One of the things that really irritates me is when people throw around numbers without normalization. This is a major behavioral economic issue, Robert Shiller suggests that the inability to tell the difference between nominal & real values is one of the major reasons the American public was convinced that real estate was a "sure thing" investment. People confused the nominal rise in housing values with real increases, and didn't have an intuitive sense how weird the last 10 years were in the long-term perspective. In any case, Calculated Risk has a post on Job Losses During Recessions, with two important charts:
Absolute Job Loss Numbers:
% Change Job Losses:
More like this
In the united states, bee keepers lose a certain number of colonies over the winter. This is normal, but bee keepers maintain that losses of about 15 percent or less are "acceptable." I don't know what the logical or empirical basis for that number is, however.
The latest report on home sales is bleak:
Another day, another study that finds poverty is linked to adverse and often preventable health outcomes. This time, it’s vision loss.
OMYGOD OMYGOD !!!!!
Oh, OK, I see. Average.
I was very confused when I first glanced at these two graphs until I realized that they used different color keys. It makes it harder to see at a glance what is going on.
I wonder why the graphs don't go back into the 1920's. That'd be the most telling.
As I understand it, the issue isn't as simple as all this even. The depth of the plunge isn't the only consideration. The duration is too. And what job sectors are effected as well as many other factors, like the cost of living during the time of the recession, etc. So, I think a pissing contest on graphs (even if normalized) kinda does an injustice to clear explanation.
The questions of importance remain the actual impact on people in terms of ability to feed and house themselves, in addition to other important things like obtaining health care, education, etc. The relative rates of increase in these sectors surely must have an impact on how severe unemployment is. And of course, "underemployment" hasn't been addressed by that graph either.
@Greg Laden It is notable that we have no idea whether this recession is "average" or not. It isn't finished, full stop. It could trend up starting today or it could continue to decline. If other recessions are any guide (and there is no guarantee that they are) then we could reasonably expect this recession to extend out to a total of 20 months duration or more, which would indeed make it average, both in terms of length and depth. But what are the current economic indicators? Are we ready to hit bottom and start trending up THIS INSTANT? If not, then I suspect 20 months and a loss of only 2.5% is only the beginning. Any worsening and we start to see this thing increasing in rank for both measures. You may ultimately be right, but you have neglected an analog to "the pull of the recent" in your conclusion. I suspect that when it's all said and done, your sudden utterance will have been a premature ejaculation.
Facts and data are too hard for most people to get through. Most rely on anecdote and emotionalism. If it were the other way round there would be too many accountants and not enough lawyers.