Swelling numbers of unemployed seeking rural jobs could distort local statistics

By WES SANDER
Capital Press

While anecdotes of high rural unemployment have abounded during the depressed economy, state numbers suggest ag sector employment isn't suffering as much as other industries.

That's despite some losses of ag jobs -- most notably in California's Central Valley, where water scarcity has resulted in some 300,000 acres of fallowed land while the state's water politics have roiled with images of unemployed workers waiting in food lines.

But state numbers support the argument that rural unemployment emanates from other industries -- especially those, like construction, that employ large numbers of immigrants. Many unemployed workers settle in agricultural towns hoping to find farm work, boosting the area's apparent unemployment.

California's numbers don't show any distinct trends up or down in ag employment. Patrick Joyce, a spokeswoman for California's Employment Development Department, said the state tracks ag employment the same way it does other sectors, using employer surveys to produce estimates.

In its farm numbers, California includes forestry, fishing, hunting and trapping and "support activities," such as processing.

An annual average of monthly farm employment in 2009 shows 389,225 people working in agriculture, down from 390,850 in 2008. That's a drop of less than 1 percent.

However, California's numbers could change once the state finalizes its 2009 figures in March -- and the state's Employment Development Department said new counting methods could produce a larger-than-average correction this year.

In California, those estimates are aided by employers' reporting to satisfy unemployment-insurance rules. But in Oregon, those rules don't apply to employers with payrolls below $20,000, or 10 or fewer workers, for 20 weeks of the year.

That leaves a greater margin to be covered by an estimating process, said Dallas Fridley, an ag analyst with the Oregon Employment Department. Even so, the department's estimates are backed by rigorous survey methods, Fridley said.

While Oregon agriculture has made cuts, they haven't been drastic, Fridley said. Oregon's most recent ag-specific numbers show 29,756 people working in crop and animal production in the second quarter of 2009; that's down from 30,435 a year earlier.

"I think agriculture has probably fared better than most industries in the recession," Fridley said. "Food manufacturing hasn't made a lot of big cuts like a lot of other industries have.

Washington state reports employment increases in 2009, due in part to a healthy apple harvest. Washington's monthly numbers show an annual average of about 79,814 people working in agriculture in 2009 and 77,164 in 2008, a 3 percent increase. Washington's numbers count workers employed in farm production.

And in Idaho, preliminary numbers are showing a slight increase in total ag employment in 2009, rising by more than 1,000 workers over 2008 to about 45,000 for the year.

Idaho's labor department says its farm-employment numbers count only producers and their employees. Oregon breaks ag employment into a wide range of categories, allowing a count of crop and animal production alone.

"Ag remains a real stable part of the Idaho economy ... despite the problems that dairy has been having," said Bob Fick, an economist with the Idaho Department of Labor. "Despite the bad prices that some of the other commodities had in the last year, those sectors are growing, albeit modestly.

"Dairy continues to be a significant factor in ag, and there is some growth," Fick said. "Dairy farmers are cash-flow guys. When they get into trouble, they tend to continue to produce."

INFO BOX TO COME

Farm employment

California 389,225

Idaho 45,000

Oregon 29,756

Washington 79,814