Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Interesting Employment Chart

Recs

12

June 08, 2014 – Comments (7)

This chart was prepared by Oregon Economic Analysis (http://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2014/06/06/u-s-jobs-are-back-to-pre-recession-levels/).

 Many have been frustrated by the slow pace of economic and labor force recovery since the financial crisis of 2008.  However, compared to other financial crises, the recovery actually appears to be remarkable, despite all the ideological angst that has been expressed over the last five years.  The recovery in the US over the last five years has dramatically outpaced recoveries after other financial crises.

I tried to copy and paste the chart here, but my technical skills are not "advanced" enough:)  If someone can give me directions how to do that, I can put the chart in one of the comments.

Thanks,

bbmaven 

 

 

 

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 09, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Mega (99.96) wrote:

Right click on the image and select properties. Select the URL and copy (control-c).

Then you just need a little html code. It will look like this:

<img src = sample.com/chart.jpg>

Report this comment
#2) On June 09, 2014 at 10:46 PM, bbmaven (100.00) wrote:

Thanks Mega.  You are a mensch.

Report this comment
#3) On June 13, 2014 at 4:33 PM, DrGoldin (99.71) wrote:

Can we trust data from Reinhart and Rogoff?

Report this comment
#4) On June 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, SkepikI (81.70) wrote:

So, have you vetted the data sources, methodology and statistical analysis for error and randomness?

I see all kinds of charts and data like this and particularly in the employement area, the "unexplained" and uncharted revisions, the basis for the charted variables and adjustments to charted variables suggest they are not to be trusted.   What is the track record of Oregon Economic Analysis?  I live there and I don't recall they have been very good.

In particular:  HOW did they measure job loss, specificly to calculate the % loss and what was their time hack?- by time hack I mean how did they tie the passage of time to the measurement of variables and how good is it?  Much of the economic data produced is REALLY FUZZY on the tie of an observed fact to when it was observed.

Report this comment
#5) On June 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, SkepikI (81.70) wrote:

And oh BTW, how exactly did they purport to validate the numbers from 29?  I was never about back then but my dad and grandfather used to tell me the "government statistics" from the great depression were laughable.  They are all we have, but in no way do they resemble what is collected now...except in one respect, and that is their resemblance to reality is suspect....

Report this comment
#6) On June 15, 2014 at 8:35 PM, bbmaven (100.00) wrote:

DrGoldin and Skepikl - all good and fair questions.  

I posted it as an interesting chart and perspective that draws a comparison with prior financial crises rather than prior recessions.  I have no reason to doubt their methods or integrity - but would be open to the case that their approach or conclusions are flawed.  Have either of you vetted the study?

bbmaven

Report this comment
#7) On June 28, 2014 at 9:37 AM, ozzie (99.94) wrote:

I blogged something similar here (http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/unemployment-now-at-pre-obama/927063) back in February.  What would be interesting to note is how the Long-Term Unemployed were compensated in Sweden and Finland.  If memory serves me, these countries provided very long-term unemployment compensation, too, severely exacerbating their job picture.  It ain't rocket science . . . pay people not to work, and they won't!!  FWIW, I'm looking for Unemployment under 5.5% this year!

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement