Job Loss Chart: What 3.6 Million Jobs Lost Over 13 Months Looks Like

Some notable graphs were released on Friday while analysts and members of Congress waited for a compromise to be reached in the Senate on the stimulus package.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office released the chart below highlighting the sharp spike in job losses around the country.

This chart compares the job loss so far in this recession to job losses in the 1990-1991 recession and the 2001 recession -- showing how dramatic and unprecedented the job loss over the last 13 months has been. Over the last 13 months, our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs - and continuing job losses in the next few months are predicted.

By comparison, we lost a total of 1.6 million jobs in the 1990-1991 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing; and we lost a total of 2.7 million jobs in the 2001 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing.

Meanwhile, the Center for Economic and Policy Research -- which supports the stimulus -- released a study highlighting the examples of wasteful spending that Republicans have pointed to as reasons to oppose the package.

By CEPR's calculation, the bitter stalemate over the bill has in fact been over an incredibly small portion of the package:

Appearing on Meet the Press, House Minority Leader John Boehner criticized the recovery package for including $21 million to re-sod the National Mall as well as $200 million for contraceptives.2 On Face the Nation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell mentioned $600 million going to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees and $150 million for honeybee insurance.3 Senator John McCain questioned a $50 million provision for the National Endowment for the Arts on CNN's American Morning.4 And on Fox News Sunday, Senator Jon Kyl criticized a program that would provide benefits to World War II veterans in the Philippines.

Republican leaders also released a longer list of provisions they viewed as 'wasteful' to the media, including $6 billion to make federal buildings more energy-efficient and $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including summer jobs programs.

Comments

[Slapmewhenitsover]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does it not seem absurd that a company like Microsoft would layoff workers when the top three from the company are worth (collectively) $89 billion.
I mean it is simple economics. They could pay 20,000 people $50,000/year in salary for $1 billion.
The greed of these people is appalling.
Why should they do this you ask?
They built this company on the backs of these people, yet they see no rationale in keeping their employees working by using these ILL GOTTEN GAINS!
Philanthropists, huh. Misers fits much better next to the names of Gates, Allen and Ballmer.
By the way, the same goes for the rest of these people in the world who exploit their workers by abandoning them when times are tough.
This is exactly why I work for myself!

[lapdogs]

Like Gecko said in the movie Wall Street - "Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good. Greed works."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKkuJVy2YA

[Ryan Connelly]

A couple problems with this reasoning:

1) 89 Billion is not liquid. Most likely they have a much smaller percentage of their wealth is liquid.
2) You were worth $50,000, would you like to give a small percentage to random people that you have probably never met and never will meet for no reason at all except that the economy is bad?
3) The stock holders in the company would ask for the executives head on a platter if that happened.

The key here is to create jobs and build sustainability. It's the governments job to give out cash and try to create jobs in a down economy. You cannot expect a company to behave like a government institution. That is part of the reason we have a government.

[RJII]

"Trickle down" economics never worked and caused the biggest wealth gaps this nation has ever seen.

Tax breaks geared towards the wealthy for the past 30 years didn't work their way down.

Wages stagnated for the middle class who became the working poor.

Now the middle class crumbled sending a tidal wave through our financial systems.

Republicans and their big business and wealthy first policies are to blame. They have gutted the middle class.

[ocalasatpro]

You said it! How did we ever fall for "trickle down" anyway? The phrase alone gives me the creeps.

[MaineMike]

What we got was trickle-up poverty.

[karen1p]

$800 Billion, $900 Billion, whatever the figure, it sounds like America is close to all out bankruptcy.

[JoeBlough]

But they will always have money for Iraq.

[AlaninElkGrove]

At first glance, I thought that was the graph for Republican policy popularity...sorry.

[ocalasatpro]

You could put the two side by side. You could do it all the way back to the Depression and beyond

[usedtowander]

It's not just the number of jobs. It's also the quality of the jobs.

One of the the analyses I'd like to see is what kinds of jobs are being lost - what pay ranges, what industries, etc.

From what we're being told a majority of the people being terminated are primary earner men.
I have no idea how this compares to previous recessions.

[ceasenake]

Now let's see a graph of the Jimmy Carter recession in the early 80's.

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/joblos08.html

Not to say this one won't be worse, but it's not yet.

[AZ AF VET]

You mean the Reagan recession in '82.

The Federal Reserve's extremely tight monetary policy intentionally plunged the American economy into a deep recession. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

[vedder110]

First of all Carter hired Paul Volker, not Reagan. So if you blame tight monetary policy for "causing the recession" then Carter would still be to blame. Regardless, the tight monetary policy was a response to the high inflation and stagnating economy of the time. Some would say the recession Carter "caused" and Reagan inherited was the only outcome possible from the loose monetary policy in place since about Nixon.

Alan Greenspan was also responsible for another long period of loose monetary policy after Volker during the Clinton and Bush regimes. Some would also say this recession is the only possible outcome from that extended period of loose monetary policy.

[spartanmom]

Please learn how to read a chart!

[ocalasatpro]

Why is it that memories are long, but not short with you guys? Reagan is squarely to blame for this mess. 41 was in the shadows, just waiting to screw things up even more. 43 just pounded us (that's U.S.!) into the dirt. Who knows if we can even recover from this?

Your credibility on all things economic is zero, so please just save it for someone who doesn't know what the heck is going on. They're the only ones who will listen to you at this point.

Blame Jimmy Carter? Come back down to earth. Just remember--Nixon was the fool that started today's problems with China. Reagan stands today as the "Great Myth" to those of us (I'm one of them) who actually passed a credible economics course.

Do I even have to tell you what we think of the Bushies?

[Michael Pastore]

Why do the Republicans want to cut funding for summer jobs? ... These jobs can be a lifeline for students, and for many others of all ages. One seasonal employment sector, jobs at summer camps, is still thriving. This year, there will be about 1.2 million jobs available at USA summer camps. Some federal help could strengthen this sector even more. Summer camps employ a range of ages, including senior citizens. A wonderful opportunity for seniors to share their wisdom and experience with youth, and to avoid the purgatory of working in big-name department stores.
-- Michael Pastore, Author of the 1-dollar ebook, Summer Camp Jobs USA
http://www.summercampjobsUSA.com

[AZ AF VET]

Because it's not their kids that depend on the jobs!

[SCG]

Sobering chart.

[DavidDial]

You can't fault Republicans for refusing to support the bill that passed in the House and you can fault the Democrats who filled it with non-stimulative pet projects that any fool could see would expose the entire bill to intense scrutiny and criticism. The bill was a disaster and undermined President Obama's hopes to mount a non-partisan approach to turning not only the economy but the whole government around.

Nor can you fault Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate for trying to clean up the mess the House sent them. Had they not done so, the President would have ended up with no bill at all to sign into law and execute. This would have been a huge blow to the American people in real terms and a complete disaster to our psyche. The first and maybe the most important step to turning things around is regaining our belief that government, while it may be cumbersome and frustrating, has the potential to behave competently and in the best interests of the American people...all of them.

And this is where I find fault with the demogogues on both sides of the political spectrum. President Obama was elected because he made many of us hopeful that we could get it right, that we could do what every other generation of Americans have done...reason together, reach compromise, overcome challenges, build a more perfect union and pass it on to our children. I want him to succeed.

[Badfickle]

I'm still trying to figure out what was the big "disaster" about the bill. What specifically did you not like? I look at the pie chart there at the bottom of the article and I kind of shake my head wondering if this outrage on the part of the GOP is real.

[DavidDial]

It isn't a question of whether or not their outrage is real. It is a question of whether it was predictable, which it was, and avoidable, which it was.

The disaster is that there were provisions in the bill which were certain to cause a fight and weren't absolutely necessary to its success in stimulating the economy. Those provisions should have been put in another bill where giving them the debate they deserved and were sure to be subjected to wouldn't delay the implementation of the provisions in the bill that address the current emergency.

Sending a clean, purely stimulative measure to the Senate with some Republican support would have made it a lot harder for Graham, McCain, Hannity and Limbaugh to employ the misrepresentations, outright lies and demogoguery they so enjoy. That little red sliver on the pie chart was all these people needed to try to undermine not only the bill but the confidence a majority of Americans must have in President Obama if he is to succeed and there was nothing in the sliver that couldn't have waited.

It was either stupid or arrogant to put the sliver in there whether you think the sliver deserved to eventually pass or not.

[letsbepeaceful]

What were the pet projects that were so objectionable? All the things I've seen cut out are actually rather reasonable and a good case could be made for all of them. Seems to me that the Dems went a long way (too far, if you ask me) toward what the Repubs wanted, and that there was very little movement the other way.

[NCRDIBULL]

How about a graph showing the unemployment the day after the 2006 elections and Algores sci fi fear mongering?

[mcfried]

You Bu$h loyalists are funny - no matter how you slice it, you guys were responsible. Denial and temper tantrums - the mark of a member of the GOP.

[desertman]

There is blame to spread over the last 30 years.

[William Duell]

Question:

About the talking point... 80% of the spending is AFTER 2009... Is this true?

If it is, this bill is the load of crap that Republicans say it is.

[mcfried]

They (the GOP) cut a lot of the spending. I'm not sure what the % in 2009 is, it keeps moving I also wanted more spending but the GOP wouldn't have it.

[Badfickle]

I don't know the exact figures but here's the thing. This recession depression whatever is not going to be solved this year. No matter what Obama or the GOP or anyone does. This is bigger than any downturn we've seen in our lifetime. Look at the graph up top. Even in 1990 and 2001 jobs didn't come back all the way for 3 or 4 years. There is going to need to be more job creation next year and the year after.

I would like to see much more spending. There are limits however as to how many jobs you can create in 6 months. You want to build a new road. That takes more than a year to get planned and get shovels on the ground. But reguardless there is little more that the president can do at this point. Interest rates are already at 0% With inflation that means the fed is paying people to borrow their money. There is no more room in monetary policy to stimulate the economy.

[William Duell]

OK.. If we need to stimulate job growth, how about loosening regulations and taxes on small businesses?

... In before someone says "talking point".

So what. Private sector> government spending if you want real growth.

[luke150]

The 600 million on hybrids that McConnell is criticizing is actually one of the best parts of the plan. It will create a long-term, lasting efficiency in government, it will save billions of taxpayer money down the road. I can't believe more pundits don't respond back to this stupid, short-sighted attacks by the Republicans.

[Badfickle]

Mcconnell wants America to fail. I never before really believed anyone from either party really would want that but it's the only explination for their behavior. They know their economic philosophy failed. They know they risk being out of power for a long long time so the only way out for them is for the economy to tank (thanks to their policies) so they can blame Obama. It just amazes me.

[desertman]

No one wants America to fail. Get real.

[AZ AF VET]

One Repub Senator said yesterday that diesel is the way to go. Well, how about diesel hybrids?

[MajorKong]

Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

[desertman]

As a society we chose to spend beyond our means.

[Badfickle]

That pie chart says it all when it comes to the Republican propoganda machine.

[luke150]

Most of the Americans are not informed. What does "pork" mean? Its meaning is broadened by the Republicans to any spending. For anyone with a basic economics knowledge, the bottom line is: we are in a severe recession due to collapse of aggregate demand. How do you increase demand? You can't make by decree people and businesses spend, but you can mandate increase in government spending. Without such stimulus we are in a downward spiral. Spending on education and social services (attacked most by the republicans) actually has a much longer-term favorable impact than anything else, including most infrastructure projects. This is according to analysis done on the Japanese experience during the last 15-20 years. There is a great article in NYT about that.

[mcfried]

While I agree with what you wrote I have one minor correction.The Republican meaning of pork is any spending except on war.

[Badfickle]

Luke you nailed it. I wish the congressional dems could express that. The GOP is winning the spin war and it's a shame because this should not about DEM vs. GOP. This is about the economic future of this country for 5-15 years.

[mberry47]

Luke, if increases in government spending created an increase in "aggregate demand", then we wouldn't been in this problem in the first place. All Bush and the GOP controlled Congress did for 6 years was increase spending, and the last 3 years the Dems have done the same thing. Government spending only creates "work", not jobs. When the money runs out, so does the "work". You are right though, there is a lack of demand (not that that is the only cause for this recession, but it is certainly part of it). The only way in increase business and consumer demand is to find a way to get more money into their pockets. Other than government handouts, the only way to do that is to lower taxes. Further, increased spending on education, which Bush did more than any president ever, doesn't do a thing. We've increased education spending for how many straight years now, and where has it gotten us?