4 ms·
So looking at this article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-01-06-us-population_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-01-06-us-
by ojbyrne 15y ago
So looking at this article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-01-06-us-population_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-01-06-us-pop... - my quick calculation shows that the US population is growing at about 1.3% annually. Which means there's somewhat more than 7 million new Americans since 2008 (back of the envelope produces a number of 8 million).
Which, combined with the fact that GDP has barely recovered since 2008, kind of invalidates the article - i.e its reasonable to assume that the number of jobs has not actually decreased, but has stayed static, and that that is most likely due to the depression.
- thyrsus 15y agoThis chart shows that there are now 5% fewer jobs than there were at the peak of employment 34 months ago - the lines are scaled relative to prior peak jobs, not relative to population. http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html#category=Employment&chart=EmployRecessAlignedJune2011.jpg http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html#category=Employment&...
- Symmetry 15y agoI noticed the same thing (and posted as much) before finding this chart saying that the total quantity of jobs really is way below peak. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1 http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=w... It was really sloppy of the article to use those number like that, but his point isn't invalidated.