| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Debunking Nancy's Scary Graph
So I happened to come across this graph from Speaker Pelosi's website. It represents the aggregate job losses from the point at which employment started to decline ("the peak") for the past two recessions and for our current recession. At first glance it looks pretty scary - job losses going off the cliff. But a moment's thought reveals that this graph represents an invalid comparison, as our economy now is bigger than what it was in 1991, or even in 2001. So comparing total job losses makes no sense - losing 500,000 jobs is much worse if it is lost from an economy with a total employment of 50 million, as opposed to 150 million. Really what should be compared is the percentage of total employment from the peak.
So I dug through the BLS statistics and I came up with this graph. Still looks pretty scary, even compared on a percentage basis. But we all know already that this recession is worse than the previous two. How about comparing it to the 1981-82 and 1974-76 recessions? So when I did that, I got this graph.
Not quite so scary now, eh? In terms of job loss, our current recession is about as severe as the 1974-76 recession, and not even as bad as the 1981-82 recession. In fact if you look carefully at the data, by this point in the 1981-82 recession, jobs continued to be lost for 4 more months until things started to turn around. And at least according to one source, "most professional economic forecasters are now predicting a moderate recession that will last until the middle of 2009" - which is, coincidentally, about 4 months from now.
Bottom line: Nancy's scary graph notwithstanding, we aren't on the verge of disaster. Don't let the Democrats' fearmongering get to you.
- chemjeff's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
From a TIME blog: As always,
From a TIME blog:
six of one, half dozen of another
In terms of percentage changes, it is the worst since 1974-75. That is because in 1974-75, the percentage changes were steeper, but the recession overall was of shorter duration than ours. In 1981-82, the percentage change was about the same as what it is today, but the overall severity of the recession was worse. So, take your pick on how you want to compare it.
Either way, our current situation is comparable to these two recessions. It is by no means a catastrophe on the order of the Great Depression.
So, then I'm sure you agree with this TIME blog
so long as the reforms get made,
the money is available now, which means that it can be budgeted now, nto postponed.
I suspect the acid test will be in 2011
BHO's folks like to compare him to Reagan.
Let's see if they can create 1,100,000 new jobs in a month, like Reagan did in August 1983, and nearly 3,200,000 for a year (which was from a labor force a fraction of the 21st century US labor force) .
If the medicine does prove effective to making the economy healthy, not just arresting the decline; time for new physicians.
recessions and jobs
Well, something you notice when you examine the data from the past four recessions, is that once the recovery began, the rate of change of employment increases diminished with each successive recession. So in 1974-75, employment rose rather quickly; in 1981-82, not quite as quickly; in 1990-91, it was slower still; and in 2001-02, it actually took a long time before the employment returned to its pre-recession levels. I believe this is because of the ever-increasing regulatory burden on businesses over time, which makes it progressively harder for businesses to hire people. If the current trend continues, the it will actually be a while, probably well into 2011, before employment reaches anything near pre-recession levels.
Here is a graph.
Here is a graph.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
I don't know if it will show up with what I put in as I write this. But I put in from 1960 on.
You'll have to google: unemployment graph, and the second entry will get you there and put in 1960 on.
Looking at the long term trend in the 60's and 70's you had the "guns and butter" of LBJ. That created inflation and Nixon tried dealing with inflation with "wage and price controls" and failed, Ford dealt with inflation with "WIN buttons" and failed and then you had Paul Volcker put in high interest rates and beat inflation. So we had 20 years of inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
Since the 80's recession inflation, interest rates, and unemployment has been coming down. Now especially in the last 8 years, we have not had the investments to invest in our country in the future. We have had the failure of supply side economics, only to give us deficits and debt. We also have globalization and the middle class has been losing jobs for a number of years, along with with that, if they hold jobs then it is less pay, healthcare, and pensions.
I expect a very slow recovery as China and other countries take a bite out of our manufacturing. And we have done nothing for the future to make us compete in the world. Free trade has done nothing but close factories. We are sitting with deficits and debt and bailouts and more people without the safety net of long term employment, healthcare, and pensions. The stores are full of Chinese goods and therefore tax cuts won't do the job they are supposed to do. We have had tax cuts for 8 years and we are back into a recession. The fed has used all its leverage. You have a financial crisis and excess housing.
We were supposed to have a peace dividend from the cold war and all we did is throw our money away on war and no investments for the future. We are where we are. We are in a real mess as a result of ignorance and arrogance of the past 8 years.
rofl.
you conveniently leave out the systematic rot of the gov't statistics.
Not sure I find this comforting
Doesn't the second chart essentially demonstrate that the current downturn as measured by employment and which we are still in the midst of is in line with the two worst of the last four recessions we've experienced? I don't find that terribly comforting. I wouldn't call this a debunking exactly. Your second chart is less dramatic but only by virtue of showing what truly bad recessions we are in the company of.
Thanks for digging for the data, though. It is helpful.
comfort
You should find it comforting in that we're not in Great Depression Two. We are in a bad recession, yes. We are not in totally uncharted territory, we've been here before.
I believe the idea is to do something so it doesn't turn into
I believe the idea is to do something so it doesn't turn into the Great Depression.
the conceit of the present
You know, I see this argument a lot and I'm beginning to think that we are suffering, collectively, from "the conceit of the present": the belief that our current situation is unprecedented, terrible, the worst that it's been EVER, merely because we haven't been able to live through those previous eras, to experience what it was really like back then. It's a conceit on our part that we have difficulty putting things into perspective. It's really not much more than when a teenager comes home from highschool complaining that she had "THE WORST DAY EVER!!!!!!" because her boyfriend just broke up with her. We adults understand it's just emotions and hyperbole in this case. Why can't we acknowledge that when we look at our current situation and think that IT'S THE WORST ECONOMY EVER that we are thinking more on an emotional level than a rational one?
What the graph shows is that our current situation is not even as bad as the 1981-82 recession. So to worry that we might be entering another Great Depression is equivalent to having a bad paper cut and worrying that one might bleed to death. It's ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but.
I'm sorry, but - your argument is just ridiculus. When you see the floodwaters rising and hear that it is raining hard to the north, you get out the sandbags - you don't stand around and hypothosize that you've seen the floodwaters rise faster in the past and therefore this is obviously nothing to worry about.
We are loosing HALF A MILLION jobs a month.
Nobody is saying "there's nothing to worry about"
The difference is, this time around, people see the flood waters rising and hear it's raining hard to the north, but they are skipping the sandbags and going straight to building Noah's Ark II.
Yes, we are. And in the worst month of the 1981-82 recession, there were 343,000 jobs lost in one month (July 82). So, putting this in perspective: in July 1982, the economy lost 343,000 jobs out of 89,853,000 total, a decline of 0.38%, while in January 2009, the economy lost 598,000 jobs out of 135,178,000 total, a decline of 0.44%. So your panic and use of SCARY CAPS is entirely based on the fact that January 2009 was a mere 0.06% worse than July 1982. That's it. Things are bad, yes, but it's not "RUN FOR THE HILLS IT'S THE NEXT GREAT DEPRESSION WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!" kind of bad.
Yes, and back then the interest rate was in the double digits
and now it is zero. If you can't understand why that fact makes people very nervous, answer me this - where do you go after zero??
panic
Actually, only the Fed funds rate is near zero. Actual interest rates that you or I would enjoy for a loan are not zero. And no one is saying that things aren't bad, or that you don't have a reason to be nervous. All I'm trying to say is that the ACTUAL evidence does not suggest a reason to PANIC and contemplate anti-Depression-type measures.
What are the reasons to be cheerful?
I can't imagine what you need in the way of ACTUAL evidence: the unemployment rate is rising as fast as it has since the Great Depression, and interest rates are at zero, so that quiver is empty. That, to me, is a picture of a drastic situation that requires drastic measures. Hoover is regarded as one of the worst presidents ever for a reason.
more perspective
Nonsense. It is rising about as fast as it did in the 1981-82 recession, and in the 1974-76 recession it rose faster that what we are currently experiencing.
And I'm not saying that you should feel cheerful. I don't feel cheerful. All I'm saying is that it is way too premature to panic, or to contemplate drastic action. We have a severe recession and the way to get out of a severe recession is to enact policies that stimulate job creation. You're essentially right that monetary policy alone probably isn't going to do the trick. That's why I'm not opposed to REAL fiscal stimulus in the form of moderate-to-large infrastructure projects. Fiscal policy can also take the form of tax cuts, targeted to activities that create jobs. But is it really necessary to go in debt to the tune of $1.3 trillion (including debt service) on a wish list of left-wing agenda items? To put it into perspective, $1.3 trillion is approximately half the size of the current federal budget. So this porkulus bill would be enlarging the federal budget by 50%. Under what sorts of conditions would you suggest enlarging the federal budget by 50%? We did so to win WW2. We did so during the Great Depression. We have NEVER needed to do so in order to counteract a recession. And all the evidence thus far suggests that we are only in a recession. Not a depression, not a "catastrophe", but a recession. A bad recession, yes, but still a recession.
OK, fine.
OK, fine. Unemployment is rising at the second-fastest rate since the Great Depression. I do not find that comforting.
Furthermore: I pomote you to King of America. How are you going to enact these "moderate-to-large infrastructure projects" and tax-cuts without creating your own increase in the deficit?
And how are you going to get those moderate-to-large infrastructure projects off the ground fast?
Regarding the contention that we've never needed to increase spending to counteract a recession - you are conveniently excluding 1929 - 1939. The semantic difference between recession and depression is meaningless. This recession is 2.5 months away from being the longest since the Great Depression. We've never had the Fed rate at zero before. And yet there were will 500K layoffs last month. Yes, the increase in the deficit is a bad thing. But I haven't seen any evidence that it is a worse thing than what we've currently got.
infrastructure
Oh that's easy. Require a 1-to-1 spending cut to accompany any new infrastructure project.
The same way we got the Empire State Building built in a little over 1 year, or the Hoover Dam built in only 4 years.
At that point, I abdicate.
drastic action needed to be taken yesterday.
today, you might as well blow out your brains and have them spatter on all of your furniture. whatever action we take, it ain't gonna help no more. time for corrective action has passed.
so sorry, did you miss out on macroecon 101?
Nissan is laying off workers. China is sending workers back to villages. Mexicans are heading home across the border, America is having that much of a crisis. Australia is collapsing, Iceland is already gone, and they should do to England (financial capital of the world england) exactly what they did with Iceland. Europe is guaranteeing all bank deposits, and the Japanese are contemplating a Marshall Plan for the United States Consumer.
IS THIS RECESSION TALK? No, this is global depression talk.
Put up or shut up.
Well, if it's too late to do anything, then we should cancel Porkulus, don't you think?
And, please, put up or shut up. Post some real evidence that we are in a "global depression".
do you want numbers, or cited sources?
Krugman, Roubini, Conjure Bag. That's three economists that say global depression
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10977
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/20-million-migrant-worker-jobs...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/118354-in-this-global-depression-gold-is...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6A9lCHrtAqk
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/ramsey-su-allow-foreclosures-t...
http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253973/the_world_is_at_severe_...
http://blog.rebeltraders.net/2008/12/03/35-percent-chance-of-a-global-de...
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/uk-demand-for-office-space-fal...
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/employment-diffusion-index.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/looking-for-sun.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/investment-as-percent-of-gdp.html
(I am nowhere as goldbug happy as seeking alpha. silver's the way to go, as its supply is limited by the demand for copper and other metals, which I see dropping)
Not all of this is about the global market, but severe decreases in the number one economy in the world are bound to shake down many other places.
And then there's Kanjorski...
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2009/02/watch-this-now.html
yet more stuff on china../.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/chinas-exports-fall-175-most-sinc...
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/chinese-bank-advisor-demands-guar...
my econ friend says "I just hope that Obama doesn't make things worse"
take that as you will, he worked harder than most to get the bloke elected.
no reason to panic
just a global depression, sir. expect drastic lifestyle changes, and you won't be disappointed.
do otherwise, and i'll be glad to take your money. It's a GRAND time for betting on the stock market, don'tcha think?
unemployment at 14% (13.9 if you wanna quibble)
please, man, read the numbers.
It is more than a bad
It is more than a bad recession. We are in uncharted territory.
We have the highest peace time deficits and debt.
We have a financial crisis.
We have cities and states going broke.
We have an infrastructure to take care of. Estimated to be 2.2 trillion dollars.
We are dependent on other countries for our debt.
We are in two wars with a military stretched thin.
We have a dollar that is very shaky.
We are printing money.
We are still dependent on oil.
We have globalization that is taking our middle class jobs. And you (the republicans) have no answer for that.
We have not funded sciences, research and development for our future, for the replacement of jobs we lose.
We have more people losing healthcare insurance and pensions.
We have people losing housing.
None of the social programs have been worked on in years and we have a baby boom generation retiring.
Michigan and Rhode Island have unemployment of over 10%. And we know unemployment will go higher for everyone.
There is not going to be a magic wand to get out of this mess. It will be slow growth for some time to come.
worldwide depression.
not yet great depression. perhaps will be greater depression, eh?
Why am I reminded of 1994?
Clinton and the Democrats said we have a health care crisis, and here's our plan to fix it.
Republicans said, there is no crisis, and those wonderful market forces will work all this out in due time if we do nothing.
Here we are, 14 years later, still taking it up the posterior (only harder and deeper) while we wait for those lovely market forces to fix the problem.
At least come up with a new set of lies guys. Repeating the old ones over and over just insults both of our intelligence.
Definition of a "crisis":
(1) Put the regulatory screws to a critical industry, such as healthcare.
(2) Since everything government touches turns to shit, wait for the inevitable problems to crop up.
(3) Convince a lot of incredibly stupid people, including yourself, that these problems are the result of "deregulation" and "the free market", and use that as a justification to regulate said industry even more strictly -- to the point of nationalizing it.
The only "lies" here are the ones told by you and the other Healthcare Commies: that there's a "right" to healthcare, and that the problems with the American healthcare system are the result of too little, rather than too much, government intervention.
because the government forces companies
to spend 6% of our GDP on denying people care.
uhuh. tell me another, hotshot.
Yep.
If you were a healthcare provider so completely buried in regulatory rigamarole via Medicare mandates and everything else, you'd be spending fortunes trying to minimize your liabilities, too.
That is why we spend 6% of GDP denying people care. Not because there's something fundamentally broken with a free-market healthcare system, but because of the completely perverse incentives created by the current overweening regulatory regime.
And, naturally, despicable collectivist asswipes like you think the answer to crisis-inducing regulation is still more regulation, as if we can fix everything if only we put the correct set of philosopher-kings in charge.
You think Medicare is bad?
From Maggie Mahar:
It's shocking...
that Mahar, a "financial journalist" who's spent the latter part of her professional career shilling for socialized medicine, would uncover anecdotal evidence that healthcare providers prefer the Medicare regulatory regime to the bureaucratic hassles foisted upon them by private insurers.
I mean, you could knock me over with a feather. Doubtless Mahar's next book will reveal the stunning truth that water is wet, and you'll report that to us breathlessly.
On the other hand, if you actually want to learn something about healthcare, you could read some of what Arnold Kling -- who has defenestrated Mahar's arguments time and time again -- has written on the subject.
I know it sucks when other people who do research
I know it sucks when other people who do research and stuff disagree with you, but I'm sure you can appreciate that there are other people who have a greater knowledge of some subjects than yourself and are therefore likely to be taken seriously when they opine on a matter.
But hey, don't take my word for it - ask your own doctor how much he enjoys navigating the paperwork for a couple of dozend different insurance companies.
Here is one doctor's opinion:
I know it sucks when you get
I know it sucks when you get caught trying to pass off an agenda-journalist as a legitimate authority on a subject, and lack either the smarts to realize it, the testicular fortitude to admit it, or both.
Mahar's entire schtick is interviewing doctors who roughly share (a) her hostility to the free-market, (b) the things she doesn't like about the American healthcare system and (b) her communitarian vision for how the American healthcare system ought to be run -- and then presenting the results of these interviews in book form as if it's this is in some way dispassionate, meaningful, and insightful. She is, in other words, nothing more than a walking, talking pile of confirmation bias who, unfortunately, has gulled a lot of very stupid people into believing that she's conducting "research" rather than writing polemics.
It appears you are one of those very stupid people. I would again suggest reading some of what Arnold Kling has written on the subject, and, further, that you endeavor to prevent the rot of what few brain cells you have left by refraining from exposing yourself to the idiocy-inducing palaver at TPM. The next time Josh Marshall or any of his contributors have something intelligent to say about anything will be the first time.
Do you mean THIS Arnold Kling?
Do you mean this Arnold Kling, who got pwned today for being a total tool?
As for the love between doctors and private insurance companies, here is what John Brady, M.D., the 2008 Virginia Family Physician of the Year, has to say: (emphasis added):
I missed the part where Kling
I missed the part where Kling got "pwned for being a total tool", unless you were referring to where Internet Drama Queen and Trig Troofer Extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan linked to some lefty retard shrieking "HYPOCRISY!" at Kling because of Kling's opposition to Obama's pork-laden monstrosity of a "stimulus" when he'd tepidly suggested about as quarter as large a stimulus eight years ago (and, like his Cato colleagues, has been complaining about Bush's fiscal profligacy ever since).
Sort of thin gruel as far as pwnage goes. Looked more like an example of a couple of idiots taking a moonlight cruise aboard the failboat. It's somehow unsurprising that you find it to be a devastating critique.
As for Dr. Important, the plural of anecdote is not data, which is a lesson that both you and Ms. Mahar could benefit from internalizing.
Its the part where he says tax cuts are of questionable
Its the part where he says tax cuts
As well as the part where he says Barack Obama's simulus plan is like a gang of thugs ransacking his house, but who in 2000 was worried that Bush wouldn't take Keynes' advise and engage in deficit spending and provide substantial assistance to the states.
And what say you about Virginia's family doctor of the year?
In other words, according to
In other words, according to Andrew Sullivan, some lefty retard, and you, it's hypocrisy for Kling to say today that Obama's trillion-dollar debt-financed "stimulus" package is reckless, irresponsible, and amounts to massive generational theft, because eight years ago he tepidly endorsed the idea of a $250b debt-financed stimulus over tax cuts in somewhat different economic circumstances (following which he proceeded to assail Bush's reckless spending from then to now).
Again: thin gruel on the pwnage front. More like unjustifiably-smug halfwit partisan assclowns taking a ride on the failboat.
About Virginia's family doctor of the year, I say the same thing I said before: the plural of anecdote is not data.
Yes it is hypocrisy
Yes. Kling has been exposed as a hypocrite. And an idiot.
As for the doctors - at least I provide some real world quotes. You just make a completely unsupportable assertion that it is Medicare that is increasing doctor's overhead burdens and expect that people will accept it.
I'm sure that Kling is going
I'm sure that Kling is going to lose all kinds of sleep that you, some lefty retard, and Andrew Sullivan are too goddamn dense to figure out the differences between the economic conditions then and now, and what Kling was calling for then and what Obama is pushing through now, that you think he's a hypocrite and an idiot. And it's not as if the events of the last eight years might have given a fan of Keynesian stimuli reason to reconsider their efficacy, or anything...
In any case, whether he's a hypocrite on the stimulus has absolutely nothing to do with his defenestration of Mahar's healthcare horseshit.
Also, you would probably benefit from some sort of remedial reading comprehension instruction. I never said that "it is Medicare that is increasing doctors' overhead burdens". I said that Medicare and everything else -- the existing government regulatory regime vis-a-vis healthcare, with all its mandates and requirements and everything else -- are what's created the problems with the American healthcare system, and that these problems will not be solved with still more regulation. I know you and other collectivist asswipes are unclear on the concept, but we cannot fix the world simply by putting the correct set of philosopher-kings in charge.
As soon as you got to the personal insults
As soon as you got to the personal insults I know I have made my case. I no more care about Kling's thoughts about my criticism of him than I care about your opinion of me - what he said in 2000 and what he said yesterday is now out there for all the world to see, people can make up their own minds. Likewise, what you said and are now trying to back away from is right here on this page and people can read that, too.
Which case do you know you've
Which case do you know you've made? That you're a lying partisan hack who can't read, or that I have limited patience for lying partisan hacks who can't read? I think you've definitively established both of those facts, though the latter was never much in doubt.
This is really very simple. Anybody who thinks that hypocrisy is the only or even the simplest explanation for favoring a Keynesian stimulus in 2000 but opposing the Obama "stimulus" in 2008 is either profoundly unserious or profoundly dishonest. Kling's position is perfectly consistent with somebody who has either changed his mind about the efficacy of Keynesian stimulus over the last eight years, or who regards the Obama "stimulus" as something so far removed from Keynesian principles that Keynes is turning over in his grave. And whatever the case -- even assuming for the sake of argument that Kling is the world's biggest hypocrite with respect to the stimulus -- Kling's position as to the stimulus has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of his criticism of Mahar on healthcare (which, I note, you refuse to even acquaint yourself with, much less attempt to rebut).
As for my own remarks, I defy you to quote a single post of mine where I made the claim you're trying to attribute to me, you fucking liar.
What a short memory you have
There you go with the rudeness again - I guess in your household no one is allowed to question your authority.
As for the stupid thing you said that started all this:
That's right - in your world it is Medicare, not insurance companies, who make doctor's lives miserable.
It's not that no one in my
It's not that no one in my househould is permitted to question authority. It's just that, in my household, we don't suffer fools gladly, and feel no particular need to be civil to lying cocksuckers.
I mean, there's enough daylight between what I actually said (i.e., indicting "the reglatory rigamarole via Medicare mandates and everything else" -- bolded for emphasis, and not one word about paperwork) and what you are desperately trying to pretend that I said (i.e., that navigating the Medicare bureaucratic requirements is what makes doctors' lives miserable) to drive a truck through. Why should I be respectful towards somebody who's blatantly, repeatedly lying about my words?