Madera-Chowchilla, California Unemployment
The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Madera fell 0.4 percentage points in March 2013 to 12.3%. For the same month, the metro unemployment rate was 2.9 percentage points higher than the California rate. The unemployment rate in Madera peaked in October 2010 at 15.8% and is now 3.5 percentage points lower. You can also compare Madera unemployment with unemployment in other cities.
| Unemployment Rate | March 2013 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 7.6% | -0.1 | -0.6 |
| California | 9.4% | -0.2 | -1.3 |
| Madera | 12.3% | -0.4 | -1.7 |
Unemployment Rate: Madera, California, National
Note: Recessions shown in gray.
Madera, California Unemployed
The number of people unemployed in Madera peaked in November 2010 at 10,632. There are now 2,201 fewer people unemployed in the metropolitan area. Madera employment and jobs data (including jobs lost/gained in Madera, California) is also available.
| Unemployed Persons | March 2013 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Madera | 8,431 | -240 | -1,142 |
Number of Unemployed Persons
Madera, California Unemployment History
| Date |
National Unemployment Rate |
California Unemployment Rate |
Madera Unemployment Rate |
Madera Unemployed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 2013 |
7.5% | 9.0% | — | — |
|
March 2013 |
7.6% | 9.4% | 12.3% | 8,431 |
|
February 2013 |
7.7% | 9.6% | 12.7% | 8,671 |
|
January 2013 |
7.9% | 9.8% | 13.0% | 8,829 |
|
December 2012 |
7.8% | 9.8% | 13.0% | 8,807 |
|
November 2012 |
7.8% | 9.9% | 13.1% | 8,873 |
|
October 2012 |
7.9% | 10.1% | 13.2% | 8,964 |
|
September 2012 |
7.8% | 10.2% | 13.4% | 9,072 |
|
August 2012 |
8.1% | 10.4% | 13.5% | 9,192 |
|
July 2012 |
8.2% | 10.6% | 13.7% | 9,312 |
|
June 2012 |
8.2% | 10.6% | 13.8% | 9,419 |
|
May 2012 |
8.2% | 10.7% | 13.9% | 9,497 |
|
April 2012 |
8.1% | 10.7% | 13.9% | 9,545 |
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. ↩

