Despite a bipartisan effort...

You're comparing actual job losses, w/o taking into account the actual number of jobs.

The number of actual, total jobs in 1990 is not equal to the number of jobs in 2008/9.

For example.

Lets say that there are 1000 jobs in 1990 and 200 jobs are lost. That 's a loss of 20%

In 2008 there are 10,000 jobs and 1,000 are lost. Thats' a loss of 10%.

Your graph would show the job loss being 200 in 1990 and 1000 in 2008 which is a large increase, until you look at the percentages.



I KNOW you're smart enough to know this.

Doesn't the unemployment rate do all this hard work for you?

The loss of jobs number really only means that options are fewer. My company for example eliminated 1000 jobs in the last quarter but retained 100% of it's workforce (other than those who chose to quit or were fired for performance reasons).

So, really, other than making it harder to leave your current job, losing 1000 jobs really didn't have much impact to anybody. It will impact future growth potential, but we all hope it's a short term deal.

Unemployment and underemployment are the numbers we should be focusing on right now.

I don't have the total job data for each of those years...

Cyclo,
I'll be the first to admit I'm not an economist, and your chart is impressive but very suspect because it's evidently created by hyper-partisans in "the office of the speaker". Nevertheless, since you went to the trouble to find the chart and evidently have superior abilities to "read data", perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain to me what the heck a graph of "Job losses relative to peak months" means...and why I should care....

And I might even give you a point or two, if you can show me a similar chart from a reputable statistician.

And Cyclo, do you ever have a "good day"? I mean, a day that you can sit back and have fun with this board? You come across as angry, frustrated and paranoid, when you should be self-satisfied and amused. I know if our positions were reversed and my party was in firm control of all branches of government, I sure would be.

cyclo wrote:

I don't have the total job data for each of those years...

Allow me to help.....



In Dec 1974, there were 86,144,000 individuals in the US work force
In Dec 2009, there were 143,388,000 individuals in the US work force
according to Bureau of Labor Statistics

An increase of 66%....carrying the math further....a loss of 598,000 represents a 0.4% hit in 2008. The same loss in 1974 represents a 0.7% hit in 1974. Threfore, we would need to lose 1,004,000 jobs before we'd be in a similar predicament to 1974...almost twice as many.

This chart compares the job loss so far in this recession to job losses in the 1990-1991 recession and the 2001 recession -- showing how dramatic and unprecedented the job loss over the last 13 months has been. Over the last 13 months, our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs " and continuing job losses in the next few months are predicted.

By comparison, we lost a total of 1.6 million jobs in the 1990-1991 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing; and we lost a total of 2.7 million jobs in the 2001 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing.

'Job losses relative to peak months' refers to the total amount of jobs reported lost in the monthly unemployment numbers given out on a regular basis as compared to the highest previous point. You see charts like this often when dealing with the transition of economies from growth to recession. Basically, it says 'what was the maximum number of jobs we had, and how many have we lost since then, in what time frame?'

Overall Unemployment Rate in the U.S. Civilian Labor Force, 1920""2007 Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2007.
Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
19781 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
19861 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
19901 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
19941 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
19971 4.9
19981 4.5
19991 4.2
20001 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
20031 6.0%
20041 5.5
20051 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6

NOTES: Estimates prior to 1940 are based on sources other than direct enumeration. Data prior to 1948 are for persons age 14 and over. Data beginning in 1948 are for persons age 16 and over.
1. Not strictly comparable with prior years.
2. Beginning in Jan. 2006, data are not strictly comparable with data for 2005 and earlier years because of the revisions in the population controls used in the household survey.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid stunning new job losses and yet another bank failure, key senators and the White House reached tentative agreement Friday night on an economic stimulus measure at the heart of President Barack Obama's recovery plan. Two officials said the emerging agreement was for a bill with a $780 billion price tag, but there was no immediate confirmation.
The tentative agreement capped a tense day of back room negotiations in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, sought to attract the support of enough Republicans to give the measure the needed 60-vote majority.

Officials strongly suggested that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's vote would be needed to assure passage. The Massachusetts Democrat, battling a brain tumor, has been in Florida in recent days and has not been in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day more than two weeks ago. The senator's office did not comment.

Source

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid stunning new job losses and yet another bank failure, key senators and the White House reached tentative agreement Friday night on an economic stimulus measure at the heart of President Barack Obama's recovery plan. Two officials said the emerging agreement was for a bill with a $780 billion price tag, but there was no immediate confirmation.
The tentative agreement capped a tense day of back room negotiations in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, sought to attract the support of enough Republicans to give the measure the needed 60-vote majority.

Officials strongly suggested that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's vote would be needed to assure passage. The Massachusetts Democrat, battling a brain tumor, has been in Florida in recent days and has not been in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day more than two weeks ago. The senator's office did not comment.

Well, it looks like it's going down with absolute minimal Repub support if they're desperate to bring in a Democrat Senator possibly on his death bed. Others will fight me on this opinion, and it may be wishful thinking, but I think the Republicans, in the long run, will still come ahead on this one. Clearly this is a Democrat bill and they deserve all the credit but I expect it is more likely they will reap all of the blame. In a few months, when the economy is still in the doldrums, you will see a harsh backlash of the American public against the ineptitude and impotence of this Democrat-controlled Congress.

It pretty unfair to state that republicans are against any recovery. They are against the democrats form of recovery, but as we've talked about, there is more than one way to skin a cat. We will see if this one works.