Waterloo-Cedar Falls, Iowa Unemployment
The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Waterloo fell 0.1 percentage points in March 2012 to 5.2%. For the same month, the metro unemployment rate was 0.0 percentage points lower than the Iowa rate. The unemployment rate in Waterloo peaked in November 2010 at 6.0% and is now 0.8 percentage points lower. You can also compare Waterloo unemployment with unemployment in other cities.
| Unemployment Rate | March 2012 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 8.2% | -0.1 | -0.7 |
| Iowa | 5.2% | -0.1 | -0.7 |
| Waterloo | 5.2% | -0.1 | -0.8 |
Unemployment Rate: Waterloo, Iowa, National
Note: Recessions shown in gray.
Waterloo, Iowa Unemployed
The number of people unemployed in Waterloo peaked in April 2011 at 5,768. There are now 761 fewer people unemployed in the metropolitan area. Waterloo employment and jobs data (including jobs lost/gained in Waterloo, Iowa) is also available.
| Unemployed Persons | March 2012 | Month/Month | Year/Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waterloo | 5,007 | -58 | -748 |
Number of Unemployed Persons
Waterloo, Iowa Unemployment History
| Date |
National Unemployment Rate |
Iowa Unemployment Rate |
Waterloo Unemployment Rate |
Waterloo Unemployed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 2012 |
8.1% | 5.1% | — | — |
|
March 2012 |
8.2% | 5.2% | 5.2% | 5,007 |
|
February 2012 |
8.3% | 5.3% | 5.3% | 5,065 |
|
January 2012 |
8.3% | 5.4% | 5.4% | 5,168 |
|
December 2011 |
8.5% | 5.6% | 5.5% | 5,254 |
|
November 2011 |
8.7% | 5.6% | 5.5% | 5,270 |
|
October 2011 |
8.9% | 5.8% | 5.6% | 5,395 |
|
September 2011 |
9.0% | 5.9% | 5.7% | 5,535 |
|
August 2011 |
9.1% | 6.0% | 5.8% | 5,602 |
|
July 2011 |
9.1% | 6.0% | 5.8% | 5,638 |
|
June 2011 |
9.1% | 6.0% | 5.9% | 5,719 |
|
May 2011 |
9.0% | 6.0% | 5.9% | 5,718 |
|
April 2011 |
9.0% | 5.9% | 6.0% | 5,768 |
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. ↩
