It also describes the difference between the two methods used by the Labor Department to track unemployment: U3 and U6.
During the Bush years, the media was all over U6: "Bush says unemployment is X, but it's really X+Y!"
Now the media is carefully reporting only U3: "The US Labor Department today said unemployment was X...."
It works to the Democrats' advantage: it makes the gap between Bush unemplyment figures--which were pretty good--and the Obama unemployment figures--which are rotten--look a lot smaller than they are.
As the article points out, U6 is at 17%. During the Bush years it was somewhere around half that.
This graph points out why this is an important distinction: it reports U3 but as you can see from the graph, U3 is 'way the hell higher than any projection from the Obama White House said it would be, regardless of what the government did.
If we beileve Obama's projections, it looks like doing nothing would have been preferable, because unemployment is much higher than it would have been. In fact, those projections are worthless, and they were worthless at the time: they obviously picked the wrong assumptions, and I would wager that those assumptions included, "We're in charge now, so naturally everything is going to get better!"
* * *
...I only just noticed the link to this page over at Big Dick's Place: "Big Ed and his Atomic Fungus", it says, down near the bottom of the blogroll. I'm a "blog worthy read"!
That makes me happy. Thanks, Dick!
I'm gonna have to look at some of those other guys. A few of them are already in my blogroll....