A First Look at Australian Unemployment Rates

A New Methodology for Analyzing Unemployment Stats

Courtesy images: http://www.travelnotes.org/Oceania/images/australia_regions.gif http://www.sydney-australia.biz/western-australia/graphics/western-australia-kangaroo-beach.jpg http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/02/26/1226282/095447-australia-politics-gillard.jpg

Page 1 of 21

Table of Contents
No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Topic Abstract Brief Introduction to Analysis Unemployment Diagrams Unemployment rate of 6% in 2013: Implications Summary and Conclusions Appendix 1: Compilation of some news items Page No. 3 4 9 15 17 18

Page 2 of 21

 1. Abstract
There has been a significant improvement in the Australian economy, especially the unemployment situation (which is the focus here), between 2011 and 2012, as revealed by an analysis of the unemployment data, using a new methodology, as described here. Instead of the exclusive focus on the unemployment rate y/x, the focus here is on the nature of the underlying x-y relation where x is the labor force and y the number of unemployed. As with the earlier analysis for the USA (for the period 1941-2012), a simple linear law y = hx + c relates the two variables of interest. As the labor force x increases (or decreases), the unemployment levels y will also increase or decrease, following this simple linear law. However, the unemployment rate y/x = h + (c/x) can either increase or decrease depending on the numerical values of the constants h and c (which can be either positive or negative). The significant improvement in the Australian unemployment situation, between 2011 and 2012, can be appreciated by the fact that h > 1 in 2011 but has now decreased to h 0.20 in 2012. The number of unemployed y is, therefore, growing at a lower rate in 2012, compared to 2011, with increase in the labor force. NOTE: More than 100 hits had been recorded after posting, in the first hour or so, prompting this clarification. I found an unfortunate numerical error in the PREVIOUS version, in Table 1. I had converted unemployed to millions and added this to the employed before converting it also to millions. This affects the labor force values. All graphs and Table 1 have been updated in this revision. The slope calculations were obviously affected by the numerical error and have also been fixed. Sorry, folks. I have been much too busy with several of these articles and, sometimes, mistakes are made. This is the first one that I discovered after posting. It was bugging me why I got 5.4% for unemployment rate for June 2012 instead of 5.2% (news media, or 5.1% as quoted on the ABS website).
Page 3 of 21

 2. Brief Introduction to Analysis

Australias unemployment rate rose to 5.2% according to the most recent monthly data for June 2012, see http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0/ . Some economists have already warned that the unemployment rate could exceed 6% in 2013 (see links to news items complied at the end of this article). Retiring baby boomers and youth who choose to stay in school longer are masking the more grim unemployment outlook. The unemployment rate is the ratio y/x, converted to a percentage, where the numerator y is the number of unemployed workers and the denominator x is the total labor force, the sum of the employed plus the unemployed. The data is obtained from various surveys, conducted monthly, and then extrapolated to the larger population, see website of Australian Bureau of Statistics, link given above for the June news release. The monthly data, from January 2011 to June 2012 has been compiled in Table 1 and will be analyzed here briefly. Notice that the labor force x has increased between Jan 2011 and June 2012, see Figure 1. The unemployment rate, y/x, on the other hand has been going up and down and revealed a pronounced peak, as seen in Figure 2. An expanded scale is used in both figures to reveal these trends. As discussed in two recent articles (see links below) which discuss the high US unemployment rate during the Obama years and how it compares with other periods of high US unemployment rates (from 1941-2011), the focus has always been on the ratio y/x. The relation between the labor force x and the number of unemployed y has generally not been investigated and tells a very different story. 1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99647215/The-US-Unemployment-Rate-Whathappened-in-the-Obama-years Published July 10, 2012. 2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99857981/The-Highest-US-UnemploymentRates-Obama-years-compared-with-historic-highs-in-Unemployment-levels Published July 12, 2012.

Page 4 of 21

12.160 12.140 12.120 12.100 12.080 12.060 12.040 12.020

Labor force, x [millions]

Oct 11

12

15

18

21

Time t [months]
650

Oct 11
640

Unemployed, y [in 000s]

630 620

610
600 590 580 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Time t [months]
Page 5 of 21

5.4

Unemployment rate, y/x [percent]

Oct 11
5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.8

4.7
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Time t [months]
Figure 1 (Top): Australian labor force x plotted as a function time t expressed in months, with Jan 2011 being taken as month number 1. More than one value can be obtained for any given month because of revisions being made for prior month. Some of these are included here in this plot (vertical line at same month number). Figure 2 (Middle): Australian unemployment level y, plotted as a function time t expressed in months. The Oct 2011 peak in the unemployed y coincides with a local maximum in the labor force x. Figure 3 (Bottom): Australian unemployment rate plotted as a function time t expressed in months. The maximum in the unemployed y in Oct 11 coincides with the maximum in the unemployment rate, also observed in October 2011.

Page 6 of 21

For example, for the USA, the study of all of the historical data reveals a simple linear relation, y = hx + c = h(x x0), between the labor force x and the unemployed y. The numerical values of the constants h and c in this law can be fixed by considering the data for different periods. Interestingly, this also fixes the cut-off labor force, x0 = - c/h, below which the number of unemployed y = 0. For the USA, we find that there were three periods when the unemployment level y was its highest for that era: in 1941, in 1982 and 1983, and now in 2009-2011. These highest ever recorded unemployment levels can be shown to fall on a PERFECT straight line, with the equation y = 0.0946x + 0.2731, thus revealing a unique relation between the labor force x and the unemployed y, see Figure 4 in Ref. [2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/99857981/The-Highest-US-UnemploymentRates-Obama-years-compared-with-historic-highs-in-Unemployment-levels. The slope h = 0.0946 is therefore akin to a universal constant of nature, or at the very least a unique property of the US economy. All of the US unemployment data can thus be explained by merely postulating a change in values of the constant c. A series of parallels with the general equation y = 0.0946x + c, with various values of c sweep through the data. The unemployment level (y) falls when c decreases and rises when c increases. When the constant c decreases, the cut-off labor force x0 = - c/h increases and more will be employed. The constant c is just like the work function W introduced by Einstein in 1905 to explain certain puzzling aspects of the photoelectric effect (which engaged the attention of physicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) and x0 is just like the cut-off frequency f0. The photoelectric law can be written as K = E W = hf W = h(f f0). This is exactly analogous to the linear y = hx + c = h(x x0). The reader is referred to the article cited above for more details. Are these findings, unique to the United States, or will we see exactly similar trends in other technologically advanced economies, such as Australia, UK, Japan, Germany, and other European economies? However, the observations just made regarding the USA suggest that we must look for unique points in the historical unemployment data for the highest unemployment levels, or may be even the lowest unemployment levels. The constants h and c have unique values for a given economic system and this property is only revealed under these special conditions.

Page 7 of 21

Table 1: Monthly Australian unemployment data

Month Labor force, Unemployed, y Unemployment No. x (millions) (millions) rate %, 100(y/x) 1 12.0325 0.6079 5.052 Jan-11 2 12.04 0.6001 4.984 Feb-11 2 12.0478 0.6041 5.014 Feb-11 3 12.0432 0.5947 4.938 Mar-11 3 12.0329 0.5917 4.917 Mar-11 4 12.0318 0.5857 4.868 Apr-11 5 12.0332 0.5895 4.899 May-11 6 12.0366 0.5891 4.894 Jun-11 7 12.0519 0.6123 5.081 Jul-11 8 12.0602 0.6203 5.143 Aug-11 9 12.0808 0.6333 5.242 Sep-11 10 12.0928 0.6395 5.288 Oct-11 11 12.0763 0.634 5.250 Nov-11 12 12.0743 0.6342 5.252 Dec-11 13 12.0704 0.6268 5.193 Jan-12 14 12.0696 0.625 5.178 Feb-12 15 12.0912 0.6176 5.108 Mar-12 16 12.0984 0.6142 5.077 Apr-12 16 12.1188 0.618 5.100 Apr-12 17 12.1287 0.6217 5.126 May-12 17 12.1328 0.6158 5.075 May-12 18 12.1404 0.6228 5.130 Jun-12 More than one (x, y) values are obtained for a month due to revisions being made to the tables. Some of these are included here. Are these findings, unique to the United States, or will we see exactly similar trends in other technologically advanced economies, such as Australia, UK, Japan, Germany, and other European economies? However, the observations just made regarding the USA suggest that we must look for unique points in the historical unemployment data for the highest unemployment levels, or may be even the lowest unemployment levels. The constants h and c have unique values for a given economic system and this property is only revealed under these special conditions. Month

Page 8 of 21

 3. Unemployment Diagrams
Nonetheless, a preliminary analysis of the monthly data starting January 2011 is presented here to show that new insights can be gained by careful study of the x-y unemployment diagrams, instead of only focusing on the unemployment rate, y/x.

0.66

Unemployed, y [millions]

y = 1.044x 11.98 = 1.044 (x 11.47)

0.64

0.62

0.60

y = 0.205x 1.863 = 0.205 (x 9.099)

0.58

0.56 12.00

12.04

12.08

12.12

12.16

12.20

Labor force, x [millions]

Figure 4: The x-y unemployment diagram for Australia based on the monthly data, for the period January 2011 to June 2012. In the unemployment diagram of Figure 4, the monthly data separates itself clearly into two periods with the most of the data for 2011 falling along the line with the steeper slope (h = 1.044). The procedure used to determine these slopes will be discussed shortly. The lowest unemployment level (0.5857 million) was in April 2011 and the highest (0.6395 million) in Oct 2011. The unemployment levels were dropping between Dec 2011 and March 2012 and then started climbing again, see
Page 9 of 21

Figure 5 which highlights this most recent trend separately, without distraction from the 2011 data.

0.630

Unemployed, y [millions]

0.625

May 2012
0.620

Mar 2012 May 2012

0.615

Apr 2012

0.610

y = 0.205x 1.863 = 0.205 (x 9.099)

0.605 12.06

12.08

12.10

12.12

12.14

12.16

Labor force, x [millions]

Figure 5: The x-y unemployment diagram for Australia, based on monthly data, for the period Jan 2012 to June 2012. Between April 2012 and June 2012, the labor force increased from 12.0984 million to 12.1404 million (x = 0.042) and the unemployed increased from 0.6142 million to 0.6228 million (y = 0.0086). Hence the slope h = y/x = 0.205 and the equation of the straight line joining these two points is y = 0.205x 1.863. This reveals the most recent trend nicely. The two (x, y) pairs for April 2012 and May 2012 obtained from ABS website (revisions made from month-to-month releases) are both plotted here. The Jan and Feb data, with the two lowest labor force values, fall well above the operating line shown here. The unemployment level decreased between Jan 2012 and March 2012 and then started increasing again.

Page 10 of 21

The steep slope h = 1.044 in Figure 4 and the corresponding intercept c = -11.97 were determined using a straightforward linear regression analysis, considering 13 (x, y) pairs between Jan 2011 and Feb 2012 (the data for Jan 2011, Sep 2011 and Oct 2011 were excluded). These 13 (x, y) pairs can be seen to lie approximately on a straight line. The slope h and intercept c for the best-fit line are readily determined. The linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.981 is very high. Other values of h and c can obviously be determined by choosing other (x, y) pairs. For example, consider the Jan 2011 and Oct 2011 data. The labor force increased by x = 0.0287 million and the number of unemployed increased by y = 0.0316 million. Hence, the slope h = y/x = 0.0315/0.0287 = 1.0998 > 1 since the rate of increase of unemployed exceeded the rate of increase in the labor force. The slope h = 1.044, determined from 13 (x, y) pairs from this period, confirms this general trend. Other values suggesting h > 1 in 2011 can also be determined. Nonetheless, the finding h > 1 during 2011 is quite significant and highlights the recent improvement, with h = 0.205 < 1, see Figure 5. In the recent months, the unemployment rate has again been increasing with the increase in the labor force but the number of unemployed y is now increasing at a lower rate. For example, between March 2011 and June 2012, the labor force increased by x = 0.1075 but the number of unemployed increased only by y = 0.0311 and h = 0.289. Between May 2012 and June 2012, x = 0.0076 and y = 0.007 which yields h = y/x = 0.007/0.0076 = 0.921 (the higher slope) which is lower than 1. For these same two months we also get, h = 0.094, which is significantly lower than 1, if we use the higher unemployed for May 2012 (different values in successive ABS monthly reports). Nonetheless, the unemployed y has clearly been increasing at a much lower rate (with increase in labor force) in recent months compared to 2011. This general improvement in the economic conditions is, however, not revealed if we only focus on the unemployment rate, y/x. If so, why did the unemployment rate go up between say March 2012 and June 2012? Let us consider again by referring to both Figures 5 and the theoretical calculations in Figure 6. A nice upward linear trend is revealed in the x-y plot. Consider the months of April 2012 and June 2012. The straight line joining these two data points has the equation y = 0.205x 1.863 = 0.205(x 9.099). However, this graph
Page 11 of 21

does not pass through the origin (0, 0). The intercept c = -1.863 is nonzero which also means that there is a finite labor force x0 = - c/h = 1.863/0.205 = 9.099 million below which the number of unemployed will go to zero. More importantly, the non-zero intercept c means the unemployment rate, taken as the ratio y/x = 0.205 (1.863/x) is made up two parts: the constant part which equals the slope h = 0.205 and a variable part which depends on the size of the labor force x. Since c < 0, the unemployment rate y/x, as now being calculated, will keep on increasing as the labor force x increases, assuming no change in the current economic conditions.

Unemployment rate, y/x (fractional)

0.0525
0.0520 0.0515 0.0510 0.0505 0.0500 0.0495 0.0490 11.95

12.00

12.05

12.10

12.15

12.20

12.25

Labor force, x [millions]

Figure 6: Theoretical calculations for the unemployment rate y/x based on the linear law y = hx + c, for the most recent months, March 2012 to June 2012. For these months, y = 0.205x 1.863. Since the slope h is positive and the intercept c is negative, the ratio y/x will keep on increasing with increasing labor force x, as shown here. The graph appears linear since we are looking at small changes in labor force. The actual graph is a rising hyperbola with the maximum value of y/x = h = 0.205 (see also Figure 8).
Page 12 of 21

The theoretical predictions for y/x = h + (c/x) = 0.205 (1.863/x), based on the linear law y = 0.205x 1.863, are shown in Figure 6 with the data points for recent months superimposed on to this graph. The theoretical curve y/x = h + (c/x) is actually a rising hyperbola. It appears to be a straight line here because of the rather small range of labor force x values. The hyperbola is more apparent in Figure 8, to be discussed shortly, where we consider the effect of higher labor force x on the unemployment rate, y/x, specifically the 6% projected for 2013 by some economists who are already sounding alarm bells. Notice also that fractional values (rather than percentages) are used in the vertical axis for the unemployment rate, y/x. Thus, 5% unemployment rate means y/x = 0.05 and 5.2% means y/x = 0.052, and 6% means y/x = 0.06, and so on.

Table 1A (extract): Monthly Australian unemployment data

Month Labor force, Unemployed, y Unemployment No. x (millions) (millions) rate %, 100(y/x) 2 12.04 0.6001 4.984 Feb-11 2 12.0478 0.6041 5.014 Feb-11 3 12.0432 0.5947 4.938 Mar-11 4 12.0318 0.5857 4.868 Apr-11 Between Feb-11 and Apr-11, x = - 0.0082 and y = - 0.0144. Both changes are negative, yielding a positive slope h = y/x = 1.756 > 1. The labor force decreased but the unemployed decrease even more. Month

Table 1B (extract): Monthly Australian unemployment data

Month Labor force, Unemployed, y Unemployment No. x (millions) (millions) rate %, 100(y/x) 2 12.04 0.6001 4.984 Feb-11 3 12.0432 0.5947 4.938 Mar-11 4 12.0318 0.5857 4.868 Apr-11 6 12.0366 0.5891 4.894 Jun-11 7 12.0519 0.6123 5.081 Jul-11 Between Mar-11 and Jul-11, x = 0.0087 and y = 0.0176. Both changes are positive, yielding a positive slope h = y/x = 2.023 > 1. The labor force increased but the unemployed increased even more. Between Jun-11 and Jul-11, the labor force again increased x = 0.0153 and the unemployed also increased
Page 13 of 21

Month

y = 0.0232 and the slope h = y/x = 1.52 > 1. These points lie on the dashed line with a positive slope h > 1. Finally, we see an interesting pattern of back and forth movement along lines with a positive slope h > 1 if we consider a small section of the data for 2011, Figure 7. Between Feb 2011 and April 2011, the movement was down the line with a positive slope h > 1, see Table 1A. We see the unemployed level decreasing with decreasing labor force, but at a high rate with h > 1.

0.64 0.63

Unemployed, y [millions]

0.62 0.61 0.6 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 12.02 12.025 12.03 12.035 12.04 12.045 12.05 12.055 12.06

Labor force, x [millions]

Figure 7: Back and forth movement on the x-y unemployment diagram for Australia, based on monthly data, for the period Mar 2011 to Jul 2011. As discussed in the text, with reference to data extracts in Tables 1A and 1B, a positive slope h > 1 is observed with both increasing unemployed and decreasing unemployed. This local observation confirms the overall trend of h > 1 for 2011 deduced earlier by linear regression analysis by considering 13 (x, y) pairs.

Page 14 of 21

The slope h > 1 observed here suggests extremely stressful conditions for those who are seeking employment, with job losses (increasing unemployed) occurring after very short periods of job gains (decreasing unemployed). If the speculation here is true, this situation deserves more careful study by sociologists and those specializing in unemployment studies. Both employers and employees stand to gain when stable conditions prevail. Rapid fire job gains and losses are not desirable. It is obviously important to ensure a healthy economy.

4. Unemployment rate of 6% in 2013

As noted already, since the labor force x and the number of unemployed y are related by the linear law, y = hx +c, the unemployment rate y/x will vary as the labor force x following the hyperbolic law, y/x = h + (c/x). For h > 0 and c < 0, this is a rising hyperbola with y/x increasing to it maximum value of h when the labor force x becomes very large. The calculations presented in graphical form in Figure 8 are of interest since they reveal this theoretical hyperbolic curve, y/x = 0.205 (0.186/x) for the most recent Australian unemployment data. All of the monthly data points for 2012 are now clustered and collapse into what appears to be a single point on this hyperbola. This also means that if present economic conditions prevail (i.e., no changes in h and c), the projected increase in unemployment rate to 6% in 2013 implies that the labor force must increase to about 13 million from the current level of 12.15 million. This also means that the economy must be able to create additional jobs, since the labor force is the sum of both the employed and the unemployed. This is a subtle and very important, but overlooked, aspect of the projected increases in the unemployment rate to 6%. One cannot simply have unemployment increasing from 5.1% to 6% without a concomitant increase in both the labor force and the number of employed persons. The consequences of such a drastic increase in unemployment rate to 6% - without an increase in labor force or the number of employed persons are simply too horrendous to imagine!
Page 15 of 21

Unemployment rate, y/x (fractional)

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Labor force, x [millions]

Figure 8: The theoretical rising hyperbola for unemployment rate, deduced from y/x = h + (c/x) = 0.205 (1.863/x). For 6% unemployment rate, the labor force must increase to about 13 million. This also means the economy must be able to create additional jobs since labor force equals the sum of the employed and the unemployed.

Page 16 of 21

 5. Summary and Conclusions

In summary, it is clear now that the simple linear law y = hx + c = h(x x0) relates the labor force x and the unemployment level y. The numerical values of the constants h and c can be deduced from the monthly (or quarterly, or annual) data. However, as discussed earlier with the US unemployment data, it appears that considering all of the historical data for a country will yield some unique insights into the numerical values of the two constants and how the cut-off labor force x0 = - c/h changes as economic conditions change. As economists have warned, the current unemployment statistics masks the real problem the baby boomers who are retiring and the youth who have chosen to stay longer in school. Both these factors imply that the labor force x is now artificially low and will increase soon, may be in 2013. Hence, it is widely believed that the unemployment rate will increase.

A review of all of the available historical data for Australia, using the x-y unemployment diagrams, as suggested here, is therefore extremely important to fully understand a key aspect of the growing Australian economy. Perhaps, sound economic policies that promote an increase in the cut-off labor force (reduce unemployment) can be devised as we understand the implications of this universal law that has escaped attention to date.

Page 17 of 21

Appendix 1: Highlights of Recent News Items on Australian Unemployment Rates

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Unemployment-rate-set-to-climb-highereconomists-pd20120716-W9NTC?OpenDocument

Unemployment rate set to climb: economists

Published 4:36 AM, 17 Jul 2012 Last update 4:36 AM, 17 Jul 2012

QUICK SUMMARY | FULL STORY | ECONOMY A Macquarie senior economist has warned that Australia's unemployment rate could top six per cent in 2013, saying that the country's jobless rate is rising faster than official figures indicate, according to Fairfax Media. Macquarie's Brian Redican said that baby-boomer retirements and stay-at-school youth are masking the troubling outlook for employment.

Australian unemployment up to 5.2%

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hn0xh_FZaBgxbTnqfOEGSkPPsjw?docId=CNG.f5f076923056409682365dbb1aa2e343.231

(AFP) 6 days ago (as of today July 18, 2012) SYDNEY Australia's unemployment rate rose to 5.2 percent in June, data showed Thursday, with the economy shedding 27,000 jobs as global uncertainty and the strong Australian dollar weighed on employers. Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the numbers remained robust compared with other advanced economies. "By the standards of the world we continue to have a low unemployment rate," she told reporters. "When I sit at that G20 table and talk to my counterparts from around the world... they would literally do anything to have the same economic story and statistics as Australia."

Page 18 of 21

Australia Unemployment Rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate The unemployment rate in Australia was last reported at 5.2 percent in June of 2012. Historically, from 1978 until 2012, Australia Unemployment Rate averaged 7.0 Percent reaching an all time high of 10.9 Percent in December of 1992 and a record low of 4.0 Percent in February of 2008. The unemployment rate can be defined as the number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labour force. This page includes a chart with historical data for Australia Unemployment Rate.

Page 19 of 21

About the author V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.

The author obtained his Bachelors degree (B. E.) in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Poona and his Masters degree (M. E.), also in Mechanical Engineering, from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, followed by a Masters (S. M.) and Doctoral (Sc. D.) degrees in Materials Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. He then spent his entire professional career at leading US research institutions (MIT, Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, NASA, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), and General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, MI). He holds four patents in materials processing, has co-authored two books and published several scientific papers in leading peer-reviewed international journals. His expertise includes developing simple mathematical models to explain the behavior of complex systems. While at NASA and CWRU, he was responsible for developing material processing experiments to be performed aboard the space shuttle and developed a simple mathematical model to explain the growth Christmas-tree, or snowflake, like structures (called dendrites) widely observed in many types of liquid-to-solid phase transformations (e.g., freezing of all commercial metals and alloys, freezing of water, and, yes, production of snowflakes!). This led to a simple model to explain the growth of dendritic structures in both the ground-based experiments and in the space shuttle experiments. More recently, he has been interested in the analysis of the large volumes of data from financial and economic systems and has developed what may be called the Quantum Business Model (QBM). This extends (to financial and economic systems) the mathematical arguments used by Max Planck to develop quantum physics using the analogy Energy = Money, i.e., energy in physics is like money in economics. Einstein applied Plancks ideas to describe the photoelectric effect (by treating light as being composed of particles called photons, each with the fixed quantum of energy conceived by Planck). The mathematical law deduced by
Page 20 of 21

Planck, referred to here as the generalized power-exponential law, might actually have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first conceived. Einsteins photoelectric law is a simple linear law, as we see here, and was deduced from Plancks non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. It appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar approach. Finance, business, economics and management sciences now essentially seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and Newton.

Cover page of AirTran 2000 Annual Report

Page 21 of 21