Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate for United States (M0892AUSM156SNBR) from Apr 1929 to Jun 1942 about unemployment, rate, and USA.

From the late 19th century until the 1980s, the United States' unemployment rate was generally somewhere between three and ten percent of the total workforce. The periods when it peaked were in times of recession or depression - the Panic of 1893, which lasted until 1897, saw unemployment peak at over 18 percent, whereas the post-WWI recession saw unemployment spike to almost 12 percent in 1921.

However, the longest and most-severe period of mass unemployment in U.S. history came during the Great Depression - unemployment rose from just 3.2 percent in 1929 to one quarter of the total workforce in 1933, and it was not until the Second World War until it fell below five percent once more. Since this time, unemployment has never exceeded 10 percent, although it did come close during the recessions of the 1970s and 1980s.

More recent unemployment statistics for the U.S. can be found here.

In 2023, it was estimated that over 161 million Americans were in some form of employment, while 3.64 percent of the total workforce was unemployed. This was the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s, although these figures are expected to rise in 2023 and beyond. 1980s-2010s Since the 1980s, the total United States labor force has generally risen as the population has grown, however, the annual average unemployment rate has fluctuated significantly, usually increasing in times of crisis, before falling more slowly during periods of recovery and economic stability. For example, unemployment peaked at 9.7 percent during the early 1980s recession, which was largely caused by the ripple effects of the Iranian Revolution on global oil prices and inflation. Other notable spikes came during the early 1990s; again, largely due to inflation caused by another oil shock, and during the early 2000s recession. The Great Recession then saw the U.S. unemployment rate soar to 9.6 percent, following the collapse of the U.S. housing market and its impact on the banking sector, and it was not until 2016 that unemployment returned to pre-recession levels. 2020s 2019 had marked a decade-long low in unemployment, before the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic saw the sharpest year-on-year increase in unemployment since the Great Depression, and the total number of workers fell by almost 10 million people. Despite the continuation of the pandemic in the years that followed, alongside the associated supply-chain issues and onset of the inflation crisis, unemployment reached just 3.67 percent in 2022 - current projections are for this figure to rise in 2023 and the years that follow, although these forecasts are subject to change if recent years are anything to go by.

Unemployment Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 4.20 percent in May. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate - 16-24 Yrs. (LNU04024887) from Jan 1948 to May 2025 about 16 to 24 years, unemployment, rate, and USA.

This statistic shows, the impact of the recession on the unemployment rate in America by industry. Due to the recession, the unemployment rate increased from 2.7 percent to 5.7 percent in the education & health sector.

In July 2024, 3.16 billion U.S. dollars were paid out in unemployment benefits in the United States. This is an increase from June 2024, when 2.62 billion U.S. dollars were paid in unemployment benefits. The large figures seen in 2020 are largely due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Welfare in the U.S. Unemployment benefits first started in 1935 during the Great Depression as a part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Social Security Act of 1935 ensured that Americans would not fall deeper into poverty. The United States was the only developed nation in the world at the time that did not offer any welfare benefits. This program created unemployment benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and maternal and child welfare. The only major welfare program that the United States currently lacks is a paid maternity leave policy. Currently, the United States only offers 12 unpaid weeks of leave, under certain circumstances. However, the number of people without health insurance in the United States has greatly decreased since 2010. Unemployment benefits Current unemployment benefits in the United States vary from state to state due to unemployment being funded by both the state and the federal government. The average duration of people collecting unemployment benefits in the United States has fluctuated since January 2020, from as little as 4.55 weeks to as many as 50.32 weeks. The unemployment rate varies by ethnicity, gender, and education levels. For example, those aged 16 to 24 have faced the highest unemployment rates since 1990 during the pandemic. In February 2023, the Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV metropolitan area had the highest unemployment rate in the United States.

Unemployment Rate in Denmark remained unchanged at 2.50 percent in April. This dataset provides - Denmark Unemployment Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

In 1990, the unemployment rate of the United States stood at 5.6 percent. Since then there have been many significant fluctuations to this number - the 2008 financial crisis left millions of people without work, as did the COVID-19 pandemic. By the end of 2022 and throughout 2023, the unemployment rate came to 3.6 percent, the lowest rate seen for decades. However, 2024 saw an increase up to four percent. For monthly updates on unemployment in the United States visit either the monthly national unemployment rate here, or the monthly state unemployment rate here. Both are seasonally adjusted. UnemploymentUnemployment is defined as a situation when an employed person is laid off, fired or quits his work and is still actively looking for a job. Unemployment can be found even in the healthiest economies, and many economists consider an unemployment rate at or below five percent to mean there is 'full employment' within an economy. If former employed persons go back to school or leave the job to take care of children they are no longer part of the active labor force and therefore not counted among the unemployed. Unemployment can also be the effect of events that are not part of the normal dynamics of an economy. Layoffs can be the result of technological progress, for example when robots replace workers in automobile production. Sometimes unemployment is caused by job outsourcing, due to the fact that employers often search for cheap labor around the globe and not only domestically. In 2022, the tech sector in the U.S. experienced significant lay-offs amid growing economic uncertainty. In the fourth quarter of 2022, more than 70,000 workers were laid off, despite low unemployment nationwide. The unemployment rate in the United States varies from state to state. In 2021, California had the highest number of unemployed persons with 1.38 million out of work.

Long Term Unemployment Rate in the United States decreased to 0.85 percent in May from 0.98 percent in April of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Long Term Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

We investigate the macroeconomic consequences of fluctuations in the effectiveness of the labor market matching process with a focus on the Great Recession. We conduct our analysis in the context of an estimated medium-scale dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with sticky prices and equilibrium search unemployment that features a shock to the matching efficiency (or mismatch shock). We find that this shock is not important for unemployment fluctuations in normal times. However, it plays a somewhat larger role during the Great Recession when it contributes to raise the actual unemployment rate by around 1.3 percentage points and the natural rate by around 2 percentage points. The mismatch shock is the dominant driver of the natural rate of unemployment and explains part of the recent shift of the Beveridge curve.

With the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent financial crisis on Wall Street in 2007 and 2008, economies across the globe began to enter into deep recessions. What had started out as a crisis centered on the United States quickly became global in nature, as it became apparent that not only had the economies of other advanced countries (grouped together as the G7) become intimately tied to the U.S. financial system, but that many of them had experienced housing and asset price bubbles similar to that in the U.S.. The United Kingdom had experienced a huge inflation of housing prices since the 1990s, while Eurozone members (such as Germany, France and Italy) had financial sectors which had become involved in reckless lending to economies on the periphery of the EU, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Other countries, such as Japan, were hit heavily due their export-led growth models which suffered from the decline in international trade. Unemployment during the Great Recession As business and consumer confidence crashed, credit markets froze, and international trade contracted, the unemployment rate in the most advanced economies shot up. While four to five percent is generally considered to be a healthy unemployment rate, nearing full employment in the economy (when any remaining unemployment is not related to a lack of consumer demand), many of these countries experienced rates at least double that, with unemployment in the United States peaking at almost 10 percent in 2010. In large countries, unemployment rates of this level meant millions or tens of millions of people being out of work, which led to political pressures to stimulate economies and create jobs. By 2012, many of these countries were seeing declining unemployment rates, however, in France and Italy rates of joblessness continued to increase as the Euro crisis took hold. These countries suffered from having a monetary policy which was too tight for their economies (due to the ECB controlling interest rates) and fiscal policy which was constrained by EU debt rules. Left with the option of deregulating their labor markets and pursuing austerity policies, their unemployment rates remained over 10 percent well into the 2010s. Differences in labor markets The differences in unemployment rates at the peak of the crisis (2009-2010) reflect not only the differences in how economies were affected by the downturn, but also the differing labor market institutions and programs in the various countries. Countries with more 'liberalized' labor markets, such as the United States and United Kingdom experienced sharp jumps in their unemployment rate due to the ease at which employers can lay off workers in these countries. When the crisis subsided in these countries, however, their unemployment rates quickly began to drop below those of the other countries, due to their more dynamic labor markets which make it easier to hire workers when the economy is doing well. On the other hand, countries with more 'coordinated' labor market institutions, such as Germany and Japan, experiences lower rates of unemployment during the crisis, as programs such as short-time work, job sharing, and wage restraint agreements were used to keep workers in their jobs. While these countries are less likely to experience spikes in unemployment during crises, the highly regulated nature of their labor markets mean that they are slower to add jobs during periods of economic prosperity.

This statistic shows, the impact of the recession on the unemployment rate in America, by degree of education attained. Due to the recession, the unemployment rate of people who have a high school diploma increased from 4.6 percent to 10.7 percent.

Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate in Pennsylvania (PAUR) from Jan 1976 to Apr 2025 about PA, unemployment, rate, and USA.

This survey forms part of the project 'Kris och krispolitik i Norden under mellankrigstiden' at the Department of History at Stockholm University. The study deals with the social conditions for unemployed during the depression in the thirties; who became unemployed, the circumstances of the entry into unemployment, the influence of unemployment on living condition, and possibilities to go back to work when the crisis is over. The dataset includes information on the situation of the unemployed at five different occasions during the thirties; 1930, the year of unemployment, 1933, year unemployment came to an end, and 1935.

Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate in Arkansas (ARUR) from Jan 1976 to May 2025 about AR, unemployment, rate, and USA.

The Question “Why unemployment?” is one of the most central topics of economic theory since the great depression. Unemployment remains one of the most important problems of economic policies in industrial countries. Unemployment has different causes and therefore also different countermeasures are required. “Together with the destruction of environment unemployment and inflation are in the focus of economic and political discussions on macroeconomic problems and are considered as the greatest challenges of economic policy. Depending on the level of unemployment there is a higher focus on inflation or on unemployment, if both are on an alarming level at the same time they are in the shot simultaneously. In anyway both issues need to be analyzed together because they are not independent from each other. Experiences from the recent years have shown that combating inflation leads to an increase in unemployment, at least temporarily but probably also permanently. The other way around; combating unemployment may under certain circumstances also lead to an increase in inflation… Unemployment and inflation are macroeconomic problems. The level of both undesirable developments is determined by the relations in the entire economy. Therefor it is necessary to use macroeconomic theory which deals the general economic context for the analysis. Both problems are enhanced by structural factors which also need to be analyzed. In contrast to microeconomic theory which focuses on different individual decision makers, in macroeconomic theory decision makers and decisions are summarized in macroeconomic aggregates. The common procedure is to summarize decision makers into aggregates like “private households”, “enterprises” and “the state” and the decision makers concerning the use of income into “private consumption”, “investments” and “public expenditure” (Kromphardt, Jürgen, 1998: Arbeitslosigkeit und Inflation (unemployment and inflation). 2., newly revised A. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 17-18). Macroeconomic approaches on the explanation of unemployment and inflation are highly controversial in economic theory. Therefore the author starts with the attempt to present different explanations for unemployment and inflation from different macroeconomic positions. There are different unemployment: classical unemployment (reason: real wages to high), Keynesian unemployment (reason: demand for goods to low), unemployment due to a lack of working places (reason: capital stock to low). These positions give conflicting explanations and recommendations because they are based on different perceptions of the starting position. Therefor the author confronts central positions with empirical data on the macro level with the following restriction: “It is impossible to prove theories as correct (to verify). This is a reason for the fact that macroeconomic controversies do not come to a conclusion but are continued in a modified way. Furthermore economic statements in this field always affect social and political interests as all economic policies favor or put as a disadvantage interests of distinct social groups in a different way.“ (Kromphardt, a.a.O., S. 20).

Data tables in HISTAT (1) Development of employment: Presented by the development of annual average unemployment rates and the balance of labor force of the institute for labor market and occupation research (IAB, Nuremberg) after the domestic concept(employment with Germany as the place of work) For characterizing the overall economic developments, those values are used which play an important role in the reports of the German central bank: (2) Inflation: Rate of differences in the price index for costs of living compared to the previous year (3) Currency reserves of German federal banks and the German central bank: measure for foreign economic situation and the payment balance of the central bank (4) Development of economic growth: Presented by the nominal and real growth rate of the GDP (5) Inflation rate of the GDP, money supply, growth rate of the price index of the GDP (6) Labor productivity (= GDP per employee, domestic concept) (7) Real wage per employee (8) Exchange rate: DM/$ (monthly averages) (9) Growth of DGP, productivity, economically active population, real incomes, unemployment rate and adjusted wages (10) Time series connected with labor demand (11) GDP, labor volume, employees, working hours and labor productivity (12) Employee compensation, wages and ...

Are people under economic stress more or less likely to vote, and why? With large observational datasets and a survey experiment involving unemployed Americans, we show that unemployment depresses participation. But it does so more powerfully when the unemployment rate is low, less powerfully when it is high. Whereas earlier studies have explained lower turnout among the unemployed by stressing the especially high opportunity costs these would-be voters face, our evidence points to the psychological effects of unemployment and of campaign messages about it. When unemployment is high, challengers have an incentive to blame the incumbent, thus eliciting anger among the unemployed. Psychologists have shown anger to be an approach or mobilizing emotion. When joblessness is low, campaigns tend to ignore it. The jobless thus remain in states of depression and self-blame, which are demobilizing emotions.

This release looks at the increase in unemployment during the recent economic downturn. Increases in unemployment will be compared across regions in the UK, age groups, gender and other characteristics. Claimant count data will also be included.

Source agency: Office for National Statistics

Designation: National Statistics

Language: English

Alternative title: Unemployment during the economic downturn

This paper examines the association between the Great Recession and real assets among families with young children. Real assets such as homes and cars are key indicators of economic well-being that may be especially valuable to low-income families. Using longitudinal data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 4,898), we investigate the association between the city unemployment rate and home and car ownership and how the relationship varies by family structure (married, cohabiting, and single parents) and by race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic mothers). Using mother fixed-effects models, we find that a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a -0.5 percentage point decline in the probability of home ownership and a -0.7 percentage point decline in the probability of car ownership. We also find that the recession was associated with lower levels of home ownership for cohabiting families and for Hispanic families, as well as lower car ownership among single mothers and among Black mothers, whereas no change was observed among married families or White households. Considering that homes and cars are the most important assets among middle and low-income households in the U.S., these results suggest that the rise in the unemployment rate during the Great Recession may have increased household asset inequality across family structures and race/ethnicities, limiting economic mobility, and exacerbating the cycle of poverty.