OMG! It’s the worst unemployment rate since 1992!

Get a grip, America. 7.6% shouldn’t be an argument for $2 trillion in stimulus. ($700 M TARP plus $900 M spending perks plus the cost of financing the mess.)

I went to the Bureau Labor of Statistics and did a graph for you from 1948. It’s a roller coaster. That’s what economies do.

Can we stop with the “worst life ever” lines being used to justify Democratic social spending?


  1. Thanks for the chart and reality check. 1982 was a bad year for us–my husband lost his job.

    The President and Democrats better be careful with all their fear mongering. They are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. A recovery depends on Americans spending and investing again. They certainly won’t if we are led to believe we are in the Great Depression.

    But maybe that isn’t such a bad idea if your real goal is to socialize private enterprise and get Americans dependent on the govt. for absolutely everything–even your TV converter box!

  2. Watch it there Kyle – Cindy is pretty gung-ho about the cable box:

    Even fairlyconservative people need their government to buy a $40 cable box for them.

  3. Hey! I got my two $40 coupons, by the way.

    Haven’t found the box to buy, yet.

  4. Your snapshot of existing market conditions is a very misleading. The unemployment “rate” is a vague picture of overall market conditions. Not to mention it’s one of the biggest lagging indicators measured. There is no question that the unemployement rate is well above 7.6% and stimulus will most likely not be in place soon enough to stop that number from rising above 9% by fall.

    I recommend you use this number to get a general velocity of the acceleration of deteriorating conditions. Secondly, take a good look at the underemployment rate (the “all-in” rate which now stands at 13.9%) and the aggregate hours worked data (which is falling off a cliff) that came out today. Both will tell you that market deterioration has started to come to a boil. If markets are left alone (the Cindy program), feed back loops will intensify (unemployment will decrease consumption which leads to more unemployement which leads to continued falling house prices which worsens bank balance sheets which freezes up lending which causes more unemployement……).

    Please keep in mind, the deflation trap we ar facing has disasterous consequences on a market economy and is VERY difficult to pull out of, once the wheels are in motion.

  5. 77 OPEN staff positions at the Medical College of Wisconsin…. most require a college degree – but I suppose that is my fault.

  6. J Strupp – this snapshot is so “misleading” that it’s being used right now in the Senate to justify billions in Democratic payback spending.

  7. Becuase it’s politicans, who don’t know there ass from a hole in the ground on this issue.

    You are a inquisitive person Cindy. Here are a couple graphs to stress my point. I hope you will keep an open mind to the seriousness of this situation. Again the RATE of change is key folks. From the St. Louis Fed:

    ….Notice the little “hook” on CPI. Now take a look at rate of change:

    deflation is a REAL risk here. Unless we can find a way to pump dollars into the system, we are looking at BIG problems here. I hope people continue to stay informed on this issue. This is NOT 1992, despite the unemployment rate that speaks otherwise.

  8. I’ll look into the perils of deflation.

    Your second link didn’t give me the intended result.

  9. J. Strupp says:

    Sorry about that Cindy. I’m struggling today with this whole copy paste thing today. Go to the first graph and click on “cont. rate of change” just under it. Hope that works for you.

    Here’s another one for you (if the darn thing works). Keep in mind that we are just getting started on our downward trend on unemployement (IMO) so what’s this graph going to look like in 6 months? Sorry for the screw ups.

  10. I say the trend reverses at 60 and the world is spared.

    And I think you were actually the casualty of an over zealous spam filter.

  11. J. Strupp says:

    I do hope your right.

    My guess is that the vast majority of the stimulus package doesn’t get into the system until late 2009-early 2010 and we lose between $4-5 million additional jobs by Christmas (the trend indicates loses much worse than is BTW). Even if recovery begins by fall, we usually see a continued rise in unemployement until the recovery is considered authentic by businesses. If that holds true this time around, we could see unemployement continue right through next winter. I just can’t see the unemployment rate holding under 9-9.5% by the end of the year, especially if we keep worrying about the size of an undersized stimulus package.

    ..and that’s my optimistic view.

    ….But you know what they say about opinions.

  12. And even if unemployment hovers around 10% the world won’t come to an end.

    BTW – BO use the fact that unemployed COULD reach 10% as a reason he should be elected. He could stop that, by golly.

  13. J. Strupp says:

    I will say this: I don’t think it’s constructive for Obama to continue down-talking our economic situation everyday. There are ways to go about things and I don’t think the President should be the most pessimistic guy in the country. Right now he appears to be doing this to get his stimiulus package passed. Not good.

  14. J. Strupp says:

    BTW, I consider 10% unemployment to be the high point only BECAUSE of stimulus about to be passed. The “hands off approach” would produce a much dire situation in my opinion.

  15. J. Strupp says:

    In repsonse to #10.

    Care to enter a wager on that 60?

  16. J. Strupp says: