Doug,
Are you saying there was a net gain of 24.4 million jobs. If so, it was have to be offset by the new entries into the workforce. Just roughly, divide 24.4 million by 10 years. That's 2.5 million per year. If 2.5 million new workers (teenagers, graduates, housewives, former aid recipients, etc) per year were entering the work force it would be a wash, year to year. Frictional unemployment would have to be factored in, as well as workers leaving the workforce etc. There is also the issue of underemployment etc. It seems to me the USA is still about 10-15 million jobs short, which the recent losses will only compound.
A reserve army of unemployed expands in periods of contraction. You might say its perversely proportional to variations in the rate of GDP. If the GDP increases year to year, the reserve army decreases. If the GDP falls, the reserve army rises, but there is always a total mass around which it fluctuates. This mass is measured by the absolute rate of GDP (as a rough index to the growth of production). One economist estimates that GDP would have to increase 7% per year for several years to bring unemployment down to its frictional amount and decrease the rate of poverty into the single digits. This is the present rate of GDP growth in China, but will the US or any advanced economy see this rate in the future for one year, let alone several in succession? The Fed will prevent that when the inflation spectre rises.
The Japanese government measures unemployment by the ratio of jobs offered to jobs sought. Do you know what goes into calculating this?
RS
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp