Datastream

One Year In: How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World

Published

2 years ago

March 11, 2021

Avery Koop

How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World

Can I share this graphic?
Yes. Visualizations are free to share and post in their original form across the web—even for publishers. Please link back to this page and attribute Visual Capitalist.

When do I need a license?
Licenses are required for some commercial uses, translations, or layout modifications. You can even whitelabel our visualizations. Explore your options.

Interested in this piece?
Click here to license this visualization.

The Briefing

The global pandemic had a significant impact on average working hours across the globe
In 2020, 8.8% of global working hours were lost compared to Q4’2019
The amount of working hours lost in 2020 is equal to 255 million full-time jobs

How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World

One year in, the global pandemic has impacted employment and changed the nature of work in a multitude of ways.

As job loss rose across the globe, many countries introduced job retention schemes to steady unemployment rates. At the same time, working hours for many who held on to their jobs were reduced.

To put it in perspective, COVID-19’s negative impact on working hours globally has been around 4x more than that caused by the Global Financial Crisis in 2009.

Working Hard or Hardly Working?

As of January 2021, an estimated 93% of the world’s workforce lives in a country with some type of workplace closure restrictions still in place.

While profits were slashed across many industries, a majority of companies actually avoided firing people. However, 64% of firms either reduced wages, hours, or furloughed workers temporarily.

Compared to Q4’2019, total global working hours were reduced 8.8% in 2020. This is equivalent to approximately 255 million jobs.

Here’s a look at the working hour losses in a number of different countries.

Country	2020 Work Hour Losses Compared to Q4'2019
Peru	27.5%
Honduras	24.3%
Panama	23.5%
Argentina	21.0%
Colombia	20.9%
Bolivia	20.5%
El Salvador	19.4%
Ecuador	17.6%
Costa Rica	17.5%
Nepal	17.4%
Armenia	16.8%
Chile	16.7%
Guatemala	16.4%
Kuwait	16.4%
Dominican Republic	15.5%
Brazil	14.9%
Bahamas	14.8%
Eritrea	14.7%
Turkey	14.7%
Cyprus	14.6%
Azerbaijan	14.1%
Morocco	14.1%
North Macedonia	13.8%
India	13.7%
Venezuela	13.7%
Philippines	13.6%
South Africa	13.6%
Italy	13.5%
Myanmar	13.4%
Portugal	13.4%
Cape Verde	13.3%
Spain	13.2%
Georgia	13.1%
Oman	13.1%
United States Virgin Islands	13.0%
Moldova	12.9%
Slovakia	12.8%
United Kingdom	12.8%
Greece	12.6%
Cuba	12.5%
Guyana	12.5%
Ireland	12.5%
Mexico	12.5%
Bangladesh	12.2%
Uganda	12.2%
Bhutan	11.9%
Suriname	11.8%
Kyrgyzstan	11.7%
Algeria	11.6%
Kazakhstan	11.5%
Maldives	11.4%
Paraguay	11.4%
Jamaica	11.3%
Trinidad and Tobago	11.3%
Uruguay	11.2%
Belize	11.1%
Malaysia	11.1%
Iraq	10.8%
Malta	10.6%
Austria	10.5%
Barbados	10.4%
Jordan	10.4%
Lebanon	10.3%
Eswatini	9.9%
Sri Lanka	9.9%
Saint Lucia	9.8%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	9.7%
Guam	9.6%
Egypt	9.5%
Ethiopia	9.5%
Kenya	9.5%
Qatar	9.5%
Rwanda	9.4%
Canada	9.3%
Congo	9.3%
Libya	9.3%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	9.3%
United Arab Emirates	9.3%
Israel	9.2%
Pakistan	9.2%
United States	9.2%
Sudan	9.1%
Zimbabwe	9.1%
Bahrain	9.0%
Liberia	9.0%
Guinea-Bissau	8.9%
Nigeria	8.9%
Sao Tome and Principe	8.9%
Romania	8.8%
Ukraine	8.8%
South Sudan	8.7%
Angola	8.6%
Hong Kong	8.6%
Puerto Rico	8.6%
Equatorial Guinea	8.5%
Russia	8.5%
Uzbekistan	8.5%
Chad	8.4%
France	8.4%
Gabon	8.3%
Saudi Arabia	8.3%
Indonesia	8.2%
Western Sahara	8.2%
Slovenia	8.0%
Montenegro	7.8%
Singapore	7.8%
Syria	7.8%
Gambia	7.7%
Guinea	7.6%
Haiti	7.6%
Serbia	7.5%
Lesotho	7.4%
Tonga	7.4%
Belgium	7.3%
Comoros	7.1%
Madagascar	6.9%
Djibouti	6.8%
Mauritius	6.7%
Democratic Republic of the Congo	6.6%
Afghanistan	6.5%
Botswana	6.4%
Fiji	6.3%
Germany	6.3%
Iceland	6.3%
Senegal	6.3%
Lithuania	6.1%
Bulgaria	6.0%
Tunisia	6.0%
Channel Islands	5.9%
Iran	5.9%
Namibia	5.9%
French Polynesia	5.7%
Croatia	5.5%
Japan	5.4%
Mauritania	5.3%
Vanuatu	5.3%
Hungary	5.2%
Mozambique	5.2%
Sweden	5.2%
Vietnam	5.2%
Malawi	5.1%
Central African Republic	5.0%
Togo	4.9%
Cambodia	4.8%
Samoa	4.8%
Australia	4.7%
Ghana	4.7%
Estonia	4.5%
Thailand	4.5%
Brunei Darussalam	4.4%
North Korea	4.4%
Czech Republic	4.3%
Laos	4.3%
Netherlands	4.3%
Cameroon	4.2%
Côte d'Ivoire	4.2%
China	4.1%
Albania	3.9%
Taiwan	3.9%
Sierra Leone	3.8%
Switzerland	3.8%
Turkmenistan	3.8%
South Korea	3.7%
Luxembourg	3.7%
Nicaragua	3.7%
New Caledonia	3.5%
Poland	3.5%
Denmark	3.3%
Latvia	3.3%
Mali	3.3%
Benin	3.2%
Tajikistan	3.2%
Timor-Leste	2.7%
Burkina Faso	2.6%
Zambia	2.6%
Mongolia	2.5%
Norway	2.5%
Somalia	2.5%
Macau	1.9%
Papua New Guinea	1.8%
Solomon Islands	1.8%
Tanzania	1.8%
Belarus	1.3%
Finland	1.3%
Yemen	1.3%
Niger	1.1%
New Zealand	0.8%
Burundi	-0.1%

The loss of working hours has impacted Southern Europe, South Asia, the Americas, and the Caribbean most significantly. Not surprisingly, these regions are all heavily reliant on tourism and hospitality to fuel their economies.

Job Losses and the Future of Work

Working hour losses, however, do not just come from reductions in hours. The ILO approximates that the blame for working hour losses can be shared equally, with around half due to job losses and half due to a reduction in working hours.

Worldwide employment losses in 2020 were equal to 114 million jobs.

However, a large number of people have notably been deemed ‘inactive,’ rather than unemployed, reducing the global labor force participation rate overall.

ℹ️ Economic inactivity describes a situation wherein a person is either unable to work or is not actively seeking employment.

Although a rebound in working hours and jobs is expected in 2021, the pandemic’s effects on how we work, and the kinds jobs that are available will have a deeper long-term effect on the global labor force participation.

» Want to learn more? Check out our COVID-19 information hub to help put the past year into perspective

Where does this data come from?

Source: ILO
Details: The source defines workers as individuals aged 15-64. Full time jobs are defined using a 40 hour or 48 hour work week depending on the country. Additionally, the ILO used a multitude of national data sources on unemployment, furlough schemes, etc. to calculate working hour losses. Their methodology can be explored further here.

Up Next

One Year In: Air Travel Plummeted During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Don't Miss

One Year In: Data Usage Surged During Pandemic

Click for Comments

Economy

Charted: Public Trust in the Federal Reserve

Public trust in the Federal Reserve chair has hit its lowest point in 20 years. Get the details in this infographic.

Published

6 days ago

May 23, 2023

Marcus Lu

The Briefing

Gallup conducts an annual poll to gauge the U.S. public’s trust in the Federal Reserve
After rising during the COVID-19 pandemic, public trust has fallen to a 20-year low

Charted: Public Trust in the Federal Reserve

Each year, Gallup conducts a survey of American adults on various economic topics, including the country’s central bank, the Federal Reserve.

More specifically, respondents are asked how much confidence they have in the current Fed chairman to do or recommend the right thing for the U.S. economy. We’ve visualized these results from 2001 to 2023 to see how confidence levels have changed over time.

Methodology and Results

The data used in this infographic is also listed in the table below. Percentages reflect the share of respondents that have either a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence.

Year	Fed chair	% Great deal or Fair amount
2023	Jerome Powell	36%
2022	Jerome Powell	43%
2021	Jerome Powell	55%
2020	Jerome Powell	58%
2019	Jerome Powell	50%
2018	Jerome Powell	45%
2017	Janet Yellen	45%
2016	Janet Yellen	38%
2015	Janet Yellen	42%
2014	Janet Yellen	37%
2013	Ben Bernanke	42%
2012	Ben Bernanke	39%
2011	Ben Bernanke	41%
2010	Ben Bernanke	44%
2009	Ben Bernanke	49%
2008	Ben Bernanke	47%
2007	Ben Bernanke	50%
2006	Ben Bernanke	41%
2005	Alan Greenspan	56%
2004	Alan Greenspan	61%
2003	Alan Greenspan	65%
2002	Alan Greenspan	69%
2001	Alan Greenspan	74%

Data for 2023 collected April 3-25, with this statement put to respondents: “Please tell me how much confidence you have [in the Fed chair] to recommend the right thing for the economy.”

We can see that trust in the Federal Reserve has fluctuated significantly in recent years.

For example, under Alan Greenspan, trust was initially high due to the relative stability of the economy. The burst of the dotcom bubble—which some attribute to Greenspan’s easy credit policies—resulted in a sharp decline.

On the flip side, public confidence spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was likely due to Jerome Powell’s decisive actions to provide support to the U.S. economy throughout the crisis.

Measures implemented by the Fed include bringing interest rates to near zero, quantitative easing (buying government bonds with newly-printed money), and emergency lending programs to businesses.

Confidence Now on the Decline

After peaking at 58%, those with a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the Fed chair have tumbled to 36%, the lowest number in 20 years.

This is likely due to Powell’s hard stance on fighting post-pandemic inflation, which has involved raising interest rates at an incredible speed. While these rate hikes may be necessary, they also have many adverse effects:

Negative impact on the stock market
Increases the burden for those with variable-rate debts
Makes mortgages and home buying less affordable

Higher rates have also prompted many U.S. tech companies to shrink their workforces, and have been a factor in the regional banking crisis, including the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.

Where does this data come from?

Source: Gallup (2023)

Data Notes: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted April 3-25, 2023, with a random sample of –1,013—adults, ages 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on this sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. See source for details.