What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
757 Comments
- Grova, on 02/10/2009, -8/+672Not so bad if you turn it upside down.
- ashamedgorilla, on 02/10/2009, -21/+498WHOA! That is scary. Allow me to make it less scary:
http://tinyurl.com/d8md6m
There, that's better. Who else feels better? - kss42, on 02/10/2009, -9/+359Damn economy, you scary!
- canadaboy, on 02/10/2009, -6/+323Is it adjusted for population inflation?
- perfectfire, on 02/10/2009, -2/+304Here you go:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/job-loss ...
Also includes a graph normalized for increases in the workforce. So far this unemployment uptick is in the middle of the pack, but quickly getting worse. - richmomz, on 02/10/2009, -2/+303I would be interested to see some of the bigger recessions on there as well (70s, 80s, and of course the 1929 crash).
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -6/+303the 1990 and 2001 recessions were pretty weak recessions though
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 02/10/2009, -5/+217Looks like that piece of paper it took me four years to achieve will continue doing me no good for the foreseeable future..
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -9/+171Well, that was downright frightening.
- CapeKid, on 02/10/2009, -5/+164That was the first thing I noticed, it uses actual numbers, not percentages. This is misleading on purpose.
- IphtashuFitz, on 02/10/2009, -3/+143Congratulations! You just recognized the basic issues involving a recession!
- greeniemeani, on 02/10/2009, -1/+133That's what she said.
- m3arvk, on 02/10/2009, -4/+120Pretty sure we didn't need it from 1948.
- emib, on 02/10/2009, -1/+107This is in percentages. For some clarification
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/09/how-bad ... - replaysMike, on 02/10/2009, -3/+101it's not so bad, eventually it'll get to the bottom of the page and come out from the top.
- z00k, on 02/10/2009, -8/+101Looks like a boot.
- QuantumNighmare, on 02/10/2009, -3/+86Nice, comparing two mini recessions to this one. How about some comparison to the 1970's oil crash, and the great depression? Or do the real recessions make this current one look less scary?
- gametavern, on 02/10/2009, -7/+89Doubt it... it's mean to be scary and cause for concern like all ***** media these days.
- Zippo, on 02/10/2009, -13/+90I know businesses are trying to cut losses, but laying off people by the millions seems pretty counterproductive to me. If everyone's lost their jobs, how the hell is the economy supposed to get better?
People are going to be unemployed and unable to buy ***** all... and the companies are going to be left with a severe drop in talent and manpower. - blueplanet, on 02/10/2009, -10/+85AHHHHH IT'S ARMAGEDDON! PANIC HYSTERIA AHHHHH!
- Azulus, on 02/10/2009, -1/+73Here's the percentage based one which isn't as FUD oriented (though still quite scary)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SZCIDv4ozKI/ ... - dse78759, on 02/10/2009, -1/+72I did not see that coming.
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -19/+88This graph is completely biased, sorry conspiracy theorists.
First, there are more people in the USA than in 1990 or in 2001.
Second, there are also more jobs. 3,000,000 job losses now is obviously less painful than 3,000,000 job losses in 2001
Thirdth, not all these job losses are permanent. Google, for example, as well as Microsoft and GM, temporarly fired people
Fourth, this fails to comprehend the people who went in "forced retirement", meaning they were strongly encouraged to retire.
Fifth, you purely included job losses and some of them are seasonal. Your graph is not adjusted for this effect. For example, it's pointless to hire people in agriculture domain right now as they mostly work summer/late spring.
While the present situation is not funny, it's not as dramatic as your "graph" makes it look like. Economy has cycles, that's it. - specialK16, on 02/10/2009, -4/+71Was that really ***** necessary? Couldn't you just put a link?
- justice7, on 02/10/2009, -0/+64Perspective is everything!
http://s5.tinypic.com/oidmz4.jpg
fixed it.
(is it just me or does that look russian?) - garryw, on 02/10/2009, -1/+63your $50 bill is still valuable, don't worry
- GoldEdition, on 02/10/2009, -6/+67And it doesn't even plan to go up soon...
- BlackOculus, on 02/10/2009, -3/+60when ever i see a negative graph like that, I turn it into a positive by picturing it as a roller coaster. "Wheeeeeeeee!"
- coeal1, on 02/10/2009, -4/+53Still haven't seen the chart for 1929
- d2002, on 02/10/2009, -11/+59From Karen Tumulty:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/06/how-bad ...
Via Consumerist:
http://consumerist.com/5149425/just-how-bad-is-thi ... - cygnus2112, on 02/10/2009, -5/+51Yeah, I remember bitching about the 1920's on Digg. Boy, those were the days!
- WindReaver, on 02/10/2009, -0/+43It's like a superball. The harder you throw it down the higher it bounces!
- davidlow, on 02/10/2009, -0/+42Percentages:
http://tinyurl.com/awj84b - ipss, on 02/10/2009, -1/+42what do you do with a philosophy degree even when the economy is good?
- alcimedes, on 02/10/2009, -0/+41More useful graph here:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SZCIDv4ozKI/ ...
With job losses as a percentage of total work force, and includes 10 recessions going back to 1948 - daniel2e, on 02/10/2009, -1/+42Why is it so hard to express these things as percentages? If you're going to use absolute numbers you might as well have rendered the graph in glitter on construction paper.
One would think the situation is bad enough to not make it look artificially worse. - swordedge, on 02/10/2009, -0/+40I have problems with this graph...
Three recessions a pattern does not make. Include the last ten at a minimum.
The job loss should be shown as a percentage of the total working population. There are more people working now than in 1991 so a loss of 2 million jobs then is more severe then 2 million jobs now.
A better option just might be to count the number of working Americans rather then the number looking for work. Heck, make graphs showing both.
In short, while this graph is scary, it doesn't begin to show the actual picture. - inactive, on 02/10/2009, -3/+41http://i39.tinypic.com/2yvw0a9.gif
- vilago, on 02/10/2009, -1/+39 it looks like someone peeing on a boot
- JK1150, on 02/10/2009, -3/+40where would you get the financing to do so?
- AmyVernon, on 02/10/2009, -3/+39Unemployment *rate* is different than the actual number of jobs eliminated. And despite the unemployment extensions, the rate isn't the true number of people without jobs. If these people took new parttime jobs, they would be thrown off unemployment; if they didn't apply for unemployment benefits (or weren't eligible for some reason), they wouldn't be counted in these numbers. The unemployment rate is not an actual measure of how many people are unemployed. It is a measure of how many people are being paid unemployment insurance. Two different things.
- m3arvk, on 02/10/2009, -1/+36Except that it's a GED...
- perfectfire, on 02/10/2009, -0/+34Nope, but here's one adjusted for workforce increases:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/job-loss ... - r3adah3ad, on 02/10/2009, -2/+36I wasn't gonna dig you because most of what you said had already been said already...
But then you said "thirdth," and I changed my mind. - WhiteSquall57, on 02/10/2009, -1/+34Just like my own depression I will eat my way through this bacon flavored recession.
- 13373h4X0r, on 02/10/2009, -0/+33Yay! Our economy is going to be so awesome in a few years! Thanks, superball economics!
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -0/+33Art degrees tend to work out that way.
- ssmithy, on 02/10/2009, -1/+33Good show. Crisis averted!
- cygnus2112, on 02/10/2009, -0/+31And shake it a little.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 778 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
