Pethokoukis

A big (and updated) version of the biggest, most important chart in American politics

Here is an embiggened version of the infamous jobs chart prepared by Obama administration economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer back in January 2009 (and now updated again by me with data from the August jobs report).

You know, the chart that predicted what the unemployment rate would be if Congress passed the Obama stimulus plan. Note: This chart predicts the unemployment rate would be lower than it actually is today even if Congress didn’t pass the stimulus.

Well, here you go. Click it once, let the next page load, and then click it again. Or just click here.

 

16 thoughts on “A big (and updated) version of the biggest, most important chart in American politics

  1. Please add two data points, things you had in some past versions: normal labor drop outs during a recession, and decline due to normal Boomer retirement levels (what had been predicted prior to the Great Recession). Those two items are sometimes given as excuses for our awful employment situation.

      • My dear Linda, as Max suggests – and indicates some of us can do math – if we lower government employment and retirement benefits it actually results in more growth of the private sector. The public sector is a DRAIN. Get it?

    • Those jobs had to be cut to save money to spend saving banks and businesses and paying for tax cuts for rich people so they can invest in the economy and create jobs.

      Don’t you understand how the economy works? :-) Oh and don’t read headlines and panic and get worried because then if you are surveyed about your confidence in consuming you might not be enthusiastic enough and then you will create lower consumer confidence which will cause the rich people to not invest and then you might LOSE your job. Unless you already lost it because of OBAMA … hahah anyway don’t be nervous and just let these expert economist thinkers figure it out because THEY konw EVERYTHING and OBAMA does NOT.

  2. This needs to be on ABCNBCCBS & CNN. You know they’ll show this chart if you send it to them! Hahahaha. (Breaking news: the MSM is in the tank for Obama.) Oh right, I’m supposed to tell you something you don’t already know.

  3. Ideally, the red-dotted curve should be marked as “actual U-3″ and the single-dot at 11.2% should be part of a new curve you compute, “actual U-3-type unemployment, assuming constant Labor Force Participation.”

  4. Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn’t the dark blue dot (with recovery plan) be directly under the light blue dot (without recovery plan) if both show the same month?

  5. I’m an English conservative. I see the point of the graph, but you just can’t help letting partisanship seep in, and this undermines your credibility and your ability to make a constructive contribution. You need to snap out of this disease, like just about everyone involved in public policy in the U.S.

  6. seems likely you are comparing things that are calculated differently and so you’re trying to make a big stink about value from different formulas. Without the actual formula that is being used for each line on the graph we have no way to know if you are comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges.

    this is useless without that.

  7. In the North country of New England (Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont) the actual number of people without jobs or chronically underemployed is 25%, one-in-four. Those are real people really suffering. Crime is rampant, unoccupied houses and camps are routinely stripped of copper or anything of value. The situation is explosive, dry tinder, waiting for a match.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>