logo
Data Shows Job Security Is Not Falling And Layoff Risk Is Improving

Data Shows Job Security Is Not Falling And Layoff Risk Is Improving

Forbes10-07-2025
Professionals leaving office after layoff.
Job security in the U.S. economy is not in crisis. That's news to my favorite artificial intelligence app, which confidently repeated the usual story about a long-term decline in job security. But the hard data show little change in average length of time on the job. And over decades, the probability of layoff has fallen significantly. Business leaders pitching jobs to prospective employees can use this information to their advantage.
The common narrative sees the 1950s and 1960s as an era when people would spend many years at the same company. I wanted to check the data because my father had seven different jobs from 1950 through 1970. Some separations were his choice, some due to the employer downsizing. And my friends' dads, in those years, faced temporary layoffs whenever business was light at nearby factories.
The data paint a picture of relatively stable average length of service at a company; reduced incidence of temporary layoffs; and net economic benefits from companies terminating employment, although some individuals may end up significantly worse off.
Job Tenure Worsened Then Recovered
Average years on the job.
The government periodically asks people how long they have been with their current employer. Two Census Bureau economists looked at the data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which show we are not worse than in the 1950s. There seems to have been a fairly small decline through about 1980, then a rebound. Like much economic data, this isn't perfect because of some technical issues as well as changing demographics. But their chart shows no real crisis.
A different approach asked men of retirement age how long they had worked at their longest job. Again, no large trend showed up in the data.
Layoff Risk Has Trended Down
Unemployment insurance claims as % total employment.
People changing jobs when they find a better opportunity sounds fine, but being laid off sounds bad. (Before becoming an independent consultant, I was downsized twice, and I confirm it's frightening and stressful.) But the risk of layoff has fallen.
The risk is measured by looking at a year's total claims for unemployment insurance divided by average employment that year. (A claim that lasts many weeks counts as a single claim.) Two aberrations show up in the chart. First, risk of layoff fell dramatically during World War II. And risk rose sharply in the pandemic. Aside from those two episodes, the trend is downward. In the 1950s, roughly 27% of the workforce were laid off at some point in the year. The same measure was down to 12% in the 2010s. (Some people have two separate spells of unemployment, so the actual number of people impacted is somewhat lower.)
Some of the improvement was due to general stability in the economy, as measured by the incidence of recessions and variation in GDP. Part of this change was the shift from manufacturing to services, with services employment being more stable.
The Tradeoff Between Job Security And Economic Growth
Economics is all about tradeoffs. If a country wants to maximize job security, it must give up something: economic growth. Alex Taborrok summarizes it simply: No Exit, No Entry. If a company won't be able to exit an employment relationship, then it will hesitate to enter the relationship.
European countries tend to have many regulations that limit dismissals. Tabarrok reports that unemployment is higher and economic dynamism is lower in Europe than in the U.S.
India makes dismissing an employee very difficult for firms with more than 100 employees. So companies try to stay below 100. The results is many companies that choose not to grow. And because so many companies cannot capture economies of scale, prices charged to consumers are higher than they otherwise would be.
Japan's lost decade occurred partly because the government ensured that capital would continue to flow to money-losing companies. This was done to protect employment, though it starved the promising young companies that could have grown. Money lent to an old, unprofitable business cannot be lent to a young, profitable company.
Employee Recruitment Strategy
Given the widespread impression of job insecurity, companies can use this to their advantage. A business certainly should not make promises it cannot keep, but it can emphasize the positive. It may want to tell prospective employees how many years it has been since they had to lay off employees for lack of work. It may want to emphasize its profitability. If the company has outside investors, it may want to emphasize their commitment to the enterprise.
A dynamic economy always has some firms failing, even in a boom. And some firms will thrive, even in a recession. This creates churn in the labor force. It's not always easy for workers, but in the long run it leads to more job opportunities, at higher wages, for goods that will be sold to consumers at lower cost.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump claims he's made a ‘massive' trade deal with Japan
Trump claims he's made a ‘massive' trade deal with Japan

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump claims he's made a ‘massive' trade deal with Japan

President Donald Trump boasted Tuesday that he had made a 'massive' deal with Japan that would generate 'thousands of jobs' and billions of dollars for the U.S. The president announced the trade framework – 'perhaps the largest Deal ever made' – in a Truth Social post Tuesday, revealing that a 15 percent tax on goods imported from Japan had been agreed. In the post Trump said Japan would invest 'at my direction' $550 billion into the U.S. and would 'open' its economy to American-made vehicles as well as 'rice' and 'other things.' But further details remained scant. The 15 percent tax on imported Japanese goods is a significant drop from the 25 percent rate that Trump, in a recent letter to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, said would be levied starting on August 1. 'This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it,' the president posted on Truth Social, adding that the United States 'will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.' 'This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Early Wednesday in Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Shigera Ishiba confirmed the new trade agreement, saying it would benefit both sides and help them work together. 'The government was determined to protect national interests,' Ishiba told reporters, per the Wall Street Journal. Trump's announcement appeared to excite investors, with the benchmark Nikkei – the Tokyo stock market – climbing 2.6 percent to its highest in a year, with shares of automakers also surging. Toyota grew by more than 11 percent, with Honda and Nissan both up more than 8 percent. But American automakers were less buoyed with the deal, with concerns raised over low import levies from Japan, compared to tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico remaining at 25 percent. Matt Blunt, head of the American Automotive Policy Council, said, "Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers.' Sign in to access your portfolio

These are the 3 manufacturing sectors set to be the big winners of Trump's Made in America push
These are the 3 manufacturing sectors set to be the big winners of Trump's Made in America push

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

These are the 3 manufacturing sectors set to be the big winners of Trump's Made in America push

Trump wants to increase manufacturing in the United States. His economic agenda has centered on measures meant to compel companies to build on US soil. These three industries are the likely big winners of the Made In America push, Oxford Economics says. President Donald Trump wants more stuff to be made in America. Upon taking office in January, he implemented tariffs against prominent US trade partners in an effort to bring more manufacturing back to American shores, brushing off warnings of potential pain for companies and consumers. But some industries are likely to see a boost in US manufacturing over others, Oxford Economics said on Tuesday. The firm is predicting that high-tech goods, pharmaceuticals, and aerospace technology will have an advantage. Nico Palesch, a senior economist at the forecasting firm, said these industries are well-positioned to benefit from Trump's policies because they already have a foothold in the US market. "A sector that has significant domestic capacity in the US is much more likely to be able to expand capacity and accrue benefits from changes in tariffs or reductions in taxation because the business case for operating in the US is already strong, as opposed to a sector that would essentially need to be built from the ground up," he stated. Despite high economic uncertainty, Palesch added that Trump's policies are likely to help spur growth for US manufacturing. He also credited the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts of 2022 with helping revitalize US manufacturing in areas such as semiconductors and green technology production. In his view, they will be responsible "for a majority of reindustrialization" in the coming years. Palesch highlighted the advantage that companies with a strong US presence will have, noting that he did not believe Trump's policies would bring back an abundance of manufacturing jobs to the US. "A car maker in the US is more likely to decide to expand an existing production line or set up a new factory to try and capture more market share at the expense of tariffed competition than a firm operating in a sector that has little or no presence in the US," he added. The economist said he sees Boeing as a top pick among aerospace stocks, adding that while the company has experienced some negative publicity of late, "it remains one of the two major international aerospace manufacturers capable of producing the types of aircraft typically used in air travel at scale." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store