Maybe that it is not corrected for in terms of population growth.
vikingvista
· 10 months ago
Since when is absolute number of job losses more relevant than jobless rate?
Starting from a 3% unemployment rate would be quite different than starting from a 6% unemployment rate.
I can't even tell if this chart refers to gross or net job losses. If twice as many jobs were created as lost, then the economy would be considered booming.
And why is the "current recession" producing such a smooth plot while the past ones had more noise in them. This tells me the current numbers are cruder estimates and likely computed differently.
Finally, and most important, is the stamp "Office of the Speaker". After all these years, Pelosi's reputation precedes her, and that stamp automatically makes the plot highly suspect.
adina
· 10 months ago
Hmm...Are comparisons to "peak month" useful measurements? If all months were equally lousy, then the slope wouldn't be so steep for the green. Unless I'm misinterpreting, it seems that all it's saying is that we had at least one really great month.
Zachary Kurtz
· 10 months ago
maybe it's just me, but where does Sullivan find the error?
Mark
· 10 months ago
Yes. I do see the error.
It was published by Nancy Pelosi's office.
Sanjiv
· 10 months ago
"Relative to peak month" sounds dubious to me.
A lesser value for the peak month will make the above curve look less frightening.
Mezzanine
· 10 months ago
How the hell do we know what the real figures are anyways? There is way too much noise in the form of government interference.
Ike Pigott
· 10 months ago
First, it would appear as though all three of those were starting from the same Peak, when in fact they don't.
Second, the green line might be coming from a point so high, that it would still track above the other lines on an absolute scale.
Ironman
· 10 months ago
Ooo - can I win by pointing to Bill Polley's post on the topic of job losses (and his much superior and more detailed chart?)
Ike Pigott
· 10 months ago
WHOA. Let me add one more observation.
I know that I'm one hell of a lot smarter about economics and global trade than I was 10 and 19 years ago. After all, there is a vibrant and active internet helping share information faster and with more ubiquity than there was then.
Also - the analytical tools available for companies to forecast demand are more sophisticated, as is the adherence to the bottom line.
The real kicker here? So much of commerce and industrial production has shifted to sophisticated inventory tracking and just-in-time delivery. Where we used to have wasteful stacks of things in warehouses acting as a buffer, we now have very thin margins greasing the wheels of commerce. There is little slack in the system.
With far less slack in the current economy, businesses will get the signals to shed jobs sooner, and will act on those signals.
That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.
MWG
· 10 months ago
"Yes. I do see the error.
It was published by Nancy Pelosi's office."
-Mark
How do you spell 2 drum beats and a cymbal crash?
MnM
· 10 months ago
Simple. It shows things as aggregates. There are more job losses in this recession because there are more jobs (that is, the labor force is bigger). They should have used the unemployment rate and it would have given a more accurate picture.
MnM
· 10 months ago
I'm worried I didn't make myself clear enough. Let me expand.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll use simple numbers in factors of ten.
Recession A: Labor Force: 100 persons. 10 jobs lost.
Recession B: Labor Force: 1,000 persons. 100 jobs lost.
Recession C: Labor Force: 10,000 persons. 1,000 jobs lost.
The the number of jobs lost increases with each recession, but the percent lost is the same. The percentage is the more telling of the two.
Lee Kelly
· 10 months ago
Green is, like, so last year.
James
· 10 months ago
I can highly recommend John Huizinga's notes - he has the right figures on page 3:
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the current recession: -1.9%
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the 1957/58 recession: -4.4%
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the 1974/75 recession: -2.8%
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the 1981/82 recession: -3.1%
But James, that's not scary enough to keep the people in line with policy goals.
Jacob Oost
· 10 months ago
MWG, I prefer OO*
cpurick
· 10 months ago
Maybe Congress should publish a new chart, called "The Number of People with Jobs." Then they could all just declare victory and go home.
John Dewey
· 10 months ago
The obvious error is in comnparing absolute job losses for periods when absolute employment varies by tens of thousands.
Civilian labor force
1991.....126MM
2000.....142MM
2007.....153MM
The second error, as I think someone above noted, is that peak levels, even when measured in percentage employed, may vary greatly. Percentage job losses from higher than normal employment levels, such as 1999-2000, would likely exceed those from periods of normal employment levels, such as 1989-1990.
vidyohs
· 10 months ago
The only thing I can see in it that may be an error, and in my mind would be, is that if we take the time line and work it backwards it would mean that, according to the publishers of the chart, the current recession began approximately Oct 2007.
Not too sure that's the case. It seems to me that in Oct 2007 the bubble was still bubbling, credit was easy, and unemployment was very low.
Hammer
· 10 months ago
MWG: The word you are looking for is "rimshot".
Just don't confuse "shot" with "job". Turns out that will get you banned from some boards...
LowcountryJoe
· 10 months ago
Just don't confuse "shot" with "job". Turns out that will get you banned from some boards...
What's wrong with rimjob? Come to think of it, what's wrong with wanting to 'mount' some tires?
ChrisF
· 10 months ago
(1) Uses absolute, not relative numbers
(2) Ignores fact that in 2007, unemployment was at historic lows, esp. compared to where the 1990 and 2001 recessions were.
(3) Selectively chooses two relatively mild recessions as comparisons.
All Comments
Maybe that it is not corrected for in terms of population growth.
Since when is absolute number of job losses more relevant than jobless rate?
Starting from a 3% unemployment rate would be quite different than starting from a 6% unemployment rate.
I can't even tell if this chart refers to gross or net job losses. If twice as many jobs were created as lost, then the economy would be considered booming.
And why is the "current recession" producing such a smooth plot while the past ones had more noise in them. This tells me the current numbers are cruder estimates and likely computed differently.
Finally, and most important, is the stamp "Office of the Speaker". After all these years, Pelosi's reputation precedes her, and that stamp automatically makes the plot highly suspect.
Hmm...Are comparisons to "peak month" useful measurements? If all months were equally lousy, then the slope wouldn't be so steep for the green. Unless I'm misinterpreting, it seems that all it's saying is that we had at least one really great month.
maybe it's just me, but where does Sullivan find the error?
Yes. I do see the error.
It was published by Nancy Pelosi's office.
"Relative to peak month" sounds dubious to me.
A lesser value for the peak month will make the above curve look less frightening.
How the hell do we know what the real figures are anyways? There is way too much noise in the form of government interference.
First, it would appear as though all three of those were starting from the same Peak, when in fact they don't.
Second, the green line might be coming from a point so high, that it would still track above the other lines on an absolute scale.
Ooo - can I win by pointing to Bill Polley's post on the topic of job losses (and his much superior and more detailed chart?)
WHOA. Let me add one more observation.
I know that I'm one hell of a lot smarter about economics and global trade than I was 10 and 19 years ago. After all, there is a vibrant and active internet helping share information faster and with more ubiquity than there was then.
Also - the analytical tools available for companies to forecast demand are more sophisticated, as is the adherence to the bottom line.
The real kicker here? So much of commerce and industrial production has shifted to sophisticated inventory tracking and just-in-time delivery. Where we used to have wasteful stacks of things in warehouses acting as a buffer, we now have very thin margins greasing the wheels of commerce. There is little slack in the system.
With far less slack in the current economy, businesses will get the signals to shed jobs sooner, and will act on those signals.
That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.
"Yes. I do see the error.
It was published by Nancy Pelosi's office."
-Mark
How do you spell 2 drum beats and a cymbal crash?
Simple. It shows things as aggregates. There are more job losses in this recession because there are more jobs (that is, the labor force is bigger). They should have used the unemployment rate and it would have given a more accurate picture.
I'm worried I didn't make myself clear enough. Let me expand.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll use simple numbers in factors of ten.
Recession A: Labor Force: 100 persons. 10 jobs lost.
Recession B: Labor Force: 1,000 persons. 100 jobs lost.
Recession C: Labor Force: 10,000 persons. 1,000 jobs lost.
The the number of jobs lost increases with each recession, but the percent lost is the same. The percentage is the more telling of the two.
Green is, like, so last year.
I can highly recommend John Huizinga's notes - he has the right figures on page 3:
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the current recession: -1.9%
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the 1957/58 recession: -4.4%
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the 1974/75 recession: -2.8%
Peak to Trough Job Loss in the 1981/82 recession: -3.1%
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/brian.barry/igm/huizingapresentation.pdf
But James, that's not scary enough to keep the people in line with policy goals.
MWG, I prefer OO*
Maybe Congress should publish a new chart, called "The Number of People with Jobs." Then they could all just declare victory and go home.
The obvious error is in comnparing absolute job losses for periods when absolute employment varies by tens of thousands.
Civilian labor force
1991.....126MM
2000.....142MM
2007.....153MM
The second error, as I think someone above noted, is that peak levels, even when measured in percentage employed, may vary greatly. Percentage job losses from higher than normal employment levels, such as 1999-2000, would likely exceed those from periods of normal employment levels, such as 1989-1990.
The only thing I can see in it that may be an error, and in my mind would be, is that if we take the time line and work it backwards it would mean that, according to the publishers of the chart, the current recession began approximately Oct 2007.
Not too sure that's the case. It seems to me that in Oct 2007 the bubble was still bubbling, credit was easy, and unemployment was very low.
MWG: The word you are looking for is "rimshot".
Just don't confuse "shot" with "job". Turns out that will get you banned from some boards...
Just don't confuse "shot" with "job". Turns out that will get you banned from some boards...
What's wrong with rimjob? Come to think of it, what's wrong with wanting to 'mount' some tires?
(1) Uses absolute, not relative numbers
(2) Ignores fact that in 2007, unemployment was at historic lows, esp. compared to where the 1990 and 2001 recessions were.
(3) Selectively chooses two relatively mild recessions as comparisons.
Related: "Lies, Damn Lies and Nancy Peolsi’s Charts" @ http://www.qando.net/?p=529</p>