This normalizes the data for changes in insured employment.

Note that we are at the far right, and also note that we don’t know where the graph is headed. If you look at the 2 or 3 other big peaks aroundabout 1950, 1976, and 1984, you can see that the slope of the current/recent portion of the graph is very similar. Which is bad.

If you look at all the peaks, you will notice that the vast majority of spikes (all but the 1953-1955 spike) represent something on the order of a doubling of the rate from its closest relative low. Give or take.

Sp if you ballpark our most recent relative low as about 4.5% around 2001, then it’s reasonable to expect that the rate could swell to around 9% give or take. Which is awful. 1976 awful, but not 1984 awful. But awful.

I just don’t understand the eagerness of folks to jump to “worst ever” hyperbole before the data merits it. What good is there in that? None that I can see.

If both these numbers had been going further down, we’d all be wringing our hands and wondering where it would stop. So it makes sense to hope that perhaps the decline is slowing.

I’m not forecasting that this a sign of a turnaround. But it is incontrovertibly a single data point that shows a flattening. Obviously it could be no more than a pause in a negative trend, one that could return with a vengeance. Sadly granted.

We all hope that’s not so, right? We hope that we’re near the bottom and things turn round sooner rather than later. Right? I take this as a given, which is why when I spoke to Justin I said “surely…” I don’t see how this latter contention could possibly be a matter of any controversy, so I don’t know what you’re mad about there.

But Justin, about that graph? Are you innumerate? This graph shows raw numbers. Do you know how many more American we have now than in 1971? The raw numbers have to be compared to the total working population in the form of a percent, or they mislead us. I absolutely do NOT want to minimize current circumstances, but I do want folks to see them in their proper light. That means looking at rates, not raw numbers.

Here’s the thing, it’s bad enough as it is without folks posting graphs making it look demonstrably worse than it is.

kk, just because the numbers were revised down ever so slightly does not mean that the situation isn’t getting worse…it just may mean it’s getting worse a little bit slower.

And of course I want it to rebound (and I don’t appreciate being asked that question given your recent comments directed at me), but I think it’s premature to suggest that a turnaround is happening. Because this economy has to stop LOSING jobs, and we’re a long way from that. Hopefully the passage of this stimulus bill and Geithner’s financial recovery plan can make that happen much quicker. We shall see.

One last note, if you want to see how dire the situation is when compared to other recessions, check out this graph.

This accounts both for the current results, and for results from the past when the economy was going as good as it had ever been going, and yet a solid quarter to a third of people said the economy was lousy. People who are not thriving seldom say that the economy is going great. And people who are thriving don’t always say the economy is awful.

For what it’s worth, a report just came out that retail sales have rebounded and jobless claims are lower. Hopefully, this means that things are bottoming out and may rebound. I don’t know if that’s true, but surely you’d be delighted to be wrong that things continue to get worse quickly, right?

This graph is interesting and I agree with you that these people must not be paying attention. Was this graph pulled concerning the Michigan economy or the economy as a whole? It would also be interesting to know the ages and location of the people pulled. I think that even to comment that the economy is “fair” is a stretch. Please let me know if you know the answers to any of my questions.

Thanks,
Claudia