Hanford-Corcoran, California Unemployment
The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Hanford fell 0.5 percentage points in December 2011 to 15.3%. For the same month, the metro unemployment rate was 4.2 percentage points higher than the California rate. The unemployment rate in Hanford peaked in October 2010 at 17.2% and is now 1.9 percentage points lower. You can also compare Hanford unemployment with unemployment in other cities.
| Unemployment Rate | December 2011 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 8.5% | -0.2 | -0.9 |
| California | 11.1% | -0.2 | -1.4 |
| Hanford | 15.3% | -0.5 | -1.8 |
Unemployment Rate: Hanford, California, National
Note: Recessions shown in gray.
Hanford, California Unemployed
The number of people unemployed in Hanford peaked in November 2010 at 10,553. There are now 1,121 fewer people unemployed in the metropolitan area. Hanford employment and jobs data (including jobs lost/gained in Hanford, California) is also available.
| Unemployed Persons | December 2011 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hanford | 9,432 | -288 | -1,114 |
Number of Unemployed Persons
Hanford, California Unemployment History
| Date |
National Unemployment Rate |
California Unemployment Rate |
Hanford Unemployment Rate |
Hanford Unemployed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
January 2012 |
8.3% | — | — | — |
|
December 2011 |
8.5% | 11.1% | 15.3% | 9,432 |
|
November 2011 |
8.7% | 11.3% | 15.8% | 9,720 |
|
October 2011 |
8.9% | 11.7% | 16.5% | 10,063 |
|
September 2011 |
9.0% | 11.9% | 16.9% | 10,263 |
|
August 2011 |
9.1% | 12.1% | 17.1% | 10,291 |
|
July 2011 |
9.1% | 12.0% | 16.8% | 10,174 |
|
June 2011 |
9.1% | 11.8% | 16.4% | 9,968 |
|
May 2011 |
9.0% | 11.7% | 16.0% | 9,713 |
|
April 2011 |
9.0% | 11.8% | 15.8% | 9,620 |
|
March 2011 |
8.9% | 12.0% | 15.8% | 9,575 |
|
February 2011 |
9.0% | 12.1% | 16.0% | 9,718 |
|
January 2011 |
9.1% | 12.4% | 16.6% | 10,132 |
1. Metro area unemployment rates are now seasonally adjusted. The BLS has started publishing smoothed seasonally adjusted metropolitan area data which makes comparisons to state and national data more relevant than the unadjusted numbers. ↩
