Rachel Maddow: Comparison of Job Losses in Recent Recessions

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 01:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiajpB4K5jI   Posted on YouTube: February 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 11, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 4621

 
MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - Feb. 10, 2009.

[quidam56]

1. HANNITY'S HOLIER THEN THOU PATRIOTIC AMERICA sure isn't MY AMERICA !

Mitchell, Graham, Boner, Fake Noise shut the fuck up ! In My America http://www.wisecountyissues.com I want this Nation to succeed. Bush kept US safe from terrorism my ass, he and Cheney are TOXIC TERRORISTS. When I see this graph, knowing California is bankrupt and in debt, Houston is suffering, even walmart is laying off. Appalachia is so far down the list we may never make the news. Folks we can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity. STOP BOMBING APPALACHIA !

[nilram]

2. the chart isn't adjusted for the larger workforce we have now

We're still in a worse-than-average job loss situation, but it's not as much of a nosedive as that chart presents. The misrepresentation isn't necessarily Maddow's fault, she mentions that she got the chart from a release put out by a congressman.

Here's a page with charts that compare the current recession job losses to prior recessions, adjusting for length of recession and for size of the workforce.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/25995/job-loss-charts-compare-slumps-in-bright-colors-clean-lines-for-spring

Personally, I'm panicked--and unemployed--but I'm trying to get some rational viewpoints too.

[Mithreal]

3. TY for the link. I read criticism of the adjusted graph

that it does not take into account true unemployment numbers and underemployment which would make it much worse. I forget the source but someone here mentioned that this recession/depression will not be U or V shaped but L shaped. I would like to see more discussion of that. Please link if someone has a good source for that discussion.

[nilram]

5. agreed -- the current employment numbers are fudged

and none of the graphs normalize for that. It would be very interesting to see...

[Postman]

8. This website, that Thom Hartmann sometimes mentions, says things are worse than the "official" nmbrs

http://www.shadowstats.com/

I think he uses the same parameters that were used back during the Great Depression.....and if that is what we use, then things are much worse than what the official numbers indicate...

[Mithreal]

4. Adjusted chart.

[stevenleser]

6. To me, the slope at the 12-14 month point of the three graphs is the telling piece

This is going to be a much deeper and longer recession. The three other graphs, even harshest, were in recovery mode at this point, whereas with the current situation, the recession is still deepening.

[tclambert]

9. Hope you don't mind, I posted the link to that graph on

the Stock Market Watch thread, too. The number-philiacs over there love this kinda thing.

[keopeli]

7. The biggest difference in those 2 charts is the timeframe, not the workforce

Yes, they are using two different sets of numbers. One is a percentage of the total currently employed and the other is a total number of jobs lost. Those two numbers are very different.

The workforce number, being a percentage, recalculates the total number of jobs existing at the end of every month.

If I have 100 employs and fire 10%, I'll have 90 left. Next month, I'll only fire 9, but it will still be 10% because I will only have 90 employees. This doesn't tell me how many lives are being affected; this tells me how business is doing and that's about it.

The total number of jobs lost is the human toll - how many lives are being affected. You can compare this number to the total US population and get a good sense of how many people around you are affected.

But, the REAL difference in these charts is what you SEE. The workforce (%) chart is comparing 10 recessions over 75 years and provides the best and worst case scenario. The jobs total chart is comparing 3 recessions over 20 years. With a far smaller sample, this chart looks much more dramatic (because it is).

I say, take heart! All recessions are terrible for those who lose their jobs, even mild ones. Be patient, proactive and positive. It will, indeed, pass.

The last recession I lost everything and it's taken me a lot of time and hard work to recover. I vowed not to expose myself to the corporate culture again until labor laws change. I started my own business doing something I love. I ate macaroni and peanut butter for a LONG TIME. But, if you set your mind to succeeding, you will.

Ignore the charts and celebrate the life you have! I'll be rooting for you!

Peace

Keo

[glitch]

10. Excellent post -- what is the business you started and love?

Please excuse my curiousity :hi:

[Quixote1818]

12. Interesting that it took much longer to recover from the 2001 recession

than all the others. Shows Bush's tax cuts didn't work that well.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/job-losses-during-recessons.html

[Yes We Did]

13. That's because there is only 6 years in between recessions.

I don't think you need one for that short of a time span. It's bad. It's really really bad.

[Cant trust em]

11. Jawdropping. nt