Perennially, the five largest economies in Europe have been the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. The order in which we mention them has significance: This is how they rank when we look at them in terms of real GDP per capita, as in the FRED graph above.

Notice that the ranking has not changed in over 60 years, except for the most minor and temporary deviations. This period covers major economic events: the integration of these economies in the Economic Union, oil price shocks, the opening of Eastern Europe, and more recently a financial crisis, Brexit, Covid-19, and a war in Ukraine.

This ranking is different from the ranking of these economies by their total real GDP, as in the FRED graph below. First, Germany has a population that is significantly larger than the others, noting here that Germany encompasses East and West Germany before reunification in 1990 for these statistics. Second, the largest European economics have followed quite different demographic trajectories, leading to significant implications for the size of their economies: Notice how the UK was initially first and temporarily dropped to fourth, while Italy was second before suffering a significant slowdown that has currently brought it down to fourth.

In the end, the size of the economy matters little when countries are integrated economically and politically, as they are within the European Union, except for limited circumstances related to policy decisions.

How these graphs were created: Search FRED for “per capita GDP Germany” and take the series in constant prices. Click on “Edit Graph,” open the “Add Line” tab, and search for “per capita GDP France.” Repeat for the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. For the second graph, follow a similar procedure.

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

The FRED Blog has discussed how the increased popularity of video streaming over the internet gradually decreased employment in video tape and disc rental establishments. Today we explore a related topic: how consuming news over the internet has reduced employment in the print media industry.

The FRED graph above shows annual data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on the number of persons employed in three sectors of the information industry directly connected to print media. Each of the stacked colored area in the graph represents one print media sector: book publishers (in green), periodical publishers (in blue), and newspaper publishers (in red).

Starting around 2000, employment in those three sectors steadily decreased. At the time of this writing, employment figures are at a 35-year low. Why are the proverbial printing presses slowing down?

This is likely another example of consumer preferences swayed by the easy access to internet-based services. Using a different dataset from the BLS, Mason Walker from the Pew Research Center compares the shrinking print newspaper employment to the expanding employment in the digital publishing industry.

Although those figures don’t point to a large-scale switch of workers between media sectors, they reflect the substitutability of the means to consume information. More broadly, overall employment in the information industry recorded a slow rebound after 2012. Keep in mind that the headline figure also includes motion pictures, sound recording, broadcasting, communications, and web services. So, it’s fair to say that even though the overall consumer demand for print media has definitely decreased, the overall consumption of information and entertainment hasn’t.

How this graph was created: Search FRED for “Employment for Information: Periodical Publishers (NAICS 51112) in the United States.” Next, click the “Edit Graph” button and use the “Add Line” tab to search for and add “Employment for Information: Newspaper Publishers (NAICS 511110) in the United States” and “Employment for Information: Book Publishers (NAICS 511130) in the United States.” Last, use the “Format” tab to change the graph type to “Area” and the stacking to “Normal.”

Suggested by Diego Mendez-Carbajo.

In the most recent FOMC press conference, on June 12, Chair Powell noted that the labor market “has come into better balance, with continued strong job gains and a low unemployment rate.”

One measure of labor market tightness that illustrates this is the job openings-to-unemployment ratio, shown in the FRED graph above. The ratio is taken by dividing the total number of job openings (from the BLS’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) by the total number of unemployed persons. The result is a statistic of the number of job openings for every unemployed person. This roughly reflects how high employers’ demand is for additional workers relative to the pool of people actively seeking work.

The ratio has clearly come down from its March 2022 peak of 2 job openings per unemployed person. At that time, employers were pining for workers as pent-up consumer demand strained supply chains and contributed to higher prices. But now the ratio is the same as its 2019 average of 1.2. This normalization is partly a result of vacancies being filled by new workers entering the labor force. It is also partly a result of vacancies being eliminated by employers before they’re filled, given the pressure from high borrowing costs and slowing consumer demand.

A few points are also worth noting.

First: Although the ratio of openings to unemployment is the same as in 2019, the ratio’s composition is different. As of May 2024, the number of job openings is higher than its 2019 average—and not only because of population growth. When adjusted for the total demand for workers, there are still more job openings available as shown by the job openings rate.

The current unemployment level is also higher than its 2019 average but so is the unemployment rate. The net effects of relatively more job openings and relatively more unemployed persons essentially cancel each other out, causing the ratio to be the same as it was in 2019.

Second: Based on this measure, labor markets are still tight, much like they were in 2019—a year many economists consider to have been abnormally “hot.” In the 10 years prior, steady payroll growth had cut the unemployment rate to a historic low of 3.7% and job openings almost tripled. Together, these changes lifted the 2019 ratio much higher than the ratio immediately after the 2008 recession or at any other point in the history of the data series. While the unemployment level is now slightly higher than it was several years ago, the recent labor market hasn’t been weak by any historical comparison.

More to consider: The openings-to-unemployment ratio has fallen substantially since January of this year, and job prospects for the unemployed could be reduced further as the economy continues to normalize. This is already playing out as suggested by data on job postings from Indeed.com, which are more recent than the available JOLTS data. (Read more about comparing JOLTS and Indeed data in FRED Blog posts from August and November.)

Also, the labor force may not be able to sustain the growth it has exhibited over the post-pandemic recovery. In fact, it seems to have stalled in recent months. So, as long as employer demand for workers continues to be strong, slowing labor force growth could reduce the competition that job seekers face. If so, the openings-to-unemployment ratio may begin to stabilize around its current level.

How this graph was created: In FRED, search for and select “Job Openings: Total Nonfarm.” From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Customize Data” section in the “Edit Line 1” tab to search and select “Unemployment Level.” You should see two series on the “Edit Line 1” tab listed as (a) and (b). In the “Customize Data” section, enter and apply a/b in the formula bar.

Suggested by Charles Gascon and Joseph Martorana.