Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on The Employment Situation for July 2020

Note: On September 23, 2020, BLS corrected data in the response to item 11 in this document. Minor corrections were made to occupation estimates. See more information about these corrections.

The improvements in the labor market data from the establishment and household surveys for July reflect the continued resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. The material below addresses some questions about the effect of the pandemic on The Employment Situation for July 2020, which presents national-level estimates from the establishment (Current Employment Statistics, or CES) and household (Current Population Survey, or CPS) surveys. (See prior assessments of the impact of the pandemic on The Employment Situation.)

Additional detail at the state and local area level will be available in forthcoming releases with data from the CES State and Metro Area and the Local Area Unemployment Statistics programs.

Establishment survey: Was there an impact on data collection in the establishment survey?
Establishment survey: How did the pandemic response impact employment estimates?
Household survey: What was the impact on data collection in the household survey?
Household survey: How did the pandemic response impact July estimates?
Household survey: How many employed people were not at work during the reference week?
Household survey: Was there less misclassification in July?
Household survey: Why doesn’t BLS adjust the unemployment rate to account for the misclassification?
Household survey: What would the unemployment rate be if these misclassified workers were included among the unemployed?
Household survey: What did BLS and the Census Bureau do to reduce the misclassification?
Household survey: What do we know about why people were at work part time?
Household survey: What were the effects of the pandemic on occupational employment and unemployment?
Household survey: How many people want a job, but are not classified as unemployed?

Additional Questions

1. Establishment survey: Was there an impact on data collection in the establishment survey?

Yes. Data collection for the establishment survey was impacted by the pandemic. Approximately one-fifth of the establishments are assigned to four regional data collection centers for collection. Although these centers were closed during the collection period, interviewers at these centers worked remotely to collect data by telephone. Additionally, BLS encouraged businesses to report their data electronically. About one-quarter of the data that are typically collected by the data collection centers were instead collected by web this month. As a result, web collection represented 28 percent of July data, and Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) represented 15 percent.

Table A. Establishment survey data by collection method at first preliminary release, July 2020 and recent months (percent distribution)
Collection method	July 2019	Average for 12 months ending February 2020	June 2020	July 2020
All methods	100	100	100	100
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)	28	26	15	15
Web	20	20	31	28
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)	46	47	46	48
Touchtone Data Entry (TDE)	2	2	2	2
Fax	2	1	1	1
Other	2	3	4	6
Note: Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

The collection rate for the establishment survey in July was 78 percent. This is higher than the average for the 12 months ending in February 2020, before data collection was impacted, and higher than June (63 percent). This rate was also higher than that for July 2019 (71 percent). Collection rates were not impacted by pandemic-related issues. As in the past, a larger influence on the establishment survey collection rates is the length of the collection period, which can range between 10 and 16 days. The July collection period had 16 days. Additional information and a full time series is available in the establishment survey collection rate documentation.

Table B. Establishment survey collection rate for first preliminary release, July 2020 and recent months (percent)
Period	Collection rate
July 2019	71
Average for 12 months ending February 2020	75
June 2020	63
July 2020	78
Note: See establishment survey collection rates over time.

When compared with the average for the 12 months ending in February 2020, the July collection rate for state government declined by nearly 30 percentage points, while the July collection rate for the federal government increased by approximately 15 percentage points. The collection rates for all other major industries were within 10 percentage points of the average.

BLS was able to obtain estimates that met our standards for accuracy and reliability. The June second preliminary and May final collection rates were slightly below the average range.

2. Establishment survey: How did the pandemic response impact employment estimates?

As highlighted in The Employment Situation news release, total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 1.8 million in July, reflecting the continued resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed due to the pandemic and efforts to contain it. In July, nonfarm employment was lower than its February level by 12.9 million, or 8.4 percent. (See table C.) (A full discussion can also be found in the BLS Commissioner’s statement on The Employment Situation. See also historical data from the establishment survey.)

Table C. Changes in nonfarm payroll employment by industry, July 2020 and recent months (numbers in thousands)
Industry	March 2020 over-the-month change	April 2020 over-the-month change	March and April total change	March and April percentage change	May 2020 over-the-month change	June 2020 over-the-month change	July 2020 over-the-month change	May through July total change	Net change since February 2020	Percentage change since February 2020
Total nonfarm	-1,373	-20,787	-22,160	-14.5	2,725	4,791	1,763	9,279	-12,881	-8.4
Total private	-1,356	-19,835	-21,191	-16.3	3,236	4,737	1,462	9,435	-11,756	-9.1
Mining and logging	-8	-53	-61	-8.5	-20	-5	-7	-32	-93	-13.0
Construction	-65	-1,018	-1,083	-14.2	456	163	20	639	-444	-5.8
Manufacturing	-46	-1,317	-1,363	-10.6	240	357	26	623	-740	-5.8
Wholesale trade	-12	-385	-397	-6.7	23	63	-5	81	-316	-5.3
Retail trade	-85	-2,299	-2,384	-15.2	386	827	258	1,471	-913	-5.8
Transportation and warehousing	-10	-560	-570	-10.0	-25	87	38	100	-470	-8.3
Utilities	0	-4	-4	-0.7	-2	-3	0	-5	-8	-1.5
Information	-6	-279	-285	-9.8	-40	10	-15	-45	-330	-11.4
Financial activities	-18	-261	-279	-3.2	19	23	21	63	-216	-2.4
Professional and business services	-94	-2,202	-2,296	-10.7	160	318	170	648	-1,648	-7.6
Education and health services	-178	-2,603	-2,781	-11.3	388	567	215	1,170	-1,611	-6.6
Leisure and hospitality	-743	-7,575	-8,318	-49.3	1,405	1,981	592	3,978	-4,340	-25.7
Other services	-91	-1,279	-1,370	-23.1	245	349	149	743	-627	-10.6
Government	-17	-952	-969	-4.3	-511	54	301	-156	-1,125	-4.9
Note: Estimates for June and July are preliminary.

3. Household survey: What was the impact on data collection in the household survey?

The household survey is conducted by the Census Bureau and normally includes both in-person and telephone interviews, with the majority of interviews collected by telephone. Interviewing for the household survey began on July 19, 2020.

Households are in the survey’s sample for a total of 8 months, meaning that interviewers attempt to interview someone in the household each of those 8 months. Generally, households entering the sample for their first month are interviewed through a personal visit, and households in their fifth month also often receive a personal visit. Interviews for other months are generally conducted by telephone.

For the safety of both interviewers and respondents, the Census Bureau suspended in-person interviews on March 20, 2020, and conducted all interviews by telephone for April, May, and June. In July, in-person interviews were conducted on an extremely limited basis in some areas of the country, though the vast majority of interviews were conducted by telephone. The two call centers that usually assist with telephone interviewing—which had not done so for the last 3 months—also resumed interviewing on a limited basis in July.

The response rate for the household survey, at 67 percent in July 2020, continued to be adversely affected by pandemic-related issues. While it was considerably lower than the average response rate of 83 percent for the 12 months ending in February 2020, it was higher than the rate of 65 percent for June 2020. (See table D.)

In July, the response rate for households entering the sample for their first month, which has a direct impact on response rates in successive months, was again particularly low. The response rate for these households, which normally are interviewed in person, was 26 percentage points lower than the average for the 12 months ending in February 2020. However, this was an improvement over June, when the response rate for households in their first month was 32 percentage points lower than the average prior to the pandemic.

Although the response rate was adversely affected by pandemic-related issues, BLS was able to obtain estimates that met our standards for accuracy and reliability.

Table D. Household survey response rates by month in sample, July 2020 and recent months (percent)
Month in sample interview	Average for the 12 months ending in February 2020	March 2020	April 2020	May 2020	June 2020	July 2020	Percentage point difference from average for the 12 months ending in February 2020
Month in sample interview	Average for the 12 months ending in February 2020	March 2020	April 2020	May 2020	June 2020	July 2020	March 2020	April 2020	May 2020	June 2020	July 2020
Total	82.5	73.0	69.9	67.4	64.9	67.2	-9.5	-12.6	-15.1	-17.6	-15.3
Month in sample
First	80.1	56.8	46.7	47.8	48.4	54.2	-23.3	-33.4	-32.3	-31.7	-25.9
Second	83.1	74.2	63.5	56.4	55.8	61.0	-8.9	-19.6	-26.7	-27.3	-22.1
Third	83.7	77.3	75.7	67.7	60.7	64.3	-6.4	-8.0	-16.0	-23.0	-19.4
Fourth	83.8	77.5	78.2	76.5	68.9	66.6	-6.3	-5.6	-7.3	-14.9	-17.2
Fifth	80.7	68.6	68.6	68.3	68.4	70.4	-12.1	-12.1	-12.4	-12.3	-10.3
Sixth	82.4	75.2	72.7	71.4	70.9	72.4	-7.2	-9.7	-11.0	-11.5	-10.0
Seventh	82.7	76.1	76.2	73.7	72.0	73.7	-6.6	-6.5	-9.0	-10.7	-9.0
Eighth	83.6	78.6	78.1	77.7	74.3	75.1	-5.0	-5.5	-5.9	-9.3	-8.5
Note: In the household survey, interviewers attempt to interview each household for 8 months total. The first month is generally an in-person interview; the fifth month is often an in-person interview.

4. Household survey: How did the pandemic response impact July estimates?

As highlighted in The Employment Situation news release, household survey total employment rose and unemployment fell in July. The jobless rate and the number of unemployed people remain 6.7 percentage points and 10.6 million, respectively, higher than in February, before the pandemic crisis unfolded in many parts of the United States. (A full discussion also can be found in the BLS Commissioner’s statement on The Employment Situation. Also see prior assessments of the pandemic’s impact on The Employment Situation and historical data from the household survey.)

Among the unemployed, the number of people on temporary layoff decreased in July, but remained high. However, as happened in March, April, May, and June, some workers who were not at work during the entire reference week were not classified as unemployed on temporary layoff in July. Rather, they were classified as employed but absent from work. BLS and Census Bureau analyses of the underlying data suggest that this group may still include some workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, although the degree of misclassification has declined considerably. (See details in item 6.)

5. Household survey: How many employed people were not at work during the reference week?

In July, 9.7 million workers were classified as employed with a job but not at work during the survey reference week (not seasonally adjusted). For March through June, this measure was higher than its usual range, but the estimate for July is at a typical level for this time of the year. (See table E.) However, there were differences among some of the reason categories that likely reflect the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Table E. Employed people with a job but not at work, June and July, selected years, not seasonally adjusted (numbers in thousands)
Year	June		July		Difference* (July–June)
Year	Total employed	With a job not at work	Total employed	With a job not at work	Total employed	With a job not at work
2016	151,990	7,682	152,437	9,726	447	2,044
2017	154,086	7,500	154,470	9,658	384	2,158
2018	156,465	7,533	157,004	9,549	539	2,016
2019	157,828	7,255	158,385	10,051	557	2,796
2020	142,811	7,937	144,492	9,703	1,681	1,766
Note: * Users are generally cautioned against over-the-month comparisons of not seasonally adjusted data, as the change could be affected by some seasonal component.

There are many reasons why employed people are not at work for the entire survey reference week. BLS tabulates data on employed people not at work whose main reason for being absent was vacation, own illness, childcare problems, other family or personal obligations, labor dispute, bad weather, maternity or paternity leave, school or training, civic or military duty, and other reasons. Vacation and a person’s own illness are typically the most common reasons people are not at work. (See table F. All data about people with a job but not at work are not seasonally adjusted. See also data on absences from work for more information.)

Of the 9.7 million employed people not at work during the survey reference week in July 2020, 1.7 million people were included in the “own illness, injury, or medical problems” category. This was up from 1.2 million in June and 1.5 million in May, and was almost double the average of 889,000 for July 2016–2019. People who were not at work to care for a sick family member should be counted in the “other family or personal obligations” category. As it had been in June, this measure was slightly lower than the typical range for July in recent years.

In July 2020, 4.7 million people were recorded as absent from work because of vacation. This is about two-thirds of the average number usually recorded in the vacation category for July. In recent months, estimates of employed people absent from work due to vacation have been lower than usual, likely the result of the pandemic and efforts to contain it.

In July 2020, 2.5 million people were included in the “other reasons” category—about one-fourth of the total 9.7 million employed people not at work during the survey reference week. This was lower than the 2.8 million people not at work for “other reasons” in June (when that category represented roughly one-third of the total not at work), but was substantially higher than the average of 1.2 million for July in recent years.

As happened in March, April, May, and June, BLS and Census Bureau analyses of the underlying data suggests that this group not at work for “other reasons” may still include some workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, the degree of misclassification was considerably lower than in prior months. (See item 6.)

Table F. Employed people with a job but not at work, July, selected years, not seasonally adjusted (numbers in thousands)
Month	Total not at work	Vacation	Own illness, injury, or medical problems	Childcare problems	Other family or personal obligations	Labor dispute	Bad weather	Maternity or paternity leave	School or training	Civic or military duty	Other reasons
July 2016	9,726	6,900	986	32	280	-	38	250	99	-	1,140
July 2017	9,658	6,807	908	26	260	0	24	283	120	9	1,220
July 2018	9,549	6,855	801	31	282	14	21	314	99	2	1,129
July 2019	10,051	7,085	862	24	304	9	64	358	128	16	1,201
July 2020	9,703	4,651	1,695	74	189	8	10	443	106	5	2,522
Note: Dash indicates no data.

6. Household survey: Was there less misclassification in July?

Other than those who were themselves ill, under quarantine, or self-isolating due to health concerns, most people who did not work during the survey reference week due to efforts to contain the spread of the coronavirus pandemic should have been, and were, classified as “unemployed on temporary layoff.” As happened in March, April, May, and June, some people who were not at work during the entire reference week for reasons related to the coronavirus pandemic were not included in this category but were instead misclassified as employed but not at work for “other reasons.” However, there was less misclassification in June and July than in earlier months.

The misclassification hinges on a question about the main reason people were absent from their jobs. If people who were absent due to temporary, pandemic-related business closures or cutbacks were recorded as absent due to “other reasons,” they could have been misclassified. According to special guidance provided to interviewers, most people absent due to temporary, pandemic-related business closures or cutbacks should be recorded in the “on layoff (temporary or indefinite)” category. (This response option is generally not available for people identified as business owners.)

The degree of misclassification has declined considerably in recent months. BLS and Census Bureau staff have been reviewing survey responses that might have been misclassified. When interviewers record a response of “other reason,” they also add a few words describing that other reason. The review of these brief descriptions found that the share of responses that may have been misclassified was much smaller in June and July than in prior months.

The obvious indication of misclassification is the number of people not at work for “other reasons.” This measure was smaller in June and July than in the prior 2 months, both in the number of people and as a percentage of the total not at work. For example, the number of people not at work for “other reasons” has fallen from 8.1 million in April to 5.4 million in May to 2.8 million in June and to 2.5 million in July.

Even with these declines, the estimate of 2.5 million people not at work for the “other reasons” category was higher than the average of 1.2 million for July 2016–2019. The difference between the current number and the average for the same month in prior years has been used to estimate the potential size of the misclassification. (See item 8.) The exact extent of the misclassification is unknown; however, this represents the upper bound of our estimate of misclassification.

It is important to realize that not everyone included in the “other reasons” category is necessarily misclassified. The category includes people who mention reasons other than those related to the pandemic. Moreover, the “on layoff (temporary or indefinite)” response option is not available for business owners who have no other job, so the “other reasons” category could be the appropriate category for them.

BLS is continuing to evaluate the misclassification issue and will publish a detailed description of the findings in a forthcoming article.

According to usual practice, the data from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to reassign survey responses.

7. Household survey: Why doesn’t BLS adjust the unemployment rate to account for the misclassification?

The misclassification hinges on a question about the main reason people were absent from their jobs. While some workers classified as absent from work for “other reasons” may have been misclassified, there is no easy correction that could have been made to the data to count these individuals as unemployed. Changing a person’s labor force classification would involve more than changing the response to the question about why people were absent from their jobs.

Although BLS and the Census Bureau believe some responses to the question on why people were absent from their jobs may have been incorrectly recorded, we do not have enough information to reclassify each person’s labor force status. To begin with, the exact information provided by the person responding to the survey is not known. The brief descriptions included in the “other reasons” category often appear to go against the guidance provided to the survey interviewers, but these descriptions are not full transcripts of the interaction between the interviewer and the person responding to the survey.

Also, people whose answers were recorded as absent from work for “other reasons” were not asked the follow-up questions needed to determine whether they should be classified as unemployed. Specifically, there is no information about whether they expected to be recalled to work and whether they could return to work if recalled. Therefore, shifting people’s answers from “other reasons” to “on layoff (temporary or indefinite)” would not have been enough to change their classification from employed to unemployed. Assumptions would have had to be made about how they would have responded to the follow-up questions. Changing answers based on incorrect assumptions would also have introduced error.

For the reasons above, the exact extent of the misclassification is unknown. In addition, BLS’s usual practice is to accept data from the household survey as recorded. In the 80-year history of the household survey, we do not know of any actions taken on an ad hoc basis to change respondents’ answers to the labor force questions. Any ad hoc adjustment would have relied on assumptions instead of being strictly based on what people answered during their interviews and also could appear to be a manipulation of the data.

8. Household survey: What would the unemployment rate be if these misclassified workers were included among the unemployed?

If the workers who were recorded as employed but not at work for the entire survey reference week had been classified as “unemployed on temporary layoff,” the overall unemployment rate would have been higher than reported. This kind of exercise requires some assumptions. For example, first one needs to determine how many workers might be misclassified.

We provided an estimate of the potential size of the misclassification error and its impact on the unemployment rate in March, April, May, and June. Because the exact extent of the misclassification is unknown, we had to make assumptions to construct these estimates. Specifically, we assumed that all of the increase in the number of employed people who were not at work for “other reasons” compared with the average for recent years was due solely to misclassification. We also assumed that all of these people expected to be recalled and were available to return to work.

Following this same approach, there were 2.5 million workers with a job but not at work who were included in the “other reasons” category in July 2020, about 1.3 million higher than the average for July 2016–2019. If we assume that this 1.3 million increase was entirely due to misclassification and that all of these misclassified workers expected to be recalled and were available for work, the number of unemployed people in July (on a not seasonally adjusted basis) would increase from 16.9 million to 18.2 million. The number of people in the labor force would remain at 161.4 million in July (not seasonally adjusted) as people move from employed to unemployed but stay in the labor force. The resulting unemployment rate for July would be 11.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), compared with the official estimate of 10.5 percent (not seasonally adjusted). Estimates of people with a job but not at work are not available on a seasonally adjusted basis, so seasonally adjusted data, such as the unemployment rate mentioned in The Employment Situation news release, are not used in this exercise. (Repeating this exercise, but combining the not seasonally adjusted data on additional people with a job but not at work in the “other reasons” category with the seasonally adjusted estimates reported in The Employment Situation news release yields a roughly similar 0.9 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate for July—or 11.1 percent, compared with the official seasonally adjusted rate of 10.2 percent.) Comparable calculations were previously published for March, April, May, and June.

These broad assumptions represent the upper bound of our estimate of misclassification—the largest estimate of unemployment and correspondingly the largest unemployment rate. However, these assumptions probably overstate the size of the misclassification error. It is unlikely that everyone who was misclassified expected to be recalled and was available to return to work. It is also unlikely that all of the increase in the number of employed people not at work for “other reasons” was due to misclassification. Some people may be correctly classified in the “other reasons” category. For example, someone who owns a business (and does not have another job) is classified as employed in the household survey. Business owners who are not at work due to labor market downturns (or in this case, pandemic-related business closures or cutbacks) should be classified as employed but absent from work for “other reasons.” Business owners are classified as employed because it is assumed that they have a job to return to even if their businesses are not able to currently function or if the business lacks customers; they can engage in some work activity related to maintaining the operation of that business.

Regardless of the assumptions made as to the degree of misclassification, the trend in the unemployment rate over the period in question is the same—that is, the rate increased in March and April and eased in May, June, and July.

BLS is continuing to evaluate the misclassification issue and will publish a detailed description of the findings in a forthcoming article.

9. Household survey: What did BLS and the Census Bureau do to reduce the misclassification?

BLS and our partners at the Census Bureau take the misclassification very seriously.

Census Bureau training over the last several months has done much to improve interviewers’ understanding of the special instructions. In addition, Census Bureau staff again monitored survey responses during the July collection period, specifically flagging responses that might have been misclassified. When interviewers record a response of “other reason,” they also add a few words describing that other reason. For each potentially misclassified response, Census Bureau staff reviewed these brief descriptions to identify responses that had likely been recorded incorrectly. Census Bureau staff found fewer responses in July than in prior months that had probably been recorded incorrectly. For those responses that did appear to have been recorded in error, Census Bureau staff followed up with interviewers to discuss the responses, remind interviewers of the guidance, and hopefully prevent future misclassification. No responses were changed as a result of these discussions.

10. Household survey: What do we know about why people were at work part time?

The household survey includes questions about the number of hours people usually work and the number they actually worked during the survey reference week. If someone works part time (fewer than 35 hours per week), it also has questions about the main reason they were at work part-time—regardless of whether they usually work full time or part time. Depending on the reason provided, these workers are then grouped into those at work part time for economic or noneconomic reasons. Economic reasons include working reduced hours due to slack work or business conditions, seasonal work, or starting or ending a job during the week. Noneconomic reasons include illness, vacation, holidays, schooling, childcare problems, labor dispute, bad weather, and other reasons.

In July 2020, there were 8.4 million employed people at work part time for economic reasons (seasonally adjusted). These individuals wanted and were available to work full time, but were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (People at work part time for economic reasons include those who usually work full time and those who usually work part time.) This measure declined by 619,000 over the month, but was still 4.1 million higher than in February, clearly reflecting continued slack work or business conditions due to the pandemic response.

Overall, about 6 percent of employed people were at work part time for economic reasons in July. The pandemic impact remained particularly acute in the accommodation and food services industry, where people working part time for economic reasons represented about 18 percent of those at work in that industry in July (not seasonally adjusted).

Among people at work part time for noneconomic reasons in July 2020, 3.9 million full-time workers worked less than 35 hours because of vacation or personal days. This was three-fourths of the number usually recorded in the vacation category for July of recent years. (There also were fewer employed people not at work for the entire reference week due to vacation in July 2020 than in July of previous years. See item 5.)

See additional information on people working part time for economic reasons, including historical time series and monthly tables. See also data on absences from work, including limitations of these data, historical time series, and monthly tables.

11. Household survey: What were the effects of the pandemic on occupational employment and unemployment?

The household survey estimate of total employment continued to increase and unemployment continued to decline in July. Although unemployment fell for the third consecutive month, both the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people remain substantially higher than their pre-pandemic values in February. A similar pattern could be seen across most of the occupation groups.

Notably, employment in service occupations rose by 765,000 in July, following increases of 2.1 million in June and 1.1 million in May. These increases followed a steep decline in April (‑7.3 million). The unemployment rate for workers whose last jobs were in service occupations was 16.2 percent in July, down from 18.7 percent in June and 23.6 percent the month before (not seasonally adjusted).

Learn more about using employment and unemployment data by occupation.

12. Household survey: How many people want a job, but are not classified as unemployed?

People are categorized as either employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force based on how they respond to survey questions about their recent activities. People who have a job are employed, including those who may be temporarily absent (whether or not they are paid). People who do not have a job and are actively looking for and available for work are unemployed. People who are on temporary layoff and expect to be recalled to their job do not need to look for work to be counted as unemployed, but they do need to be able to return to work if recalled. Those who do not meet the criteria to be classified as either employed or unemployed are not in the labor force.

Among those not in the labor force, the survey identifies people who want a job. There were 7.7 million people not in the labor force who wanted a job in July. This figure is down from 8.2 million in June and 9.0 million in May. (The monthly series that dates back to 1994 reached a series high of 9.9 million in April 2020.) Despite declining each month since April, this measure was still more than one and a half times as large as in February (5.0 million).

Relative to before the pandemic began, the large number of people who wanted a job in recent months reflects the impact of the pandemic, which kept many individuals from engaging in labor market activity. Most people who wanted a job had not looked for work recently. If they had actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks and were available to take a job, they would have been counted among the unemployed.

If all people who want a job but were not in the labor force were added to the total 16.3 million people unemployed in July, the resulting 24.1 million people would represent 14.4 percent of the combined total of the labor force plus those who want a job. A similar calculation results in 15.4 percent for June, 17.9 percent for May, 19.8 percent for April, and 7.5 percent for March.

See also supplemental May and June data on people who were prevented from looking for work because of the pandemic. (The July data are not yet available.)