The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (16 comments)

  1. Thomas Sullivan

    Please add two data points, things you had in some past versions: normal labor drop outs during a recession, and decline due to normal Boomer retirement levels (what had been predicted prior to the Great Recession). Those two items are sometimes given as excuses for our awful employment situation.

  2. Great Chart. Could you add the counterfactual for what would have happened if the stimulus wasn’t passed?

    1. Growth. The public sector is a huge sucking sound.

    2. Daedalus Mugged

      “add the counterfactual ”

      Read the chart, see the light blue line, helpfully provided by the Obama administration.

  3. Linda Bahlman

    What about the public sector jobs lost through state & federal budget cuts? Had that not happened, where would we be?

    1. Max Planck

      In the low 7s….

      1. My dear Linda, as Max suggests – and indicates some of us can do math – if we lower government employment and retirement benefits it actually results in more growth of the private sector. The public sector is a DRAIN. Get it?

    2. Those jobs had to be cut to save money to spend saving banks and businesses and paying for tax cuts for rich people so they can invest in the economy and create jobs.

      Don’t you understand how the economy works? :-) Oh and don’t read headlines and panic and get worried because then if you are surveyed about your confidence in consuming you might not be enthusiastic enough and then you will create lower consumer confidence which will cause the rich people to not invest and then you might LOSE your job. Unless you already lost it because of OBAMA … hahah anyway don’t be nervous and just let these expert economist thinkers figure it out because THEY konw EVERYTHING and OBAMA does NOT.

  4. This needs to be on ABCNBCCBS & CNN. You know they’ll show this chart if you send it to them! Hahahaha. (Breaking news: the MSM is in the tank for Obama.) Oh right, I’m supposed to tell you something you don’t already know.

  5. Ideally, the red-dotted curve should be marked as “actual U-3″ and the single-dot at 11.2% should be part of a new curve you compute, “actual U-3-type unemployment, assuming constant Labor Force Participation.”

  6. Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn’t the dark blue dot (with recovery plan) be directly under the light blue dot (without recovery plan) if both show the same month?

  7. Can someone please fix the typo “unempoyment” please?

    Thanks for the chart.

  8. Philip Arlington

    I’m an English conservative. I see the point of the graph, but you just can’t help letting partisanship seep in, and this undermines your credibility and your ability to make a constructive contribution. You need to snap out of this disease, like just about everyone involved in public policy in the U.S.

    1. Thomas Sullivan

      Economic suppression is a partisan policy choice of the Democrats. That’s the point.

  9. seems likely you are comparing things that are calculated differently and so you’re trying to make a big stink about value from different formulas. Without the actual formula that is being used for each line on the graph we have no way to know if you are comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges.

    this is useless without that.

  10. Constitution first

    In the North country of New England (Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont) the actual number of people without jobs or chronically underemployed is 25%, one-in-four. Those are real people really suffering. Crime is rampant, unoccupied houses and camps are routinely stripped of copper or anything of value. The situation is explosive, dry tinder, waiting for a match.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content