>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.
At the 1991/92 trough, about 61% of the adult population (outside bars) was working; at the peak in 2000, well over 64% were, an all-time record. In the deepths of 1982, it went below 58%. In was in the mid-50s during the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s. Yes, the US is many jobs short, and yes, the situation is getting worse, but the US model thrives on putting ever-more people to work, and tight labor markets are good for the working class.
Doug