Economic fearmongering at TPM

It HAS TO BE an age-related thing, with bloggers and other online-heavy folks, presumably under the age of 35, or at least under the age of 40, totally ignorant of the 1980-82 recession, even to the point of seemingly salivating at the chance of using the “D” word. Paul Kurtz at Talking Points Memo is the latest guilty party.

Yes, it is true that, in terms of raw numbers, the U.S. economy lost the most jobs since 1945. But, even that is long after the Depression.

But as a percentage decline, it’s nowhere near as bad, considering the population of 305 million today is almost double that of 1945.

In fact, per CNN’s own graph, the 2008 losses aren’t as bad as 1982, as percentage of total population; it’s 8.5 percent for last year vs. 9.5 percent in 1982.

Tis also true that the unemployment percentage is going up, but it is nowhere near as bad as the last real recession, of 1980-82.

If you're not over 40, you may not remember the "double-dip" 1980-82 recession. But can we hold off saying this is the worst crisis since the Depression?

Now, it is true, as Kevin Phillips has so well noted, that unemployment calculation methodology has been, to be blunt, "fudged" since 1982. That said, some of the fudging had been done before then, as Phillips has also written.

And, as Phillips also has noted, fudging numbers has been a bipartisan affair, with Democrats back to JFK "trimming" on unemployment and the GOP "trimming" on inflation.

That said, as I note, there's a full percentage point difference between 2008 job losses and 1982. Even with allowance for fudging, I don't think you can say problems now are significantly worse than they were then.

I’ve said it before: Sometimes, whistling past the graveyard is nothing but false optimism. But at other times, becoming too afraid of the “graveyard” is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And, at least for now, I think the MSM is too much in “self-fulfilling prophecy” mode.

Also,2008 losses were less bad than two different consecutive years from the last serious recession.

First, per information from Jim Glass, about which I wasn’t sure and hadn’t checked, CNN, et al, doubly blew it, as has WM poster "Joe Friday."

Turns out 1983 was a worse year for job losses, by percentage of workforce, than both last year AND 1982.

Yes, the "augmented unemployment rate," of part-timers, discouraged and semi-discouraged, plus traditional unemployment, may be at 13.5 percent.

I found further relevant data back to 1970 at Brad DeLong's site going back to 1970, data about the employed as a percentage of the total workforce, just to further confirm what I've already said.

The ratio was .60 in 1982 and about .63 this year.

Adjusting for that, jobs lost to number of civilian employed, as percentage, was worse yet in 1982, at 15.67 percent, than the 13.45 percent last year, thus strengthening my argument.

Yes, there are other ways of skinning the cat, but per the job-loss measure which, as I said, is not fudgeable, 2008 wasn't as bad as 1982. Nor as bad as 1983; I noticed

Now, 2009 may well be worse. I'm not denying that. But, let's not yet get too much into doom and gloom.

Otherwise, folks like Mr. Kiel exemply why, although I'm on the demographic borderlands between Baby Boomers and Gen X, I don't want to be considered part of either group.

I am certainly not in the older end of the Boomers... the folks who screwed this up in the first place and inflicted narcissism on the future.

BUT... I'm not in the often-solipsistic mindset of Gen X, especially the younger part of that cohort.

Frankly, I think those of us born about 1961-66 are parts of a "lost generation."