive in working with their insurance brokers and consultants to monitor how the shifting landscape may impact coverage going forward as policies change hands and terms and conditions evolve.
There are several reasons that there are still major questions about how the GOP will approach healthcare despite the fact that the president-elect has previously held office and just completed a years-long campaign that included major media interviews, two debates, and quite a few political rallies.
In terms of historical data, we of course know what Trump did the last time he was president when he also happened to start the term with majority support in both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, but that evidence of action is somewhat incomplete given how much time and resources the GOP invested in repealing the ACA only to come up a few votes short.
After unsuccessfully repealing and replacing the ACA, many of the other healthcare-related policy changes enacted in Trump’s first term felt more like afterthoughts than a fully formed representation of Republican healthcare goals at the time, and as noted above, full repeal of the ACA seems less likely now than it did then.
As for why we don’t have better information about Trump and the GOP’s healthcare plans going forward, the fault largely lies with the voters in a sense. Since election polling this cycle consistently revealed that healthcare was not one of the most pressing issues on voters’ minds, candidates up and down the ticket on both sides of the aisle largely neglected the topic on the campaign trail, and the media did the same for the same reason.
It’s most likely not the case, however, that healthcare became less of a priority to voters than it has been over the last 20 years, especially still living in the aftermath of a recent global pandemic. It’s probable that other issues like the economy, immigration, and abortion have become more urgent in recent years in a lot of voters’ minds and they simply jumped to the front of the line.
Regardless of why we know relatively little about the GOP’s healthcare priorities, assuming that Republicans do ultimately hold onto the House of Representatives when the final vote tally is complete, at this point it shouldn’t take long for those priorities to become clear.
Although their majorities will be slim in Congress, Republicans and Republicans alone are likely to be setting the agenda in a matter of months, and we’ll be back to weigh in with our take as those plans come into focus.
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from October 2024 that was published in November 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The unemployment rate held steady at 4.1% for the second straight month, while US employers added around 12 thousand jobs, which was about 90% below growth estimates.
Not only was the labor market essentially unchanged over the month, there also wasn’t much noteworthy change over the year in terms of the unemployment rate, which rose just three-tenths of a percent from 3.8% over the last 12 months.
The number of people who qualify as long-term unemployed after remaining jobless for at least 27 weeks also showed little movement at about 1.6 million people, as did the number of people not currently in the labor force but want a job despite not actively looking for one (7.3 million).
To be clear, however, while most of these metrics were fairly consistent from month to month, seeing the number of new payroll entries fall so far beneath the predicted levels does represent a significant departure from the norm in recent years.
Still, the vast majority of industries recorded little to no meaningful change in payroll entries over the month, including construction, natural resource extraction, wholesale, retail, information services, transportation & warehousing, and leisure & hospitality.
The healthcare industry saw the largest number of new jobs last month at 52 thousand, which is just below the average monthly growth recorded in the healthcare industry over the past 12 months.
The government sector recorded an increase of about 40 thousand jobs last month, as well, which was similarly in line with the monthly average of about 43 thousand.
The number of temporary employees and manufacturing employees, however, declined by about 50 thousand each over the course of October, with manufacturing strikes playing a significant role in the latter reduction.
Meanwhile, the average workweek was essentially unchanged at 34.3 hours per week while average hourly pay spiked 13 cents for the second straight month based on initially-reported figures, rising to $35.46 per hour and representing a 0.4% increase over the month before.
From one perspective, this report looks like the picture of stability - with practically no perceptible change to either the unemployment rate or the payroll figures. Taking that angle, this report may represent a reversion to the mean after a couple of years when the market has been particularly hot, but it is generally indicative of business as usual.
From another perspective, this report looks like the job growth figures just fell off of a cliff, coming up about 100 thousand jobs short of forecasts and almost 200 thousand short of average monthly job growth over the past year. This vantage point might suggest that recession is imminent.
The reality is that this report largely represents an incomplete picture and may in fact not be a fair reflection of the current state of the labor market. Factors such as Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helen, and the Boeing strike among others have potentially skewed the jobs data via disruptions not only in the ability of companies to conduct businesses, service customers, and hire employees according to demand, but there have also been disruptions in the data collection process that could be influencing the report, as well.
That said, the job numbers from the last couple of months were also revised downward in the latest report by more than 100 thousand collectively, the unemployment rate was stabilized in part by job-seekers at least temporarily abandoning the job hunt, and the data collection period was still within statistically acceptable ranges despite being cut short.
Put more succinctly, hurricanes and strikes significantly impacted the latest employment release, but the softening we may be seeing in the job market may go beyond those impacts alone.
For one, the upcoming elections and the uncertainty surrounding the distribution of power among state and federal offices alike may well be influencing business decisions in the short term before some of those uncertainties are resolved.
In any case, both hurricane season and election season will be over in a matter of weeks and we’ll get a better look at how the markets and economy are likely to respond heading into the new year.
Check out the Mployer blog here.
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from September 2024 that was published in October 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The US unemployment rate average came down about one-tenth of a point for the second straight month, falling from 4.2% to 4.1% over the course of September.
The overall economic picture remains one of stability, however, with 44 states reporting no significant change in unemployment rate during the month.
There were, however, only 5 states plus Washington DC that saw an increase in unemployment rate, while only 1 state saw its unemployment rate drop in a meaningful way.
At the same time, US employers saw about a quarter million new additions to their payrolls, but only 5 states and Washington DC recorded a net increase in jobs while only 1 state saw a net decrease.
Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for October 2024.
The latest report marks the 5th straight month in a row that Washington DC has claimed the highest unemployment rate, holding steady at 5.7% month to month.
Nevada wasn’t far behind at 5.6% - and worse, Nevada’s rate increased one-tenth of a point over the month climbing to 5.5%, so it’s moving in the wrong direction.
5 other states saw their unemployment rates go up, with the largest increases (plus 0.2% each) recorded by South Carolina and Utah, while Indiana, Montana, and Tennessee each recorded a 0.1% increase in unemployment rate.
Over the last 12 months, just under half of all states (23) saw an increase in unemployment rate over the last 12 months, with South Carolina and Rhode Island recording the largest rate increases at 1.5% and 1.4%, followed by Ohio at plus 0.9% and Washington DC and Indiana each at plus 0.8%.
For 9 straight months now, South Dakota has claimed the lowest unemployment rate among states, which has been remarkably steady at 2% over the last several months.
Next on the list are Vermont, North Dakota, and Nebraska, which also held steady month to month at 2.2%, 2.3%, and 2.7%, respectively, followed by Mississippi and Maine at 2.8%.
For the second month in a row, Connecticut was the only state to record a net reduction in unemployment - falling from 3.4% to 3.2%.
Over the last year, 6 states have recorded a decrease in unemployment rate, led by Connecticut at minus 0.8%, followed by Arizona at minus 0.7%, Wisconsin at minus 0.5%, Mississippi and Maine at minus 0.4%, and Arkansas at minus 0.3%.
No state recorded a net reduction in jobs over the course of the last month and no state recorded a net reduction in jobs over the course of the last year.
Over the last month, 5 states plus Washington DC have seen a net increase in their number of in-state payroll entries.
New Jersey added the largest number of jobs, with a net gain of more than 19 thousand, followed by Colorado with almost 13 thousand, and Arizona with just over 11 thousand.
In terms of net job gains as a percent of total jobs with in-state employers, Idaho saw the biggest increase with a 0.7% bump; followed by Washington DC and Rhode Island, which grew 0.6% each; Colorado and New Jersey recorded 0.4% increases, and the number of employed people in Arizona rose by 0.3%.
Over the last 12 months, Idaho and Montana have seen the largest percentage growth at 3.4% each. South Carolina payrolls grew by 3.3% over the past year, while Alaska and Minnesota grew by 2.9%, and North Dakota grew by 2.2%.
New Jersey and Minnesota recorded the smallest job growth over the past year at 1.2%, followed by Kansas at 1.3%.
Less than 2 weeks out from the election, all eyes are on the races to determine who will control the reigns of government for the coming terms.
Currently, the DOW is predicting a Harris win, while the betting markets are favoring Trump, and the polls are nearly split right down the middle.
One last jobs report will be coming out next Friday, the first of November, which will be the last economic release prior to Election Day, but with the polls already open in many if not most places, that data certainly won’t be influencing the decisions of the entirety of the electorate, at the very least.
One more interest rate cut before year’s end seems likely regardless of how the elections play out, but for the moment at least, the most important factor in determining the trajectory of the US economy and job market in the coming years is currently being decided at the ballot box.
By the time we check back in with November’s Market Summary analysis, we will hopefully have a better idea about what comes next in the bigger picture sense.
Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer blog.
Nashville, Tenn.– October 8, 2024 – Mployer, the industry-leader in providing employee benefits research, ratings, and reviews, has named over 750 brokerage office winners nationally in more than 50 regions as part of its fourth annual “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for 2024.
Mployer’s Top Employee Benefits Consultant Award Program evaluates each benefits broker and consultant office based on their depth of experience across employer industries, sizes, and plan design features, as well as employer client ratings and reviews.
“We are proud to recognize this distinct group of 2024 top-rated insurance advisors as part of our fourth annual Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards,” said Brian Freeman, CEO of Mployer. “Employer-sponsored healthcare and benefits provide care for over 160M Americans. Who an employer selects as their benefits advisor and their plan design has more impact on employee cost and satisfaction than who an employer chooses as the insurance carrier. We have rated each broker using our proprietary M Score and applaud the winners’ demonstrated commitment to service, quality, and positive employer experience.”
In Houston, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land, Mployer has named over 25 benefit brokerages as top brokerages with several of the highest-scoring winners in the market listed below. The Houston, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land job markets are among the most competitive in the U.S. South Central region, employing more than 3.5 million people. Offering competitive employee benefits is a critical factor in hiring top talent for the region’s employers. Finding and partnering with a highly-rated insurance consultant is imperative to attracting and retaining talent in any market.
Several of the “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for Houston, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land include:
To see the full list of Top Employee Benefit Consultant Award winners for Houston, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land, visit Mployer. The above winners are a snapshot of Mployer's matrices and proprietary M Score as of July 2024.
About Mployer:
Mployer is transforming employee benefits by empowering employers and leading benefit consultants to easily assess, rate, and communicate the value of employee benefits. Providing industry-first transparency through unbiased research, benchmarking, and advanced analytics, our goal is to support employers and brokers in providing benefit plans that optimize costs and employee-employer relationships. To learn more about Mployer, visit https://mployeradvisor.com and follow us on LinkedIn.
Disclaimer: Rankings are dynamic, and this report may not reflect the rankings currently listed on Mployer’s website. Because Mployer’s research is ongoing, interested companies that want to join next year’s list are encouraged to claim their free profile on Mployer.
Media Contact:
Anthony Waters
Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from September 2024 that was published in October 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a point for a second straight month, dropping from about 4.2% to 4.1% after inching up for the 5 consecutive prior months.
The payroll figures were even more impressive, with over 250 thousand new jobs added through September, beating estimates of 150 thousand jobs by nearly 70%.
The number of unemployed people essentially held steady at about 6.8 million which is up approximately half a million people from where it was 12 months ago when the unemployment rate was 3.8%.
Interestingly, the number of people who were jobless for less than 5 weeks fell by more than 10% down to 2.1 million, while the number of long-term unemployed was essentially unchanged at 1.6 million, which is up slightly from 1.3 million at this time last year.
The food services and drinking establishment industries were responsible for the largest portion of the 254 thousand jobs that were added last month, netting almost 70 thousand additional workers over the course of September, which is almost 5 times the monthly hiring rate that food services and drinking establishments have averaged over the last 12 months.
The healthcare industry added the next most net jobs last month at 45 thousand, although that figure represents underperformance relative to the 57 thousand jobs that the healthcare industry has been averaging for the past year.
Government payrolls increased by about 31 thousand jobs, while the social assistance and construction industries each saw their ranks grow by about 26 thousand.
No industries saw a significant decrease in jobs throughout September while the remainder of industries including natural resource extraction, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, information, transportation & warehousing, finance, and business/professional/other services all remained essentially unchanged.
Average hourly pay spiked by 13 cents last month, jumping to $35.36 per hour and representing a 0.4% increase over the month before. Average hourly pay has increased by 4% over the last year, which is two-tenths of a point higher than it was in last month’s report.
The average workweek, on the other hand, increased by another tenth of an hour down to 34.2 hours per week.
Just over 2 weeks ago, the Federal Reserve announced the long-awaited 50 basis point (or half percent) cut in the benchmark interest rate, which is the first rate cut since 2020.
With those rates still around 5% however, another rate cut before the year ends remains possible at this point - especially in light of inflation in consumer prices hovering at 2.5%, just over the Fed’s long-stated target of 2% - but the strength of this of this jobs report has probably reduced the chances of another rate cut in the next few months.
From an economic perspective, it is hard to find much to complain about in this data, and the long-sought soft landing that the Fed has been aiming for appears to be coming to fruition.
Looking at the political perspective given the upcoming election, the strength of this report would certainly be welcome news by any incumbent candidate who can fairly claim some credit, and that may be increasingly true the closer we get to Voting Day.
As it turns out, however, this particular jobs report won’t be the last to arrive in advance of the election, as the November report covering October’s data will come out on November 1st this year, which happens to be the last Friday before ballots are cast on Tuesday, November 5th.
The strength of this jobs report is undeniable, but the contents of next month’s report may ultimately be significantly more influential.
Check out the Mployer blog here.
Nashville, Tenn.– October 1, 2024 – Mployer, the industry-leader in providing employee benefits research, ratings, and reviews, has named over 750 brokerage office winners nationally in more than 50 regions as part of its fourth annual “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for 2024.
Mployer’s Top Employee Benefits Consultant Award Program evaluates each benefits broker and consultant office based on their depth of experience across employer industries, sizes, and plan design features, as well as employer client ratings and reviews.
“We are proud to recognize this distinct group of 2024 top-rated insurance advisors as part of our fourth annual Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards,” said Brian Freeman, CEO of Mployer. “Employer-sponsored healthcare and benefits provide care for over 160M Americans. Who an employer selects as their benefits advisor and their plan design has more impact on employee cost and satisfaction than who an employer chooses as the insurance carrier. We have rated each broker using our proprietary M Score and applaud the winners’ demonstrated commitment to service, quality, and positive employer experience.”
In Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington, Mployer has named over 50 benefit brokerages as top brokerages with several of the highest-scoring winners in the market listed below. The Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington job markets are among the most competitive in the U.S. Northeast region, employing more than 3.1 million people. Offering competitive employee benefits is a critical factor in hiring top talent for the region’s employers. Finding and partnering with a highly-rated insurance consultant is imperative to attracting and retaining talent in any market.
Several of the “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington include:
To see the full list of Top Employee Benefit Consultant Award winners for Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington, visit Mployer. The above winners are a snapshot of Mployer's matrices and proprietary M Score as of July 2024.
About Mployer:
Mployer is transforming employee benefits by empowering employers and leading benefit consultants to easily assess, rate, and communicate the value of employee benefits. Providing industry-first transparency through unbiased research, benchmarking, and advanced analytics, our goal is to support employers and brokers in providing benefit plans that optimize costs and employee-employer relationships. To learn more about Mployer, visit https://mployeradvisor.com and follow us on LinkedIn.
Disclaimer: Rankings are dynamic, and this report may not reflect the rankings currently listed on Mployer’s website. Because Mployer’s research is ongoing, interested companies that want to join next year’s list are encouraged to claim their free profile on Mployer.
Media Contact:
Anthony Waters
Key Takeaways
ARTICLE | The Employers’ Guide to Voting Leave Regulation and Early Voting
Election Day is Tuesday, November 5th, which is just 5 weeks away as of this posting.
That leaves just 26 business days not only to make sure your organization is up-to-date with state and local election rules governing employee voting leave requirements, but also to communicate and coordinate your Election Day plans with employees in order to ensure the minimal disruption to your workflow.
Below, we have compiled a list of relevant voting regulations by state as well as information about early voting that you can share with employees and potentially reduce the number of absences concentrated on Election Day, as well.
The process of early voting has already begun in many places and will soon begin in many more, so let’s get to it.
Alabama: Employees in Alabama that begin work less than 2 hours after polls open or end work less than 1 hour before polls close are entitled to 1 hour of voting leave if they give reasonable notice. There is no early voting in Alabama.
Alaska: For employees that don’t already have at least 2 consecutive hours off duty when the polls are open on Election Day, employers are required to provide paid voting leave and allow as much time off as is reasonably necessary for employees to vote. The early voting window can differ in different districts but 15 days prior to Election Day is the norm.
Arizona: Employers in Arizona must provide employees with up to 3 hours of paid leave if they do not already have 3 hours in a row when they are not scheduled to work when polls are open on Election Day. Employees must apply for voting leave in advance of Election Day, and employers can specify the hours on Election Day when employee’s utilize their voting leave. The early voting period in Arizona varies by location but begins about 15 days before Election Day in most districts.
Arkansas: In Arkansas, employers are required to adjust employees’ work schedules on Election Day in order to enable employees to vote. Early voting will begin 15 days prior to Election Day.
California: Employees who give their employer at least 2 working days notice of their intent to take time off work in order to vote are allowed up to 2 hours of paid voting leave at either the beginning or end of a shift. Employers must provide enough leave so that when it is combined with voting hours before/after the shift, employees will have sufficient time to vote. Although there is some variation from one county to the next, in general early voting in California begins 29 days before Election Day.
Colorado: Employees that request voting leave and who do not already have 3 consecutive non-working hours during which the polls are open are entitled to paid voting leave. Employees can request that leave be at either the beginning or end of their shift, but employers can determine when leave is granted. Early voting begins in-person 15 days before Election Day in general, though there may be some variance between counties.
Connecticut: There are currently no voting leave rules in place in Connecticut as the last law regulating that issue expired in June 2024 and has not yet been replaced. Early voting begins 15 days prior to Election Day.
Delaware: Employers in Delaware are not required to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day.
Florida: Florida law does not require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting schedules can differ from one county to another, but early voting in Florida typically begins at least 10 days in advance of Election Day.
Georgia: Employees in Georgia are entitled by law to up to 2 hours of voting leave that can be used on Election Day or before via in-person early voting. That leave can be unpaid except for employees who can’t have their pay decreased due to absence from the job. Early voting begins the fourth Monday before Election Day, which is October 14th this cycle.
Hawaii: Elections in Hawaii are conducted by mail, and all registered voters should receive mail-in ballots automatically about 18 days in advance of Election Day. Voters can also turn in ballots or vote in person at service centers beginning 10 days prior to election day.
Idaho: There are no laws or regulations in Idaho that require employers to provide voting leave to employees. Some Idaho counties allow no early voting at all, but for the counties that do allow early voting, it begins the third Monday in advance of the election, which is October 21st this cycle.
Illinois: Employers are required to provide employees with up to 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee doesn’t already have 2 consecutive hours of non-working time when the polls are open. Employers can use their discretion as to when the voting leave is exercised, and employees must apply for voting leave in advance of Election Day. Early voting in Illinois begins 40 days before Election Day.
Indiana: Indiana has no rules with regard to voting leave for employees. Early voting in Indiana begins 28 days before the election.
Iowa: Employees who request voting leave in writing in advance of Election Day are entitled to 3 consecutive hours of paid voting leave, assuming that there is not already a period of 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open. Employers, however, can set the time during which employees are allowed to exercise their voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Iowa starts 20 days prior to Election Day.
Kansas: Kansas law ensures that employees have at least 2 consecutive hours that they are not required to work while the polls are open. If the polls are open before or after an employee’s shift but for less than 2 consecutive hours, employers are required to provide complementary paid voting leave sufficient to amount to 2 consecutive hours when combined with the pre or post-shift polling hours. Other than lunch hours, employers can also set when the voting leave is utilized. Early voting varies by country and begins up to 20 days prior to Election Day.
Kentucky: Employers in Kentucky must give employees up to 4 hours of leave that can be used either to cast a ballot on Election Day or to apply for an absentee ballot. To qualify, however, employees must request voting leave at least one day before they intend to utilize it, but employers can set the hours during which that voting leave is available on a given day and can penalize employees who utilize voting leave but fail to actually vote in certain cases. Early voting in Kentucky starts 5 days before the election.
Louisiana: There are no laws in Louisiana that require employers to provide voting leave to employees. Early voting in Louisiana starts 18 days before Election Day this cycle.
Maine: Employers in Maine are not required to provide employees with voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Maine begins 30 days prior to Election Day.
Maryland: In Maryland, employers are required to allow employees up to 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee does not have at least 2 consecutive hours before or after their shift when polls are open. Employers, however, are allowed to require employees to submit a form that the state will provide as proof that the employee either voted or tried to vote. Early voting in Maryland opens two Thursdays prior to Election Day, which is October 24th this cycle.
Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, the only industries in which employers are required to provide employees with voting leave are the mercantile, manufacturing, and mechanical industries. Employers in those industries must provide employees with 2 hours of voting leave, while there are no voting leave requirements made of employers in other industries. Early voting starts 17 days in advance of Election Day.
Michigan: Michigan has no rules requiring employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins the second Saturday prior to Election Day, which falls on October 27th this cycle.
Minnesota: Employers in Minnesota must provide employees with paid leave for as long as necessary to enable employees to vote and return to work. In-person absentee voting begins 46 days before Election Day.
Mississippi: No laws or regulations in Mississippi require employers to provide employees with voting leave, but Mississippi law does state that employers can’t take any adverse action against employees because they voted (or chose not to vote). Eligible absentee voters can begin casting their ballots 45 days before Election Day.
Missouri: Unless employees have at least 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open, employers in Missouri are required to provide employees with at least 3 hours in a row of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can require that employees who wish to exercise their voting leave apply to do so in advance of Election Day, and employers can choose when that voting leave is utilized. Beginning the second Tuesday before Election Day, which is October 22nd this cycle, Missouri offers in-person absentee voting in locations designated by local county election officials.
Montana: Employers in Montana have no duty to provide employees with voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Montana begins 30 days prior to the election.
Nebraska: For employees that don’t already have at least 2 consecutive hours off when the polls are open on Election Day, employers must provide up to 2 hours of paid voting leave at a time of the employer’s choosing if the employee requests voting leave either on or before Election Day. If an employee exercises voting leave without requesting it, however, it may be possible for that voting leave to be unpaid. Early voting begins 30 days before the election in Nebraska.
Nevada: Nevada employers must provide paid voting leave to employees for whom it would be impractical to vote before or after work - 1 hour of paid voting leave for employees who must travel 2 or fewer miles to vote, 3 hours of paid voting leave for employees who must travel more than 10 miles to vote, and 2 hours of paid voting leave for all other employees. Employers can determine the window during which that voting leave is exercised, and they can require that employees apply for voting leave in advance of election day as well. Early voting starts 17 days before Election Day.
New Hampshire: Employers in New Hampshire are not required to provide voting leave to employees. New Hampshire offers neither early voting nor in-person, no-excuse absentee voting.
New Jersey: There are no New Jersey laws requiring employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day.
New Mexico: If polls are not open for at least 2 hours in a row before an employee’s shift or for at least 3 hours in a row after an employee’s shift, then that employee is entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave, although employers can set when that leave is utilized. Early voting opens 28 days before Election Day.
New York: Employees in New York who do not have 4 consecutive hours before or after their shift when the polls are open are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can specify if the voting leave is utilized at the beginning or end of the scheduled work period, or at another time agreed upon by both the employer and employee. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day.
North Carolina: While North Carolina employers are not required to offer voting leave, employers that discharge employees for taking leave to vote may nonetheless be in violation of rules prohibiting wrongful discharge. Early voting in North Carolina begins no sooner than 3 Thursdays prior to Election Day.
North Dakota: Employers in North Dakota are not required to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting schedules can differ by county but early voting tends to begin at least 15 days prior to Election Day.
Ohio: Employers in Ohio must give employees a reasonable length of time off work on Election Day so that they may vote. Early voting in Ohio begins on the first business day that occurs 29 days before Election Day or less.
Oklahoma: Employees who don’t have at least 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open before or after their shift are entitled to two hours of voting leave and potentially additional time beyond those 2 hours if distance to the voting site requires it. Employees must request voting leave at least one day before Election Day, but employers can set the day and hours during which employees can exercise their voting leave. Early voting this cycle begins the Wednesday before Election Day, which is October 30th.
Oregon: Employers in Oregon are not required to provide voting leave to employees, and Oregon does not have early voting in a traditional sense since Oregon elections are conducted largely through mail-in ballots.
Pennsylvania: There are no requirements that Pennsylvania employers provide employees with voting leave. There is no statewide early voting, either, but some Pennsylvania counties allow voters to fill out absentee and mail-in ballots in person beginning 50 days before the election.
Rhode Island: There are no rules in Rhode Island that require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 20 days prior to Election Day.
South Carolina: Employers in South Carolina are not permitted to terminate employees due to exercising their voting rights, but there are no other rules with regard to voting leave. Early voting begins 15 days before Election Day.
South Dakota: Under South Dakota law, employees that don’t already have 2 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open either before or after their shift are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can choose the hours during which voting leave is utilized. In-person absentee voting begins 46 days prior to Election Day.
Tennessee: Employers are required to provide up to 3 hours of paid voting leave if employees don’t have 3 consecutive hours when polls are open either before or after their shifts. Employer’s may demand that employees request voting leave by noon on the day before Election Day and may also set the hours during which an employee utilizes their voting leave. Early voting in Tennessee begins 20 days before Election Day.
Texas: Employers in Texas must provide employees with at least 2 consecutive hours in which to vote if they don’t already have 2 consecutive hours off duty on Election Day when the polls are open. Early voting begins 17 days before the election if it’s a business day and if not, the next business day.
Utah: If an employee’s work shift on Election Day doesn’t allow for at least 3 consecutive off-duty hours when the polls are open and that employee requests voting leave before Election Day, employers are required to provide up to 2 hours of paid leave. Early voting in Utah begins 2 weeks prior to Election Day.
Vermont: There are no rules on the books requiring employers in Vermont to provide voting leave, although state law does require employers to give employees unpaid leave to attend annual Town Hall Meetings if employees provide 7 days notice in advance. Vermont opens early voting from 45 days prior to the election until the day before Election Day.
Virginia: The only laws on the books in Virginia requiring employers to provide employees with election-related leave apply only to employees who are working as election officials. In-person absentee voting in Virginia begins 45 days before Election Day.
Washington: Washington has no state laws or regulations that require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting in Washington begins 18 days before the election.
West Virginia: Employees in West Virginia are entitled to up to 3 hours of voting leave unless those employees already have 3 consecutive non-working hours when polls are open. Employers, however, can demand that employees submit applications for voting leave at least 3 days in advance of Election Day. Early voting begins 13 days before Election Day.
Wisconsin: Employers in Wisconsin must provide their employees with up to 3 hours of unpaid voting leave during the hours of the employer’s choosing to any employee that provides at least 1 day of notice. Early voting in Wisconsin begins no sooner than 2 weeks before Election Day.
Wyoming: For employees who do not have at least 3 hours in a row outside of their work shift when the polls are open, employers must provide at least 1 hour of paid leave, although employers are allowed to determine when that voting leave is utilized within the shift. In-person absentee voting starts 28 days before the election.
If the election process is not already underway in your area, it will be very soon.
Employers seeking to minimize election-related confusion and impacts should be proactive in coordinating absences, communicating plans, and ensuring that disruptions in workflow and productivity are kept to an absolute minimum.
For the next 5 weeks, uncertainty about the outcome of the elections is an unfortunate inevitability, but there is no need for or benefit from uncertainty about how your organization will manage employees as they exercise their voting rights.
.png){kind=small}
%20(1).png){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)