[Positive]

"Still that’s a raw numbers chart not percentage of population. Someone upthread suggested it would look different if presented as a percentage."

Well sure it does, there were 2.8 million jobs lost in 1945 when the US population was about 140 million.

This year 2.6 million jobs lost, population about 300 million.

So as a percentage of total population (not work force) 2% of the population lost jobs in 1945 --- .9% of the population lost jobs in 2008.

[TigersEye]

So if the whole graph were adjusted that way it would have a continuous upward trend throughout wouldn’t it?

[TigersEye]

Correction: I should have said a continuous upward trend averaged and you bring up another adjustment that should be included as well. It should reflect percentage of workforce not total population. Of course increased percentage of government jobs would skew it too. I don't know if those are counted in unemployment figures ... or whether they should be since they don't really reflect economic conditions the same way jobs in the open market do. Do they?