Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Unemployment, The Movie

Another interactive map showing monthly unemployment rates from December 2007 to September 2009. Watch "Unemployment, The Movie" here.

HT: Taxing Tennessee


At 11/17/2009 2:32 PM, Anonymous Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

It looks like the Washington DC area is the only place East of the Mississippi not hammered by higher unemployment. If we increased the number of unemployed by 535 in Washington, it would probably do wonders for unemployment in the rest of the U.S.

At 11/17/2009 2:49 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"It looks like the Washington DC area is the only place East of the Mississippi not hammered by higher unemployment"...

Yeah, D.C. is a lucky place to live in right now...


At 11/17/2009 3:10 PM, Blogger juandos said...

This movie may get uglier if Nouriel Roubini knows what he's about...

This is his latest in the New York Daily News: The worst is yet to come: Unemployed Americans should hunker down for more job losses

At 11/17/2009 3:18 PM, Blogger robert said...

Did Mark post a chart that showed the number of months it takes after a recession ends before unemployment begins to drop? I saw it somewhere in the last couple of weeks but can't put my hands on it. I recall it being 14-16 months afterwards. Any thoughts?

At 11/17/2009 7:32 PM, Blogger OA said...

Don't worry everyone. There's a job summit in December.

I'm sure that someone will stand up and say the real reasons job growth is so bad include: increases in income taxes, increased regulation, proposed carbon taxes, proposed healthcare taxes, possibly higher payroll taxes, forced healthcare coverage of employees, favoritism toward unions, and rising oil/gas prices.

After which, I'm sure Obama will slap his forehead, say "doh" and kill all that mess.

At 11/17/2009 7:37 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

China has benefited from the implosion of the U.S. economy. When the U.S. was expanding at trend growth, which was optimal, China was overproducing by a large margin, which was suboptimal. Now, the U.S. economy is underproducing by a large margin, while China is producing closer to an optimal rate.

Obama wants China to buy more U.S. goods. It seems, Obama is determined to make Americans work harder and longer for fewer and smaller assets and goods. If China wants to exchange its goods for worth less U.S. paper assets, why should the U.S. stop it?

Also, I may add, it seems, a lot of NeoKeynesian models begin with a biased conclusion and then chooses theories to support it in a narrow framework. I think, a better methodology is to ask why something exists or make an assumption and use many orthodox theories (including partial equilibrium models, input-output models, contemporous models, optimization models, etc., along with the data, to explain or support it. Moreover, I may add, attempts to pass a partial equilibrium model as a general equilibrium model is why NeoKeynesian models have largely failed.

At 11/17/2009 7:57 PM, Blogger W.E. Heasley, CLU, LUTCF said...

The map also depicts the rising Political Anger Factor.

At 11/17/2009 9:41 PM, Blogger BxCapricorn said...

Hopefully you saw this piece. You can't allow data to be gathered by those that benefit from one result vice another.


Eyeballs, not graphs.

At 11/18/2009 11:28 AM, Anonymous TheDude said...

Note to Peak Trader: Simplify the jargon and your points may become comprehensible. Your last paragraph gave me a migrane.

At 11/19/2009 4:46 PM, Blogger Pete Murphy said...

Unemployment, both in the U.S. and the world as a whole, marches ever higher because the field of economics doesn't account for the relationship between population density and per capita consumption.

Following the beating the field of economics took over the seeming failure of Malthus' theory, economists adamantly refuse to ever again consider the effects of population growth. If they did, they might come to understand that once an optimum population density is breached, further over-crowding begins to erode per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment.

And these effects of an excessive population density are actually imported when a nation like the U.S. attempts to trade freely with other nations much more densely populated - nations like China, Japan, Germany, Korea and a host of others. The result is an automatic trade deficit and loss of jobs - tantamount to economic suicide.

Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!

If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)

Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home