About


The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.


« Credit storm hitting the high seas? | Main | Thinking about averages »

December 12, 2008


December 5 macroblog Q&As

Dave Altig’s December 5 blog entry, “The recession in pictorial context,” elicited an array of interesting commentary. In this recessionary period, the questions that arose are relevant to today’s current economic state and it is worthwhile taking a blog to explore these issues in greater depth.

Comments

I might suggest that considering the 1981–82 recession by itself, rather than in combination with its 1980 little brother, somewhat understates the "badness" of that period.

The 81–82 recession graphs include data from 12 months before the first day of the recession to 12 months after the last day of the recession, therefore the dates range from 7/1/1980 to 11/1/1983. The 1980 recession ended in July of 1980, so these time periods overlap each other by one month. Including this month does not “understate the ‘badness’ of the period” because the calculations are based solely on the recessionary period being examined. In other words, the time span has no effect in this case. The first day of the recession is set to one. The months before and after are normalized to the first day of the recession. If we were to remove the 1980 recession date and run the time span 10 months before the 1981 recession to 10 months after, the graph does not change in anyway apart from a shorter time span. This is because the data is scaled to 7/1/1981, the beginning of the recession. You can see this by looking at the 12-month and 10-month graphs, below.

121208a_2

121208a2

Are the unemployment rate comparisons U-3 across the various recessions? If so, I would be keen to see a U-6 comparison as well, I suspect it would be...illuminating.

The graphs used were U-3 comparisons. To clarify, the U-3 employment rate is the official employment rate used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is the most commonly used measure. The employment measures range from U-1 to U-6, U-1 being the most restrictive and U-6, the most broad. The U-3 rate is defined as: “Total unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labor force” (BLS), while the U-6 is defined as “Total unemployed plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons as a percentage of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers” (BLS). U-6 data only ranges back to 1994, therefore only the 2001 recessionary period can be examined.

The following graphs are U-6 comparisons—the first graph compares the two unemployment measures, and the second is comparing the 2001 recession and the current levels (normalized to 3/1/2001, the first day of the recession).

121208b

121208c

121208g

Are these apples to apples comparisons? Are the numbers from the prior recessions the numbers that were reported in "real time" or are they "final/revised" numbers?

The unemployment rate does not go through revisions. It is, however, benchmarked annually in March. Payroll employment is revised as additional information becomes available. All of the payroll employment graphs in the December 5 posting contained revised data with the exception of November. To see how these numbers are revised over time, here’s a comparison of these same graphs with real time (unrevised) data and the revised numbers (from December 5 blog).

121208e

121208i

121208f

121208j

121208d_2

121208h

By Courtney Nosal, economic research analyst in the Atlanta Fed’s research department

December 12, 2008 in Data Releases , Economic Growth and Development , Labor Markets | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef01053656ed1c970b

Listed below are links to blogs that reference December 5 macroblog Q&As :

Comments

Thanks for responding to my point regarding the "double dip" 1980/81-82 recessions. You are correct, but I think you miss the point of what I was trying to say. What I meant was: the two recessions, together, represent a very long period of elevated unemployment. There wasn't much "recovery" from the 1980 recession before the 1981-82 recession began. The unemployment rate was 6.0% in December 1979; it peaked at 7.8% in July 1980, before falling to 7.2% at the end of that year. In mid-1981 it began a new climb all the way to 10.8% at the end of 1982. The unemployment rate fell to 7.2% in 1984, but didn't make it all the way back down to 6% until August 1987!

Posted by: Bill C | December 13, 2008 at 07:09 PM

What about inflation?

Posted by: flow5 | December 22, 2008 at 08:51 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


March 2017


Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad