NP - The Myth of a Jobless Recovery

[alice wellintown]

Agreed. one might define recovery as "I'm doing better" but this is not
very useful, so generally, people use the terms recovery and expansion
to mean employment and output are rising.

>From what?

>From a great contraction. This time, as the book by r&r makes clear, is not
different. It's great, it's a major financial crisis driven recession, but
unfortunately, not quite common when we look at the economies round the
globe through history.

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Bekah wrote:

> This is probably saying the same thing but it seems to me a person could
> define "recovery" any old way they wanted.   If you base the numbers on the
> stock market and GNP or a couple other indicators,   who cares about jobs
> and median family income?   Or you could count everything but assign
> different rankings to each factor.  Or you could use the numbers from the
> above to automatically project job creation with no evidence.
>
> And then too,   what does "recovery" mean in terms of end result -  are
>  we recovered back to where we were at some peak economic performance?  Or
> back to some kind of average for the last couple decades or century or
> whatever?
>
> I think we're still economically ailing.   What would we be if we had 1%
> unemployment (due to self-sufficient farming and handi-man/barter stuff or
> something)  and the stock market was crashing?  I'll bet there are those
> who would consider that a serious, serious depression.
>
>
> Bekah
>
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 10:22 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > We can define and measure recovery, itz not rocket science, we simply
> > look at the charts and graphs and there it is;  or there it isn't.
> > itz so easy,  that even an economist can do it.
> >
> > But not all recoveries look alike because not all recessions look
> > alike. The one the US is now recovering from, while not unique, is
> > uncommon.  It is a major financial crisis recovery.
> >
> > And, it is common to have a slow, pathetic to moderate, recovery, one
> > that moves back to natural unemployment slowly, after such a crisis.
> > That's what we have.
> >
> > Some call it a jobless recovery and this phrase is not accurate,
> > although the nitty gritty splceres of date aind indicators may make
> > arguements about the particulars....but it does say something about
> > the recovery from these kinds of financial crises, that is, they are
> > not easily shaken off and they do damage to employment, damage that
> > takes up to a decade, in the best of circumstances (ours is not the
> > best but relatively very good), or longer to repair. Of course, for
> > some workers, and groups, the dmage can not be repaired. There are a
> > hundred variables, some of them singular and local, but the nutz and
> > boltz of it are simple enough.
> >
> >
> > So, how tro avoid this next time? We can't. WE might try what the
> > Brits are doing, or whatever, but in America we like risk and we will
> > take the chances, de-regulate and find ways to make money.
> >
> > The good news is that those in debt are being helped and those who
> > have lotz of money are bing taxed to help them. A good policy, if kept
> > in check,  in the long run.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130109/4b2123a2/attachment.html>