> Roubini's 9% is not crazy at all. He gives a very good reason why
> "the unemployment rate" (NB, *not* unemployment!) might peak at 9%:
> "The unemployment rate might peak at close to 9% in Q1 2010,
> almost two years after the recession began. However, the hiring freeze
> across industries that began in late 2007 will continue at least until
> 2010, causing discouraged workers to leave the work force and
> containing the extent of the spike in the unemployment rate."
I've estimated that there are now about 1.5 million prime-age jobless men who are not counted as unemployed due to the unprecedented post-1990 exodus from the labor market, but who would be counted as unemployed if labor-market dynamics hadn't undergone this unexplained shift. If you add them back into the unemployment numerator and into the labor force denominator, the official November unemployment rate would be 7.6% instead of 6.7%.
SA