Posted on 02/02/2003 10:18:20 PM PST by Red Jones
The jobless recovery Suffering from the recessions aftershocks, labor market conditions continue to worsen
by Jared Bernstein
Though the recession that began in March 2001 has not yet been declared officially over, most economists believe it ended early in 2002. However, the labor market downturn is far from behind us. Todays labor market is much weaker than it was one or even two years ago, and the jobless recovery grinds on.
(Excerpt) Read more at epinet.org ...
As to the rest of your post ... I concure. :-)
In 1920, the total population of the USA was 106,492,000, the unemployed ( and do bear in mind that tallies of these things weren't as good as they are today )were 2,132,000 strong. There were 3,411 strikes.
Unemployment figures for '21 ... 11.7%,'22 ...6.7%,'23 ... 2.4%,'24 ... 5.0%,'25 ... 3.2%,'26 ... 1.8%,'27 ...3.3%,'28 ...4.2%,'29 ...3.2%.Since this decade emcompasses a BUBBLE, it is not " usual ", nor a normative sequential of data any more than the ear following, of the GREAT DEPRESSION is. That's the point though; all BUBBLES and collapses ( and there have been many ! ) are what make up our overview of what is . The late '40s and early '50s had their own glictches, what with servicemen returnong. The 1960s were a mini version of the Roaring Twenties' ebulance, the '70s had their ;ows, the '80's bounched back, with Reagan's tax decrease, and on and on. Yet, YOU make outrageous, broad brushed statements, which are tottaly inaccurate and spurious.
RLK was " published " by some college blog/website ? BFD ! That's NO source to quote. Anyone and everyone can prattle just about anything on those things and that isn't being " published " !
Insulting me and calling me names, get's you nowhere; shabby, smarmy, patently obvious lying flattery, results in more of the same. Why don't I " like you " ? I don't suffer fools lightly and scorn those who pretend to know what they're talking about, when their abject lack of knowledge is so astoundingly glaring and easy to refute. Facts matter, words mean things, and you aren't man enough to deal honestly in this discourse.
You haven't the foggiest idea what I look like. You should realize that I'm better versed in these facts and this topic, than you are, though. ; ^ )
-------------------------
Trinkets such as VCRs and CD players are cheaper than ever before. When you get into serious areas such as houses and automobiles, that's where the bite comes, particularly for the miffle class.
----------------------
That's a serious point. In touting recent economic trends the move is to talk about family income. The one-earner family income is not rosey. Increases in family income are the result of increases in pay for wives.
thanks RLK. As a proud member of the miffle class I'm glad we can hear from a real economistist. When you were a college professor you taught economics didn't you? Because I told somebody you did.
---------------------------------
From Friedman's course on NPT, that was the American bank in NYC which Friedman described as a small Jewish bank. The news started withdrawals at other banks which became a spreading national panic within the next several months.
In the 1960s, the average salery was $4,743.00 per year. From want ads, in the N.Y. Times, Receptionist : $ 65-80 ( per week ), Clerk-typist : $70-90,TV programer : $125,IBM key punch : $65-90, Dental assistant : $125, and my first job teaching ...$5,700 per year. N.Y.C. apartment rentals ... 5th Ave.,in the 60s,6 room duplex ...$575 ( per month ), Broadway at 72nd St. 2 bedrooms , living room, litchen, dining room, 2 baths ...$200, Park West Village, 2 bedrooms with view of Central Park ...$239, My Great Aunt's HUGE studio apartment, on Central Park South ( very ritzy neighborhood ! ) $100 per month in a RENT CONTROLLED apartment building, my one bedroom, living room, lictchen, one bath, in Greenwich Village ( the West Village ... the nice part ) cost $135.
You can try to make your points; however, facts don't change, no matter how you attempt to juggle and mash them about. Things cost more today, only because you don't adjust the dollar costs. In truth, many things cost less today, than they did in 1965 or even in the 1920s !
As far as housing and other expenses in NYC, the area is its own country with enormous expenses. Anyone would need to be an idiot to live there. Money is worth nothing. Talk to me about Richmond, Cincinatti, Moline, Milwaukee at the time, and it will mean something.
In 1972 I bought a new Ford off the showroom for $3,200 and got bilked royally by the salesman. Try doing that now.
Yes,N.Y.C. still has rent control, which only L.A. still has. Boston just got rid of it, but hasn't gotten riod of other rules, which is still giving that city nightmares. There are MANY places, in the USA, where housing costs are shockingly sky high. Many people still want to live there and would be as disgusted to have to live in the places YOU listed, ( Moline ? Moline, Ill. ? You've got to be kidding and who wants to live in Cincinatti or Milwaukee , for crying out loud ? ) , as you are about N.Y.C. !
Your anecdotal story about your Ford, is silly. You use 1972 dollars and then glibly say : " Try doing that now ." Apples and oranges; not at all material, germaine, or relivant. Try using the same dollar amounts; your way is junk economics at best.
You want anecdotal eco ? Okay...my grandmother got married in 1916. Her satin wedding shoes cost $15.00. In 1915, the average pay, for a man in N.Y.C. was $15.00 ! My story, at least, makes the family story relivant and understandable; unlike your's.
------------------
You're making good points, but that doesn't mean people want to listen to them. There are more than a few brats here. Others are blinded by crackpot ideology that they hold on to in desperation.
If you look at the economic figures for the period between 1947 and 1973 in this country, it was the greatest economic boom in history with a more than doubling of salaries adjusted for inflation and enormous new job creation--with a few small transient recessions. It was done without large amounts of foreign imports, immigration, globalism, dependence upon foreign trade, and so forth. In about 72-73 something began to happen and the economic curves show a sharp knee and a flattening at that point. As far as I can see the last 15 years have indicated exponentially deteriorating economic conditions for people at the 60th percentile and below with the condition slowly working its way upward into higher income areas. Had the 47-72 economic curve been extended, it would have resulted in median salaries twice what they are now. There are profits to be made by people brokering this deterioration. In addition there is an absurd quasi-Marxist altruistic idealism in which the economic condition of this nation is to be sacrificed to bring this nation in a condition of economic equality with the rest of the world. It's been sold for years at Ivy League universities. It's taken hold. It's not a view I share.
This is a little like saying fire is hot, stones are hard, and that water is wet.
This is because the rest of the world had incinerated itself with only the americas relatively untouched. We can easily duplicate this period. All we have to have is a fourth reich to invade and destroy russia and most of europe and bomb england back to the stone age while japan invades china. Then after we drop a few nukes on japan, the US can be number 1 again. Nostagia for this era ignores the fact that the only surviving manufacturing base in the world was the US.
--------------------
How does the second sentence infer to have caused the first?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.