Unemployment rate jumps to 7.2%

posted at 10:48 am on January 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Employers shed over a half-million jobs in December as the year ended in the grips of a full-blown recession.  The total job loss for 2008 went over 2.6 million, mostly in the latter half of the year, as prospects for growth look dim indeed.  Even with all of that truly bad news, the AP manages to add a little hyperbole:

The U.S. unemployment rate bolted to 7.2 percent in December, the highest since early 1993, as nervous employers slashed 524,000 jobs.

The Labor Department’s report, released Friday, underscored the terrible toll the deepening recession is having on workers and companies, and highlights the hard task President-elect Barack Obama faces in resuscitating the flat-lined economy.

For all of 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost. Although the number of jobs in the U.S. has more than tripled since then, losses of this magnitude are still being painfully felt.

Uh, okay, thanks for the no-context context.  Job losses in 1945 were catastrophic for a nation of 132 million people.  We have over 300 million today, and we have increased the workforce by a much larger factor as women have entered the workplace.  Total employment in December 1945 was 39.111 million Americans.  Total employment in December 2008 was 138.078 million Americans.

For the mathematically challenged, the difference between 2.6 million jobs lost in 1945 and in 2008 is that the former represented a whopping increase of 6.2% in unemployment, while the latter represents a 1.89% jump.  It’s bad, but it’s not even in the same ballpark as 1945.  And it’s worth noting that the US bounced back nicely in 1946, with unemployment below 4%, and managed to do that without massive new deficit spending by the federal government.

Furthermore, it’s hardly unprecedented.  We had more than a decade from 1975 to 1986 when the average unemployment was higher as a percentage than it is now.  Three of those twelve years had unemployment higher than 8%, and two of them (1982-3) at almost 10%.  In those years, the US had over 10 million people unemployed, worse than now.

How did we fix that problem?  Not through nationalization and massive works projects.  We pushed investments and cut taxes in order to get capital flowing in the markets, which created jobs through innovation.  So far, Washington has proposed the kind of solution that created the stagnation we had in the 1970s and 1980s, which is capital confiscation, based on a panic that will eventually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  We need to quit shrieking and start learning about recessions and the solutions that actually worked — and failed — in the past.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

BTW, DeathTMH, it was really classless to use a serviceman’s wife to make your point.

Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Um, dude, that IS the fracking point. This Republican Administration has *jacked* blue star families even as it justifies warmaking under the slogan of “supporting the troops.” FDR/Truman could make that claim because they actually did it via an expanded VA and the eventual GI Bill. The Bush Admin has slashed veterans benefits during a time of war, but they’re the patriots. HA!

DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM

The Bush Admin has slashed veterans benefits during a time of war, but they’re the patriots.

Sheer idiocy. Benefits have grown exponentially.

But that’s besides the point.

I’m a veteran myself, and no, I didn’t join with my hand out, for socialized medicine for life.

Every solicitation I get from Veteran’s groups from the VFW on down, go directly in the trash. I don’t want a lobbyist trying to get more $$$ out of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party, the Party that got scores of us killed in Iraq, cynically to advance their political agenda.

The only veterans who deserve the bucketloads of benefits currently offered veterans, in my opinion, are those wounded in combat.

Currently, there are probably millions of veterans receiving “disability benefits” for things as scary as falling down the stairs – not combat related. It’s nonsense.

I’ve never been in combat and I think it’s ridiculous all of the benefits available to me. Give that to the guys who need it, not the desk jockeys and those of us who were fortunate enough to deploy but who got out unscathed.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Um, dude, that IS the fracking point.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Not a dude, actually. And my point still stands. Do not drag an innocent bystander into your shrill tirades against “conservatives.”

You make a lot of assumptions. In my 20+ years experience working in academe, first in the sciences, then in a School of Management and Economics, I have observed that economists have the quantitative chops that historians lack and many are cross-trained in political science, history, and other soft fields as well. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have made a sweeping statement based on your limited appreciation of academe.

Good luck completing your Ph.D.

Y-not, Ph.D., University of Chicago

Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Great we’ve entrusted a guy who has never held an actual job, to raise the employment rate.

Maybe we can all become community organizers.

They had some good ones during the French Revolution.

The first head in the basket should be Barney Frank’s. Chris Dodd, you’re next.

Hope and change.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

How might the retirement of baby boomers be affecting these overall unemployment numbers? This year, and for many years to come, the boomers will be dropping out of the work force by the millions.

Are the government’s unemployment numbers based on employers reporting of loss of employees only, or do they qualify the reason for loss?

Just curious, if anyone knows.

fogw on January 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM

My understanding is that “unemployment” is defined as actively seeking work, but not currently working.

Retirees, etc. aren’t counted.

cs89 on January 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

They are bad bad people. The kind that would have sneaked quietly at night out of the Alamo while their comrades faught bravely to the death.

Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Perhaps, but Sam Houston wanted the Alamo destroyed by Bowie rather than defended. Often debates over the best way to confront and opponent are important.

I’m not an admirer of Noonan, but it is part of her role to be critical of GOP candidates much as Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin were critical of McCain. It is better for pundits to be wedded to ideas rather than individual candidates. Maybe Noonan’s ideas are wrong, but if those ideas brought her to criticize Palin then she’s being forthright.

dedalus on January 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Thanks for the best wishes, you didn’t really respond to my argument though. An sure sometimes economists are also trained historians (just as I’ve got training in statistics and a myriad of other social science methods). However, in order to make the argument that FDR extended the depression, you basically have to cherry pick policies from early in his career AND you have to pretend that the only measure of FDR’s success was the lack of immediate recovery. A standard that doesn’t meet any test of objectivity or fairness. As I suspect you agree since you did not respond to my argument.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM

you have to pretend that the only measure of FDR’s success was the lack of immediate recovery.

Ten Years is quite an interesting definition of “immediate”.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm406.cfm

the American Workforce

Kaptain Amerika on January 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Ten Years is quite an interesting definition of “immediate”.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

You’re right. Unemployment did not decrease at all in FDR’s first ten years. What fantasy are you living in. The idea that FDR did not immediately return the economy to pre-depression empliyment levels isn’t really an argument that he “Extended” the depression. Be honest.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Kaptain Amerika on January 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Care to tell me if the Heritage Foundation considers part time jobs full employment?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM

The idea that FDR did not immediately return the economy to pre-depression empliyment levels isn’t really an argument that he “Extended” the depression

Perhaps not, but it’s not an argument that he did anything to end it, either.

I would prefer not to be out in the fields digging ditches or picking strawberries in New Deal II.

Or is Obama looking at a plan closer to his heart, the Great Leap Forward?

Mao had no agricultural experience and look what a splendid job he did with that.

Or Stalin’s Revolution from Above, where the Grain Output skyrocketed in the Ukraine, just ask Pulitzer Prize Winner Walter Duranty of the New York Times.

Bambi’s got lots of super lefty ideas to choose from, we’ll all be up to our armpits in a glorious economy before long, I tell you.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM

NoDonk,

Just to let you know, I too am a Veteran. I served in the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserve for 20 years. I would have made retirement, but I contracted Multiple Sclerosis which forced me out of the service, sans retirement or medical benefits. I live a near normal life but require very expensive medication which, since my household income was significantly above the cutoff ceiling, and since I no longer have medical insurance, is denied me. Secondary Aggressive MS, which will incapacitate me, is a very real concern.

Am I bitter? No. Do I want to see VA benefits go to those wounded in combat? They already do. What about the WWII, Korean and Vietnam Vets who look to the VA in times like this? I served, and I’d go back in a New York second if I could, what about you?

SeniorD on January 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Employers shed over a half-million jobs in December

How many of these were paid to be internet trolls and/or “small donors” for the Obama campaign?

malclave on January 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Do I want to see VA benefits go to those wounded in combat? They already do.

Not enough.

What about the WWII, Korean and Vietnam Vets who look to the VA in times like this?

I’m not talking about the VA, the VA is there to care for the wounded and indigent vets. The indigent ones are frankly needed to keep the VA a teaching hospital, so that there will be enough residents and interns to treat the wounded.

I’m talking about the malingerers and the goldbrickers who tweaked a knee at age 18 and spend the rest of their lives collecting a 10% medical disability check.

I worked in a medical clinic where out of the blue, guys getting out or retiring would magically have their medical record “lost” (blaming us), which FORTUNATELY, they retained a phonebook sized copy of.

Which the doctored and subsequently used to get a paycheck for life and status as a disabled vet for business purposes.

Root out that nonsense and they’ll be plenty of dollars for the wounded and for the VA. But take away one goldbricking vets “disability pay” (HA!) and it’s all over the local news, while jackass Democrats squawk how the Republicans are taking money from vets.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Speaking as a military wife for the last 15 years I have to say the only administration that has “jacked” the military was the Clinton Administration via base closures and downsizing. Second point I would like to make is since you were so quick to lable me as “lazy” allow me to make an observation about you. Based on your comments here and on other threads I have come to the conclusion that you are a person who has an overwhelming sence of self importance. Here is a little food for thought, due to the fact that you are (I’m guessing) an American and are afforded your right to express yourself in any fashion you choose keep in mind that while you spew your vile there are men and women right now fighting for your right to do so. So this evening when you lay your head down for a peaceful nights rest keep this in mind, No matter how you feel about the military, and the men and women who serve and the families that support them through thick and thin, they will always have your back. YOU ARE WELCOME.

milwife88 on January 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Speculation does indeed create wealth. It does so by helping to stabilize prices so that produces are better able to plan for the future.

And the stock market creates lots of wealth, by providing companies with the money they need to expand.

Both those statements are false. Firstly, speculation does not stabilize prices. It does the opposite. It drives prices up or down. The whole reason for speculation is that prices will change, not stay the same.

Secondly, the stock market creates no wealth. The only good it does is through IPOs when a company first issues shares. After that, it is just Joe and Jack trading back and forth in a game of musical chairs.

keep the change on January 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM

W’s legacy just grows and grows.

benny shakar on January 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Secondly, the stock market creates no wealth. The only good it does is through IPOs when a company first issues shares. After that, it is just Joe and Jack trading back and forth in a game of musical chairs.

keep the change on January 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Companies can use a higher stock price to acquire other companies or to issue new stock. This would give them more capital to grow faster and create internal efficiencies.

dedalus on January 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage’

What stage are we in?

Number 7

Entelechy on January 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Wake me when it is over 10%, say next May.

Vashta.Nerada on January 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Until the 80s, Americans were LOATH to take out massive debt …
DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Who wants to take out a loan with 18% interest rates?

PackerBronco on January 9, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

Johan Klaus on January 9, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Entelechy on January 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Right on schedule.

Johan Klaus on January 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM

So far, Washington has proposed the kind of solution that created the stagnation we had in the 1970s and 1980s,

By “80s”, do you mean 80 & 81? Because most of the 80s saw prosperity.

jgapinoy on January 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM

The total job loss for 2008 went over 2.6 million, mostly in the latter half of the year, as prospects for growth look dim indeed.

I’m sure the minimum wage increase had nothing to do with increased unemployment.

jgapinoy on January 9, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Employers shed over a half-million jobs in December as the year ended in the grips of a full-blown recession.

Ah! But that’s going to change after noon on January 20th. By the end of the day on the 21st there will be full employment, peace in the Middle East, and an economy making so much money the government can’t spend it all.

WE ELECTED BARAK OBAMA. There’s no way that all this bad stuff is going to stay around now!

[Stupid, but it's scary how many people believe all the above]

highhopes on January 9, 2009 at 8:36 PM

crashland on January 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM

+1

tartan on January 9, 2009 at 9:09 PM

keep the change on January 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM

+1

tartan on January 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Oh, the Fool won’t be satisfied with 7.2.

He’s going for 15%.

Do or die.

notagool on January 9, 2009 at 9:12 PM

too many good posts. can’t thumbs up them all. just saying thanks to those who worded my own thoughts so well.

tartan on January 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM

We need to quit shrieking and start learning about recessions and the solutions that actually worked — and failed — in the past.

Amen, brother.

maverick muse on January 10, 2009 at 6:48 AM

The Obama Cult means to ruin America. That is how Socialism overwhelms all, through ruination, all the while bribing fools with carrots to come along peacefully. Any who balk are beaten into submission or disappear. Elitists prosper as they did during the world’s Great Depression of the 1930′s.

The Republican Party has become the RINO Party. Republican national leadership has coerced members to endorse/support/follow the likes of McCain nationally. Now the convene, and emerge with the announcement that all Republicans must become as the Northeastern RINO and support Obama’s agenda as our own.

NO!

John Cornyn, with all of his natural gifts, disappoints conservatism. Asinus asinum fricat. The donkey scratches the donkey.

maverick muse on January 10, 2009 at 7:00 AM

I’ve never been in combat and I think it’s ridiculous all of the benefits available to me. Give that to the guys who need it, not the desk jockeys and those of us who were fortunate enough to deploy but who got out unscathed.

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Thats interesting. I’m a combat vet (Vietnam). I don’t get any benefits. What do you have available that I don’t? Is a non-combat vet any less a vet than a combat vet? You seem to imply a distiction.

Obama will try to strip the benefits from military retirees and other vets. The Dems don’t give a hoot for the vets. If we all disappeared they would be happy. Too bad we won’t go away. Too bad we get noisy when they try to cheat us out of what we earned fighting their wars or in your case being ready to.

kanda on January 10, 2009 at 7:45 AM

This economy is the direct result of the past two years of democrats controlling congress. For two years they played politics with our economy until they broke it. Now it will become apparent how inept they are at running things. Obama/Biden think 10% unemployment is acceptable. 7.2% unemplyment will be looked back on with fondness two years from now. This is how they will socialize our country. Bush is giving them what they want. Lets see how they handle being responsible. After January 20th it’s in their ballpark.

kanda on January 10, 2009 at 7:52 AM

What are these “jobs” that Obama intends to create? Where are they? How are they salaried? In reality I suspect that this is nothing more than another enormous government welfare program disguised as “jobs” and designed to pacify Obama’s parasitic constituency. Exactly how will these new “jobs” improve the state of our free market economy? These shysters need to be watched very closely lest the drive the country into a one way rat hole.

rplat on January 10, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Obama has a lot of advisers that are “experts”.

You know who else were considered experts?

CEO of Countrywide
CEO of Fannie
CEO of Freddie
Maddoff
CEO of Lehman
CEO of Bear Stersn

All experts, all saying the economy is wonderful, all wrong. And yet for some reason these very same types of “experts” say all will be well with the stimulus and the masses say OK, let’s do it.

angryed on January 10, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Wake me when it is over 10%, say next May.

Vashta.Nerada on January 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Measured by 1930s standards it’s at 16% and rising.

DFCtomm on January 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM

We need to quit shrieking and start learning about recessions and the solutions that actually worked — and failed — in the past.

The great depression is the only event that can offer us any real similarity to the current situation, but we never fixed the great depression WWII did.

DFCtomm on January 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM

The great depression is the only event that can offer us any real similarity to the current situation, but we never fixed the great depression WWII did.

It didn’t get fixed even by WWII.

Government can ‘t fix things: it causes the problems. The way to “fix” it is to get the heck out of the way.

We just have a group that can’t get their dirty hands out of the mix, and we have too many people that think the government can “fix” things.

Noelie on January 10, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Shouldn’t your headline read
OBAMESSIAH SAVES 92.8 PERCENT OF JOBS

???

heavenhelpus on January 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/01/averaging-misery-index-economist-take.html

And here are the latest stats broken down by state on unemployment rate and rank, note that Oklahoma is at 4.7, they passed laws on illegal aliens, that was fought over by the Chamber of Commerce inside Oklahoma, we were discussing this on the latest post on Imus Times

http://imustimes.wordpress.com/

The Media doesn’t mention the U.S Chamber Of Commerce’s position very often, they have hand in where we find ourselves Economically today . Look there is no housing boom going on, for the construction business to employ the cheap illegal alien labor. People don’t have disposable income like they did before, they don’t go to restaurants as much, that effects the service industry ect…

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

Dr Evil on January 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM

I guess peddling Economic FEAR is how to keep the masses in line?

http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/obama-says-forget-those-campaign-promises-think-burdens-and-heavy-lifting/

Dr Evil on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM

NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Sounds like you are mad at life because you got a zero percent disability rating.

Bradky on January 12, 2009 at 6:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2