Comments on: US February Employment and Recession vs. Depression http://barrdear.com/john/2009/03/13/us-february-employment-and-recession-vs-depression/ Thoughts about economics, politics and life in general Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:10:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Comparison of US recessions in hours worked per capita | John Barrdear http://barrdear.com/john/2009/03/13/us-february-employment-and-recession-vs-depression/comment-page-1/#comment-1852 Comparison of US recessions in hours worked per capita | John Barrdear Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:47:55 +0000 http://barrdear.com/john/?p=489#comment-1852 [...] on from my graphs from January and February’s data releases, here are some updated graphs based on May’s data release from the BLS [...] [...] on from my graphs from January and February’s data releases, here are some updated graphs based on May’s data release from the BLS [...]

]]> By: John Barrdear http://barrdear.com/john/2009/03/13/us-february-employment-and-recession-vs-depression/comment-page-1/#comment-1452 John Barrdear Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:52:55 +0000 http://barrdear.com/john/?p=489#comment-1452 If you look at the first graph on this post, you'll see that the year-over-year growth in hours worked per capita wasn't particularly special around the turn of the century. It was positive (i.e. hours worked were growing), but not at a rate that draws attention. Without knowing, I'd speculate that the dot-com boom was either a) not really characterised by a large increase in hours worked; or b) it was, but other sectors of the economy were declining a little so that the overall effect was one of only mild growth. That last thought goes some way to addressing your second question: It depends on the <em>relative</em> movements of different industries (and different geographies) at the time. Presumably the equivalent graph that limited its attention to California would show more dramatic movements in the initial dot-com boom and the 2001 bust. Tangentially, I should also point out that there are some people around questioning whether there was really all that much technical progress (from an economic perspective) in the 1997-2007 decade. If you look at the first graph on this post, you’ll see that the year-over-year growth in hours worked per capita wasn’t particularly special around the turn of the century. It was positive (i.e. hours worked were growing), but not at a rate that draws attention.

Without knowing, I’d speculate that the dot-com boom was either a) not really characterised by a large increase in hours worked; or b) it was, but other sectors of the economy were declining a little so that the overall effect was one of only mild growth.

That last thought goes some way to addressing your second question: It depends on the relative movements of different industries (and different geographies) at the time. Presumably the equivalent graph that limited its attention to California would show more dramatic movements in the initial dot-com boom and the 2001 bust.

Tangentially, I should also point out that there are some people around questioning whether there was really all that much technical progress (from an economic perspective) in the 1997-2007 decade.

]]> By: Adam Burke http://barrdear.com/john/2009/03/13/us-february-employment-and-recession-vs-depression/comment-page-1/#comment-1430 Adam Burke Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:39:01 +0000 http://barrdear.com/john/?p=489#comment-1430 Layman's question - was the dot com boom remarkable in its expansion of per capita hours worked? Eg, due to an influx of immigration, followed by an outflux or some such. Even if it was, from the point of view of measuring the recession, would it matter? Layman’s question – was the dot com boom remarkable in its expansion of per capita hours worked? Eg, due to an influx of immigration, followed by an outflux or some such. Even if it was, from the point of view of measuring the recession, would it matter?

]]>