The Jobless Recovery

Economic Policy Institute ^ | January 24, 2002 | Jared Bernstein

[nopardons]

Yes, you and I are on the same page; a flat tax IS the way to go...a flat tax, with the same percentage for everyone !

As to the rest of your post ... I concure. :-)

[Red Jones]

why yes, RLK does get published. He's worked at different careers, but I think he was a college professor a few years ago before retirement. I think he taught economics. My memory fails me. I've only seen him published on a web site that I think publishes mainly college professors.

and maybe I should take your advice and systematically store information on my hard drive with sources so that I can show it to people. Perhaps I should not be an amateur propagandist any more and be more professional about it. But I remember seeing a chart in the WSJ that listed unemployment rates all the way back to 1870. I was shocked by it. The author was telling us in that article that after 1967 the unemployment rate was elevated on historical standards. He used the chart to prove this. It really opened my eyes. I see you quoted 1921 figure at 11.7%, you have that chart in front of you. And I remember that in 1920 it was 1.0% and it went all the way to 12 in just one year. It jumped around. But on average it was normally between 3.0 and 3.5% from 1870 to 1970 if we merely exclude the 1930-1945 period. We haven't seen it under 4.0% since before 1970. And before 1970 we never went more than 4 years with it not going under 4.0%. It's like night and day when you compare post-1970 to pre-1970 in unemployment numbers.

But I want to tell you also dear that you look ravishing tonight. I am forever captured by your beauty. It is my deepest disappointment in life that you don't like me.

[nopardons]

Your memory, of whatever article / chart you once saw, is inaddequate. I don't do web searches, as I prefer books, and yes, I went and pulled a book with this info, from my library. I could, of course, cross refference it all for you, but these ARE the figures.

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. ; ^ )

[RLK]

The government's inflation rate does not really measure the changes in costs that people face. It underestimates housing costs and as housing costs have been going up much faster than inflation we're left with this situation that a whole range of lower wage type jobs like waitress and construction laborer were paid wages in 1965 that actually went further in the economy than they do today.

-------------------------

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.

[RLK]

Today to get the same standard of living that people routinely enjoyed in 1965 with one person working we now require two people working.

----------------------

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.

[Red Jones]

particularly for the miffle class

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.

[RLK]

But it harmed some people and there was a bank in NYC that went bankrupt as a result of this. As they shut down lots of people lost their deposits because we didn't have FDIC back then.

---------------------------------

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.

[nopardons]

In the 1920s, a Cadilac cost $2,885.00, a Maxwell ( Jack Benny 's car, in his radio show ) cost $885.00 and the average salary was $1,236.00 per year.

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 !

[Red Jones]

thanks again RLK. And I think that you've met Milton Friedman and even discussed issues with him in the company of other economics professors like yourself. We all like Milton Friedman. That's one thing we can agree on. The formal name on that bank was 'Bank Of The United States' I think. And friedman said that when it went under that was the beginning of the panic that caused a run on banks and bank bankruptcies that actually caused the 'great depression'. The stock market crash was just a trigger that wouldn't have done anything if not for this panic about bank deposits.

And I'm complimented that you read in detail my long posts. You only had small comments, that means the old college professor (RLK) didn't have much criticism of me, meaning that I did pretty good.

[RLK]

In the '20, automobiles wer still nearly a novelty item, particularly the models you mentioned. In 1938 a new plymouth delux cost $520.00, although the nearly 18% of people out of work coundn't afford them.

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.

[nopardons]

No, one needn't be an " idiot " to live in N.Y.C.; just because YOU wouldn't want to live there, doesn't make it a horror.

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.

[RLK]

that means the old college professor (RLK) didn't have much criticism of me, meaning that I did pretty good.

------------------

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.

[RLK]

Let me add, you can not ship entire major industries out of this country and expect the people you put out of work to be able to afford your goods and services. Neither can the people you are paying 25 cens an hour to afford your goods and services. This country is being destroyed.

[RLK]

If you are as right as you think you are, then you certainly are right.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"Let me add, you can not ship entire major industries out of this country and expect the people you put out of work to be able to afford your goods and services. Neither can the people you are paying 25 cens an hour to afford your goods and services. This country is being destroyed."

This is a little like saying fire is hot, stones are hard, and that water is wet.

[staytrue]

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 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.

[staytrue]

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

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.

[Red Jones]

but statistics show that we did not export much and we did not import much in the 1945-1970 period. And yet the boom occurred. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it as you have asserted. RLK is comparing american standards of those days to american standards of today. He's not comparing it to foreign countries. So, are you saying now that when we trade with foreigners it makes us poor?

THe strengths in the american economy in the post ww2 period were american grown. The weaknesses today are american grown.

Trade with foreign countries does not in itself make us poor. But stupid trade policies are a different matter.

[RLK]

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 This is because the rest of the world had incinerated itself with only the americas relatively untouched.

--------------------

How does the second sentence infer to have caused the first?

[staytrue]

We exported like crazy in those years. That's how we became the world's largest creditor nation. Plus, we imported little because the rest of the world could produce next to nothing due to a destroyed infrastucture and manufacturing base.