CHART OF THE DAY: The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever Is Now Scarier Than Ever

Business Insider ^ | July 8, 2011 | Joe Weisenthal

[Zakeet]

This one was obvious.

After that miserable jobs report, the pace of the recovery looks as horrible as ever.

This chart measures the percentage of jobs lost during various recessions, and the pace of recovery. As you can see, this recession saw WAY more aggressive job cutting than in the past, and the recovery has been anemic.

[Snip]

[This chart] shows the average duration of unemployment, and it's skyrocketing without any hint of slowing down.

[Zakeet]

Obamanomics works!

[Jeff Winston]

From the chart, it’s looking like maybe another 3 to 5 years.

[Yo-Yo]

I'd like to see this chart updated for 2011:

[Paladin2]

Note that the last three recessions have a much broader shape.

Some structural changes must account for that, but I have no idea what they are except possibly for bigger, heavier gov't boot on the throat of the private sector and a much larger public sector.

[Yo-Yo]

Nevermind, I think I found it:

[Gen.Blather]

An engineer friend who came to this country as a refuge in the late sixties told me; “The economy was on fire. I had three job offers in a week. This was truly the land of opportunity. Now, you can clearly see how the government has killed the economy. They’ve regulated and sued and taxed until businesses have run overseas to escape.”

[JPG]

Richard 'Dick' Obama.

Dicktator extraordinaire.

[Big Horn]

I do not see any chance for improvement till the leadership is replaced.

[Jerrybob]

>I do not see any chance for improvement till the leadership is replaced.<

Good jobs in this country are GONE, folks; and it's not all Bambi's fault -- although he is certainly in line for a very healthy dose of the blame.

This country is becoming Somalia so fast.....

[GOP_Party_Animal]

That's the infamous "bikini graph" that Rachel Maddow was so (creepily) excited about. She insisted that it was proof of Obama's skill at creating jobs. Of course, she left out the remainder of the Bush years when the economy was strong and jobs were plentiful.

I wonder what her take is on it now.

[gusopol3]

The Nobel prize in economics was awarded to Diamond for at least partly explaining this ( the same economist that Shelby blocked from becoming a Federal Reserve governor because Shelby said he didn’t know anything about monetary policy and this was no time for on the job training). The more generous unemployment benefits are, the slower the return to employment; sounds like common sensew. Obviously, that’s in the aggregate and not intended as a slam aginst anyone and out of work Freepers in particular.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2010/press.html

“The Laureates’ models help us understand the ways in which unemployment, job vacancies, and wages are affected by regulation and economic policy. This may refer to benefit levels in unemployment insurance or rules in regard to hiring and firing. One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.”

[BobL]

Yea, that’s my first thought on the unemployment weeks...if you keep paying people not to work, their willingness to work will lessen. The basic question that they ask themselves is this: If I ‘make’ $12 an hour by not working, why should I take this job for $10 an hour...and I’ll only take that $15 an hour job if I REALLY need the money, since I will net only $3 an hour over not working.

(and all that assumes no under-the-table work too)

[BobL]

Also not where “The Worst Economy in the Last 50 Years” stands. That one is the 1990 recession, which is the black line.

For those who don’t remember (or are too young), Clinton used that phrase in 1992 to throw Bush-41 out of office. It was a lie, of course (as seen on the chart), but the media had no interest in getting to the truth.

[TomGuy]

Yea, that’s my first thought on the unemployment weeks...if you keep paying people not to work, their willingness to work will lessen.

Looks good on paper, but unless you have been unemployed during a major recession, you don't understand. When there are NO jobs, there are NO jobs -- not at $10/hour, not at $8/hour.

Any $6/hr jobs hardly pay the basic living expenses, plus one is competing against young people for jobs that usually requiring little experience or qualifications. That is, one is usually over-qualified and employers will only hire such people if the employer is in extreme need of employees.

I recall in the mid-80s recession, one couldn't buy a job a McDonalds. I recall in the early-90s recession sending out resumes and filling out applications for over 400 jobs and getting only 10 interviews. For the job I accepted (first and only offer during that time), I took a 40% cut in pay from my previous job. That was a signficant reduction.

That 90s recession hit engineers, computer programmers, etc. I remember setting in the required initial unemployment meeting with 27 other engineers and computer people and 2 clerical/secreterial people. That was just one hour at one of eight local employment offices. In that metroplex, about 8,500 comparably skilled engineers and computer people PER WEEK were becoming unemployed and competing against each other for any available jobs.

It is easy to say "get a job" if you are employed. During major recessions, getting them is just not always that easy. Many factors -- age, location, qualifications (over or under), etc. -- impact hiring.

[Freddd]

Notice how many times within a few meaningless sentences the words, ‘recovery’ or ‘pace of recovery’ are said.

Well, since there isn’t a recovery at all, it’s just propaganda to get people to believe there is some kind of recovery going on..

No, it’s not recovery going on, it’s the Obama wreckovery.

[savedbygrace]

I recall in the early-90s recession sending out resumes and filling out applications for over 400 jobs and getting only 10 interviews.

What are these 'interviews' you speak of?

For the most part, I complete on-line job apps, then never hear back from anybody, ever.

[catnipman]

This chart starkly illustrates that the economic policies promulgated by the Democrat/Marxist/Progressive/Socialist/Obammunist ideologists are working quite well for them, promoting their stated and desired goal of “shared sacrifice” for we, their subjects, rather than shared prosperity. For those who actually live on that lower graph line, however, their job-killing policies are an abject failure and cause for soul-destroying misery.

[BobL]

“It is easy to say “get a job” if you are employed. During major recessions, getting them is just not always that easy. Many factors — age, location, qualifications (over or under), etc. — impact hiring.”

Agree...but there is still that correlation that shows people have a tendency to ‘find’ jobs very quickly after ‘the money runs out’ (I think 5 weeks). It’s hard to explain any way other than what I posted.

[catnipman]

“I do not see any chance for improvement till the leadership is replaced.”

Indeed. No one in their right mind is going to invest in U.S. economic growth as long as Marxists are in charge of the economy.

It makes no sense to take additional risks to try to increase profits if those profits are going to be stolen by Obama and “redistributed”, whether such redistribution occurs via Obamacare, increased taxes, increased regulation, deliberately increased increasing energy prices, deliberate destruction of the currency via insane inflationary policies, or deliberate destruction of the Constitution by ignoring it.

That’s the real reason our economy is in the crapper, and everyone is “Going Galt” in every which way they can figure out how to until things change.

U.S. economic growth will explode as soon as Obama is gone and his successor abolishes all of the job-killing programs, Obamacare, uncertainty, taxes, and regulations he promulgated.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Clue us in.

what is that chart? I just see dates and numbers which means nothing.