Highest Unemployed Americans Since 1948
It must be true… a McClatchy newspaper sez so today. Right there, above the fold in today’s Charlotte Observer:
Dismal Numbers
14.7 million: People unemployed in June, the most ever in records dating to 1948. (GP Ed. Note – obviously there were more during the Great Depression)12.1 million: People unemployed in December 1982, the record before the current downturn.
August 1983: The last time the unemployment rate hit 9.5%
24.5 weeks: The average length of unemployment, also a record.
What happened to the Obama Stimulus money? What jobs is it creating? Where are these “shovel-ready” projects Obama promised?
Say what you want about President George W. Bush — but after he entered office in a recession, then our economy absorbed the 9/11 attacks — he still had a NET INCREASE in jobs in his term. At this rate, it will be a miracle — sans massive tax cuts — for Obama to say the same thing.
Obama is a failure of epic proportions. We need to take America back before Obama spends us into oblivion for good.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Cannabis?
Comment by Ignatius — July 3, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - July 3, 2009
HOPE
Comment by CattusMagnus — July 3, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - July 3, 2009
It might be a good idea not to mix apples and oranges. That is not to mix absolute number of of unemployed compared to percentage of the workforce unemployed.
The first question I would ask is: what percentage of the population was unemployed in 1948? What percentage today? The text in the post also illustrates this problem by pointing out that the greatest number of unemployed occurred in December 1982, while the highest percentage occurred in August 1983.
A quick Google tells me that in 1948 US population (rounded) was 147 million. The 2000 census was 281 million.
Also not clear in the McClatchy article is when they’re citing unemployment by month, as opposed to average unemployment for the whole year. These are two very different numbers.
I would see this less as an attempt to bash Obama, than as an example of how barely-educated journalists pick’n'choose data to generate the juiciest headline.
Comment by Casey — July 3, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - July 3, 2009
Official unemployment rates are nearing 10%. Many observers believe the real number is much higher.
But hey – Obama’s approval ratings among the Underpants Gnomes are topping 80%! Merely by being the GREAT LEADER he is, has “created or saved” millions of their jobs. Let the good times roll!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 3, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - July 3, 2009
Leave it to the most die hard Trotskyites to wish and hope these devastating numbers away. Only Obama toadies would dare pretend there aren’t huge numbers of Americans hurting, frightened and going hungry. This holiday weekend our young President is no doubt golfing, having a BBQ, filling his stomach, while his policies instead of helping are destroying the fabric of freedom. Borrow some more money Mr President.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 3, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - July 3, 2009
Real unemployment numbers — including people who are working part time but want to be working full time — puts unemployment at about 16%.
Democrats are sitting on it (about 90% of th estimulus) while millions of people go unemployed, holding it til the next election so they can start throwing money around so they can pretend the economy is actually recovering, even though it wont be.
most corrupt party EVER
Comment by American Elephant — July 3, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - July 3, 2009
Soon, Buckeyenutlicker will come on and praise 10 more years of recession and deficits under Obama.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - July 3, 2009
Doesn’t bother you that 24.5 weeks ago Bush was still president? No? I guess we’re done here.
Comment by matt — July 3, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - July 3, 2009
Fail.
Comment by Patriot Goddess — July 3, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - July 3, 2009
matt, does is bother you that unemployment is higher now than Obama told us it would be if Congress passed his “stimulus” — which it did?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 3, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - July 3, 2009
>Obama is a failure of epic proportions.
Not yet.
Folks will compare this to 1981-82, when it turned for Reagan.
But Paul Volker had squeezed out inflation, then floored the accelerator on interest rates.
Obama has no gas pedal to floor.
Comment by Geena — July 3, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - July 3, 2009
Geena–and my fear is that Obama is oblivious to what Reagan/Volcker did in 1981-2 to squeeze out inflation. With a rapid increase in government outlays and looser monetary policy, he seems determined to do the exact opposite.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 3, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - July 3, 2009
Geena, Bruce,
Don’t forget, stuff like this ‘crap and enslave’ policy.
The ‘environmental inspection’ is going to throttle any housing recovery, and keep forclosed homes empty longer.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 3, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - July 3, 2009
The highest unemployment that I have seen in my 87 years was in 1946. The only Help Wanted” adds in all of the Washington, DC area newspapers were for door to door salesmen. Then Congress passed the GI bill and all the veterans flocked to college – well, not all of them. Some of us didn’t try or did and was not accepted.
Comment by John W — July 4, 2009 @ 2:26 am - July 4, 2009
Um, Gene, I hope you aren’t including my comment in your crack about “Leave it to the most die hard Trotskyites to wish and hope these devastating numbers away.”
I have no use for Obama’s financial policies. On the other hand over-stating bad news just to slime the opposition is always a bad idea. That’s in the category of “boy calling wolf, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” territory.
Until GPW chimed in (two comments ago) nearly all I saw were a group of fired-up “conservatives” who had nothing better to do than trade well-chewed pieces of red meat back and forth.
What have you actually gone out and done, aside from bitchy comments at your favorite right-wing blog?
Comment by Casey — July 4, 2009 @ 2:36 am - July 4, 2009
So far the only “stimulus” has been to the benefit of Goldman Sachs and the UAW. I certainly don’t see any “shovel-ready” projects here in NJ.
Where’s the massive infastructure revitalization?
The wind-power projects?
The clean-coal and new-oil energy projects?
Where’s the massive investment in immediate bio-fuels?
The energy-conservation and green-tech retrofits?
Or, even the mortgage restructuring and first-time buyers relief?
Comment by Ted B. (Chariging Rhino) — July 4, 2009 @ 2:40 am - July 4, 2009
Cute, Casey spins for Obama, then denies he’s spinning for Obama. We have a new Wonder Woman. Just when I was not missing Ian.
Comment by V the K — July 4, 2009 @ 8:58 am - July 4, 2009
I live in a town where unemployment is always the lowest in the state. Our rates are usually around 2%. Our huge university is always, always hiring and it is nearly impossible not to get a job. For the first time in the 45 years I have lived here, unemployment has wandered above 6%.
That number is chump change compared to surrounding areas. But when this town gets a number that high, history is being made. Every day or two someone leaves a flyer at my door for yard work or painting or maid service or small jobs or trash hauling. Normally, I have to beg people to work.
I am not misreading any statistics. I volunteer at the food bank and we can’t keep up with the needs and demands. Our Salvation Army has run out of places to call for their overflow. We are beginning to see people drifting into town where 6% unemployment is an easier battle to fight than 14% unemployment down the road.
Sure, this is anecdotal, but it a fact that concerns our piece of the country.
Comment by heliotrope — July 4, 2009 @ 9:58 am - July 4, 2009
Damn right helio. I too live in a university town. The school and hospital use to make us recession proof. Our unemployment now is 10% a stunning figure. Even the liberals around here are dumbstruck. YES WE CAN seems like a cruel joke. It is the people who elected a “community organizer”. A man with no real job experience. Voters get what they deserve. For the life of me I don’t understand why a Democrat can’t look at the last 4 heavy recessions and see and learn what got us out of them. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. You let the producers keep more of what they earn. The people are the ones who produce us out of a recession. Obama and his socialists have turned this into a depression, and the old rules may not work now.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 4, 2009 @ 10:47 pm - July 4, 2009
V the K can kiss my hairy, white ass. I have no use for Obama, nor his ivory-tower command & control economy.
On the other hand, I do prefer to argue the facts, and not twisted statistics. V the K may be possibly too dense to understand fact that Titanic is not the highest-grossing movie all time, despite the fact that it garnered the largest number of dollars. There’s something called “inflation” at work as well, so (adjusting for said inflation) Gone With The Wind is actually the highest-grossing film. That’s the difference between spin and reality.
The other difference is that V the K wants me to bend over to serve his own personal dogma, while I prefer to focus on reality. The reality is that unemployment right now is very, very bad. If -however- if one insists on going over the top, and “worst economy since Hoover” style of attack that the libs followed the past few years, you’ll end up looking as stupid as they did. The situation is bad. Very bad. Don’t fracking gold-plate it.
I will agree with the statement that Obama’s economic policies are at best fatuous, and at worst very dangerous. The man is making many very, very bad decisions. What I won’t agree with is mindless dogma in place of sane argument.
V the K falls into the simplistic thinking that anyone who doesn’t agree with him 100% must necessarily disagree. Evidently he’s never heard of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
My own preferred strategy is win the argument with with one’s genuine opponent, even if that means criticizing bad reasoning or judgment amongst allies. Especially if such bad reasoning reflects poorly on the position one is trying to advance.
Which returns us to the original post. It was poorly thought out, mixed statistics of different metrics, and over-stated the case. This is precisely the same approach used by the above-referenced “worst economy since Hoover” attack used by so many liberals before Obama’s election. Were any of you in the slightest way impressed by that fatuous argument? No. So why should you assume that an equally fatuous approach (but from the different direction) work against Obama? Or did you think that independents (for example) would just swoon over your passionate rhetoric? Clue: NO. It didn’t work for liberals, so why think that it would work for conservatives?
Alas, for such as V the K, such heresy must be burnt out by any means necessary, even if it results on attacking those who might be persuaded by one’s position, if it weren’t presented such dogmatic form.
Comment by Casey — July 5, 2009 @ 1:27 am - July 5, 2009
Speaking as someone who is now part of the 9.5% (thanks for nothing, AIG – after 10 years of me busting my fanny for your tired company) – I do not see any quick solutions in the future, unless we get rid of the poverty pimps in Congress next year who are wasting whatever capital we have to ensure that minnows get a better break than I do.
I guess I’m throwing out my “moral authority” card.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 6, 2009 @ 10:47 am - July 6, 2009