True claim: “The labor market’s recovery since the trough is better than in the last two recessions.”
Posted on 09/13/2010 8:16:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Is it possible that Charles Dickens was trying to reconcile two seemingly conflicting charts of the labor market when he penned that famous line?
We’re all reminded, month after tedious month, that this is the mother of all jobless recoveries. One of the charts I (Invictus) have seen used most widely appears every month over at the most excellent Calculated Risk website (first chart in post at link). I get sick just looking at it. Bill’s chart is, of course, accurate (sickening though it may be). Other such charts and graphs have proliferated, most discuss job losses since the onset of recession in December 2007, or something to that effect. David Rosenberg has frequently mentioned the hideousness of the job market “xx months since recession’s start.” And he, too, is correct. (Aside: Can’t wait to see who still refers to me as BR in the comments.)
Here’s how one media report put it:
"By almost every measure, the economy has been expanding at a healthy pace for six months. But the nation’s employers remain stubbornly reluctant to add jobs in the United States. [...] Another [reason for lack of hiring] is rising productivity, squeezing more work from existing staff and other efficiencies. [...] Despite strong economic growth since last summer, the current recovery started out very slowly and that helps to explain the lack of hiring."
That report, from the NY Times, is dated March 6, 2004, fully three years from the onset of the 2001 recession. And there’s this post’s “the more things change” reference.
If the economy is in recovery — a new cycle – for the the past 13 (or so) months — “technical” or not — should we perhaps be looking at the employment situation relative to the trough now, and not to the last peak?
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Step away from the bong.
Second chart:
Third chart
Seventh chart:
Attempted election scam alert. There will probably be a Federally Funded study every day to back Democrat talking point lies. They have been funding studies for two years to get ready for the election.
The comments are a lot more interesting than the article, which ends with:
“If I were going to make a political point, I’d probably be inclined to say that, given the shallow nature of the 2001 recession, the Bush administration’s record in its aftermath was woeful. But let’s not go there.”
Ah yes, the old selective timeframe ploy. He giggles with glee over the post-trough three-decimal-point improvement from 0.994 to 1.002 being better than a further decline to 0.991, hoping we ignore the ten-fold-greater difference in the initial drop.
And I see he doesn’t mention the absolutely unprecedented numbers of people falling off the back end of the charts after their benefits run out, or the percentage of unemployed people who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. Bueller?
In a coordinated effort to drive the economy down and embarrass Obama,
scurrilous businessmen, most of whom supported Obama in his campaign
to be president, are ignoring demand for their products, causing them to
lose business and money, by purposely not hiring employees they need.
bump
Puhleese, not another BI post. These BI pricks are like the Financial Vanity Fair, only worse. Joe Weisenthal is the bottom feeder for BI.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.