As terrible as the job numbers are, they may be overestimated

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Even without this revision, recession was already the worst recession since the Great Depression for not only for the number of jobs lost, but also the percentage. In addition, the 3 longest periods to recover to no change in jobs (which still doesn't account for population growth) are the last 3, in that order. The worst was the last one, taking 4 years to get back up to no change. The other 3 years of the Bush administration before this current recession weren't particularly good either, so the job situation was already crappy before this current recession began.

Here is a graph that shows how the changes will make the jobs in this recession compare to the previous recessions since the Great Depression.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Excellent post!

Perhaps visualizations like the chart you presented will penetrate the thick skulls of those who are buying the 'happy talk' about the economy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here’s a little more information from don surber at the Daily Mail (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/855)

The stimulus backfired.

It undermined confidence in the economy.

And people are reacting.

Not only are companies cutting back on employees, but workers are throwing in the towel. Rather than look for another job, they are retiring or filing for a disability.

The Associated Press reported: “Applications for retirement benefits are 23 percent higher than last year, while disability claims have risen by about 20 percent. Social Security officials had expected applications to increase from the growing number of baby boomers reaching retirement, but they didn’t expect the increase to be so large.”

Geoff at Innocent Bystanders: noted that “Once again, the unemployment rate would have risen by a much larger amount if the civilian labor force hadn’t lost 570,000 people since last month. As we mentioned in previous posts, the labor force normally increases by ~ 150,000/month, so that’s a huge, very unusual, decrease. In fact, had the labor force size simply remained the same, the unemployment rate would have jumped to 10.2%.”

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here’s a little more information from don surber at the Daily Mail (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/855)

The stimulus backfired.

It undermined confidence in the economy.

And people are reacting.

Not only are companies cutting back on employees, but workers are throwing in the towel. Rather than look for another job, they are retiring or filing for a disability.

The Associated Press reported: “Applications for retirement benefits are 23 percent higher than last year, while disability claims have risen by about 20 percent. Social Security officials had expected applications to increase from the growing number of baby boomers reaching retirement, but they didn’t expect the increase to be so large.”

Geoff at Innocent Bystanders: noted that “Once again, the unemployment rate would have risen by a much larger amount if the civilian labor force hadn’t lost 570,000 people since last month. As we mentioned in previous posts, the labor force normally increases by ~ 150,000/month, so that’s a huge, very unusual, decrease. In fact, had the labor force size simply remained the same, the unemployment rate would have jumped to 10.2%.”

I don't think that you can blame the stimulus for the mess, but true, the stimulus was poorly targeted, too much pork, and too little of the spending that best stimulates the economy. Of course, there are infrastructural reasons why it's harder to stimulate than in the past. There just aren't manufacturing jobs in this country the way that there used to be.

That the unemployment rate would be higher if the labor pool had kept up with population growth is completely expected in a recession. Of course that 9.8% figure is completely misleading, with various people who want a job or who are massively underemployed not counted for various reasons. The U6's 17% certainly includes more people, and is closer to the methodology in place during the Great Depression. Our unemployment and their's aren't so radically different. The main reason why we are in better shape now than then has to with increased regulation of the economy. With no unemployment insurance, FDIC, and so on, this could have surpassed the Great Depression.