First, note that by 20 months, the 1990ss recovery had rebounded, while the early 2000s recover was still losing jobs. The latest recovery is standing still, having dropped a bit, but then rebounding.
Manufacturing jobs had dropped in the early 1990s recovery, but had started to recover by the 20 month mark. In contrast, the early 2000s recovery was still losing manufacturing jobs at a steep pace. The current recovery has seen a drop in manufacturing jobs, but has also seen a slight rebound.
In comparison, the early 1990s recovery was responsible for a huge increase in service jobs by 20 months. In comparison, neither the 2000 or current recovery is really doing much in terms of service sector job creation.
3 comments:
And in the current downturn the number of jobs last was vastly greater than in the prior two downturns. Also be aware that what you call "recovery" in the tech wreck recession of the last decade was only considered a recovery because GDP got itself a little above water for several months. A large percentage of the increases in GDP in 2002 and 2003 were merely statistical upward adjustments for hedonics. Most indicators show the recession really lasted from 2001 until spring 2003. It would make more sense to show increases in any measure off the bottom from a starting point of Q2 of 2003, rather than showing the brief blips in some measures in a few quarters of 2002.
Dear anonymous
1.) In the first article in the series, I mentioned -- several times -- that I was well aware of the severity of this recovery was far worse than the other recoveries.
2.) The dating of the recession is done by the NBER -- not anonymous people posting comments on the interest. The NBER is staffed with people who -- y'know -- actually studies economics as opposed to anonymous people on the internet who post the last slime from Mish or the like.
"Although that is what the data says, I don't buy it."
-- Mish
Post a Comment