Job Openings And Labor Turnover SurveyEdit

Job Openings And Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) is a monthly data series produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that tracks the dynamics of the labor market in the United States. It measures the number and rate of job openings, hires, and separations, with subcategories for quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations. Taken together with the unemployment rate and nonfarm payrolls, JOLTS provides a near real-time view of how easily firms can fill positions and how freely workers can move between jobs. The survey covers a broad cross-section of establishments across industries and regions, though it does not capture every edge of the labor market, such as the self-employed or certain agricultural sectors.

From a market-oriented perspective, JOLTS is a key barometer of labor market tightness and economic vitality. A high number of openings relative to hires typically signals strong demand for workers and can foreshadow wage growth and inflationary pressure if it persists. Conversely, a weak openings figure can indicate slack in the economy and greater ease for employers to lure workers away with limited competition for labor. The data are most informative when read alongside the unemployment rate and other indicators of demand, such as payroll employment and productivity measures. JOLTS is also valuable for understanding worker mobility, since the rate of quits often reflects how confident employees feel about finding better opportunities.

What JOLTS measures

Job openings: the number and rate of unfilled positions on the last business day of the month.
Hiring: the number and rate of new hires during the month.
Separations: the total number of voluntary and involuntary exits, including quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations.
Quits: voluntary departures by workers, often interpreted as a sign of confidence in the ability to secure better employment.
Layoffs and discharges: involuntary separations initiated by employers.
Other separations: a residual category capturing additional exit reasons.

These data are published for the total economy and are typically broken out by industry and region, allowing observers to compare, for example, retail, manufacturing, and health care sectors, or to track trends across different parts of the country. JOLTS uses seasonally adjusted figures to remove predictable monthly patterns and highlight underlying movements in the labor market. The survey results are released with a lag and are subject to revisions as more complete information becomes available.

Data scope and methodology

JOLTS relies on a broad sample of establishments, designed to produce representative measures of openings, hires, and separations across the economy. The methodology emphasizes gross flows—the inflows and outflows of labor—rather than net change, which can obscure how dynamic the job market is in the short run. The data are compiled from administrative records and survey responses and are seasonally adjusted to facilitate month-to-month comparisons. Important caveats include that JOLTS excludes self-employment and certain other worker categories, and that revisions can occur as benchmarks are updated. Researchers and policymakers often use JOLTS in conjunction with other statistics such as labor force participation, inflation, and productivity to form a fuller picture of economic conditions.

From a policy-making vantage point, the standard interpretation is that a robust level of job openings signals a favorable economic environment for growth and opportunity, while persistent gaps between openings and hires can indicate structural frictions—such as skill mismatches, geographic dispersion, or regulatory barriers—that prevent the market from operating at full efficiency. Proponents of reforms that reduce the cost of hiring, expand training, and improve mobility argue that improving the efficiency of labor markets will help close those gaps and foster faster, more sustainable wage growth without runaway inflation. See labor market dynamics and training programs as complementary elements in this framework.

Interpretation and use in policy

When openings run high relative to hires, employers face competition for workers, which can push wages upward and encourage investment in productivity-enhancing technologies.
Elevated quits rates can indicate worker confidence in the availability of better opportunities and can reflect a more fluid labor market.
A rising separations rate, especially if driven by layoffs and discharges, can signal weakening demand and a cooling economy.
Analysts often compare JOLTS data with other indicators, such as the unemployment rate, gross domestic product growth, and inflation metrics, to gauge the balance between labor demand and supply and to assess the risk of overheating or underutilization of resources.

From a policy standpoint, the right-leaning view tends to emphasize that a flexible, dynamic labor market—with strong openings, rising hires, and mobility—creates opportunities for workers to upgrade their positions and for firms to adjust to changing demand without excessive government intervention. In this view, regulatory relief, pro-growth tax policies, and targeted training programs are appropriate tools to strengthen the efficiency of the labor market, help workers move into higher-value roles, and keep inflation in check by supporting productive investment. See also economic policy and workforce development.

Controversies and debates

Like any macro data series, JOLTS is subject to interpretation and debate. Supporters argue that the data reliably signal the state of demand for labor and the ease with which workers can switch jobs, offering timelier insight than some longer-run indicators. Critics, particularly those who favor more interventionist approaches, contend that JOLTS can overstate the health of the labor market if openings are concentrated in low-productivity sectors, or if geographic imbalances mask underlying weakness in certain communities.

From a right-leaning perspective, a common contention is that JOLTS should be read as evidence of a healthy, adaptable economy rather than as a justification for expansive labor protections that raise the cost of hiring. Proponents argue that a dynamic market with plentiful openings and rising mobility fosters opportunity and wage growth, while opponents claim that structural barriers continue to limit some workers’ access to these opportunities. In this debate, critics who emphasize inequality or who push for aggressive redistribution sometimes rely on softer interpretations of the data or focus on specific demographic subgroups to argue for policy resets. The rebuttal from a market-oriented stance is that robust data signals should guide reforms that lower the cost of hiring, expand training, and enable workers to reallocate skills quickly, rather than reorienting the data to fit a particular political narrative. See discussions of labor market inequality and policy evaluation as related topics.

A subset of the controversy surrounds how to treat demographic differences in JOLTS outcomes. For example, some observers note variations in openings, hires, and separations across regions and among different groups, including different racial groups and income levels. While it is legitimate to study these patterns, the market-based position emphasizes that the overall signals of labor demand and mobility drive broad economic outcomes and that targeted training and geographic mobility policies are the most effective way to address disparities. In this context, debates about how to interpret data through a social-justice lens are common, but proponents argue that focusing on flexible labor markets and skill development yields real growth and opportunity for workers across communities, including both white and black workers, as well as other groups.

Trends and implications

In periods of economic expansion, openings generally rise as demand for labor grows, with hires kept pace and quits often increasing as workers seek better opportunities.
During recessions or downturns, openings tend to decline, hiring slows, and separations—particularly layoffs and discharges—rise, reflecting weaker demand for labor.
The balance between openings and hires, and the rate of quits, can vary by industry and by region, illustrating the importance of policy settings that support mobility and skills training where demand is strongest.