The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever Is Now Really Scary Again

[roo_ster]

Wow, isn't this just a punch to the sack, economy-wise.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-percent-job-losses-in-post-wwii-recessions-2010-12

Percent job loss for post WWII recessions aligned at peak of job loss:

[Tallpine]

aligned at peak of job loss

How do they know we are at the "peak" 

Look at that blue line 

[roo_ster]

How do they know we are at the "peak" 

Look at that blue line 

Hope that we'll not have a double-dip recession.  Part of the "Hope & Change" agenda.

[tokugawa]

Ain't no double dip coming- we never left the first one. Subtract the trillions the Gov has borrowed and spent and we are in -12% gdp range.   

[makattak]

Ain't no double dip coming- we never left the first one. Subtract the trillions the Gov has borrowed and spent and we are in -12% gdp range.  

Also we have the lowest labor force participation rate (64.5%) since 1985 and it's still dropping.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

[AJ Dual]

What I find interesting is how much flatter or at least... rounder the curves are for each job-loss recession event as it gets more recent in time. Especially 1990 onward.

Is the nature of the modern economy "different" now? Less manufacturing means slower job losses, and slower gains?

Is it the difference in the reporting methedology of unemployment. Has the way the numbers get massaged changed, like how they don't count under-employed people, those who "gave up" and no longer file, or ran out their benefits or whatever?

Do we count when a recession starts differently? Is it a different metric?

I can certainly see the dips being bigger or worse, but I don't understand why they're wider.

[Scout26]

but I don't understand why they're wider.

OH!!  OH !!  I KNOW MR. KOTTER !!!  [/horshack voice]

The more the .gov 'intervenes' to make it 'better' the worse it gets.

[makattak]

OH!!  OH !!  I KNOW MR. KOTTER !!!  [/horshack voice]

The more the .gov 'intervenes' to make it 'better' the worse it gets.

That's a good notion. The extension of jobless benefits undoubtedly prolongs the unemployment rate.

My original thought was that retraining workers who do mostly mental labor takes longer than retraining workers to do mostly physical labor.

Mind you, that's not because mental labor is more difficult but that more of the skills involved with physical labor are transferrable. Add that increasingly specialized workforce to the fact that people's skills become obsolete faster as technology improves, it all increases the numbers of unemployed needing complete retraining.

So, yes, the government makes it worse, but specialization causes problems as well.

[Tallpine]

specialization causes problems as well

Specialization is for insects - which bugs me.

These days, you need "experience" to even apply for a job mowing grass 

[geronimotwo]

What I find interesting is how much flatter or at least... rounder the curves are for each job-loss recession event as it gets more recent in time. Especially 1990 onward.

Is the nature of the modern economy "different" now? Less manufacturing means slower job losses, and slower gains?

Is it the difference in the reporting methedology of unemployment. Has the way the numbers get massaged changed, like how they don't count under-employed people, those who "gave up" and no longer file, or ran out their benefits or whatever?

Do we count when a recession starts differently? Is it a different metric?

I can certainly see the dips being bigger or worse, but I don't understand why they're wider.

possibly due to the increasing amount of population, such that no one layoff leaves an individual spike anymore?  also just shear numbers takes longer to reduce the %?

[Monkeyleg]

When a person can collect unemployment for two years (now going to be three), that alone probably extends the length of average unemployment.

But the chart doesn't take into account all of the jobs saved. Draw it again.

[KD5NRH]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems a bit odd for people to be saying there are no jobs when I've got two.  No degree, no current certifications, and neither job is even anything that I had any prior experience in when I started.

Granted, I'm somewhat underemployed in terms of earning potential based on prior earnings, but that's still pretty far from being out of work.

[charby]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems a bit odd for people to be saying there are no jobs when I've got two.  No degree, no current certifications, and neither job is even anything that I had any prior experience in when I started.

Granted, I'm somewhat underemployed in terms of earning potential based on prior earnings, but that's still pretty far from being out of work.

Some people won't or are unable to move where there is employment.

[CNYCacher]

Some people won't or are unable to move where there is employment.

And will not take a job that is beneath them.

[Chester32141]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems a bit odd for people to be saying there are no jobs when I've got two.  No degree, no current certifications, and neither job is even anything that I had any prior experience in when I started.

Granted, I'm somewhat underemployed in terms of earning potential based on prior earnings, but that's still pretty far from being out of work.

My wife is a retired Senior Chief ... she has tried for almost 5 years to find work. applying for everything from a part time cashier @ Good Will, to Human Resource manager which is her field where she has a Masters and experience ... except for a brief minimum wage Christmas retail position she has been unable to find work ... she has applied for hundreds of jobs and been on hundreds of interviews ... I don't believe age is the problem because she looks about 45 yrs old ... she never collected UE because of the rules in effect when she last worked ... we live in the Central Florida area, the first few years of her search were in the Jacksonville area ... in her case I'm convinced that the major employer here is prejudiced against ex-military ...  Veterans Preference is meaningless when applying for work ...

[roo_ster]

And will not take a job that is beneath them.

I can understand the being unable to move, to some extent, as there are several real circumstances where that might occur(0).

But, there are few jobs that I wouldn't do, in a pinch.  Mostly to do with basic human morality like pornography, drug dealing, etc.  I've done some pretty low jobs in my time.  I can't say I'd look forward to digging ditches for irrigation again, but if that is what keeps the wolf from the door...



(0) I'd bet if food stamps, unemployment, medicaid, and a few others were not there a lot of these circumstances might work themselves out to the point where folks would move to where the work is.

[Tallpine]

But, there are few jobs that I wouldn't do, in a pinch.  Mostly to do with basic human morality like pornography, drug dealing, etc.

Plus the TSA 

[Tallpine]

Oh yeah, and those out of work folks who can't sell their homes are in a tough place, unless you advise them to walk away from their mortgage 

[HeroHog]

Oh yeah, and those out of work folks who can't sell their homes are in a tough place, unless you advise them to walk away from their mortgage 

Been there, done that, last year in December! Chester32141, you are seeing what I have known a WHILE... no one wants to hire career Military, State or Federal workers for that matter because of the perceived mind-set "institutionalized" jobs carry with them! Not saying I approve or it is right but it IS and that's the problem. I have had more than a few perspective employers tell me that "We almost didn't hire you because of the years you spent working for the State (LA Tech University)".