[I]n 1982, the unemployment rate only rose to “well over 10 percent,” to use Jordan’s words, in October 1982, when it hit 10.4 percent. However, this number was released after Election Day, meaning that it could not have been a factor on voters’ minds. It peaked at 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. So while Jordan’s number is not far off, it does modestly exaggerate how high voters knew unemployment to be as they prepared to vote.Here’s another difference — the average unemployed worker this year has been jobless much longer than in 1982. In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks — more than twice as long. And that’s not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks. So Jordan is right that there are some similarities between the recessions of 1982 and 2010. But she glosses over the fact that unemployment didn’t go “well over 10 percent” in 1982 until after the election, and her use of the overall unemployment rate overlooks an important factor — that workers this year are likely to have been without jobs much longer. On balance, we rate Jordan’s comment Mostly True. Continue reading… Politifact

[I]n 1982, the unemployment rate only rose to “well over 10 percent,” to use Jordan’s words, in October 1982, when it hit 10.4 percent. However, this number was released after Election Day, meaning that it could not have been a factor on voters’ minds. It peaked at 10.8 percent in November and December 1982.

So while Jordan’s number is not far off, it does modestly exaggerate how high voters knew unemployment to be as they prepared to vote.

Here’s another difference — the average unemployed worker this year has been jobless much longer than in 1982.

In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks — more than twice as long. And that’s not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.

So Jordan is right that there are some similarities between the recessions of 1982 and 2010. But she glosses over the fact that unemployment didn’t go “well over 10 percent” in 1982 until after the election, and her use of the overall unemployment rate overlooks an important factor — that workers this year are likely to have been without jobs much longer. On balance, we rate Jordan’s comment Mostly True.

Continue reading… Politifact

“States are putting hundreds of thousands of people directly into jobs through programs reminiscent of the more ambitious work projects of the Great Depression.

But the new efforts have a twist: While the wages are being paid by the government, most of the participants are working for private companies.

The opportunity to simultaneously benefit struggling workers and small businesses has helped these job subsidies gain support from liberals and conservatives. Congress is now considering whether to extend the subsidy, which would expire in September, for an additional year. A House vote is expected on Thursday or Friday.”

Job Subsidies Providing Help to Private Side

continue reading… NYTimes

I heard something about this program on C-SPAN’s Washington Jounal last week. Sounded interesting. 

High-res “This chart shows a serious problem. That giant gap consists of Americans who are unemployed, and couldn’t get a job even if they wanted to. This emphasizes the need for Congress to extend unemployment benefits. It’s pretty clear that millions of Americans remain unemployed because the jobs aren’t there — not becuase they aren’t trying hard enough to find them. In fact, it’s not even close.” - Daniel Indiviglio (formerly wrote for Forbes) - TheAtlantic 

“This chart shows a serious problem. That giant gap consists of Americans who are unemployed, and couldn’t get a job even if they wanted to. This emphasizes the need for Congress to extend unemployment benefits. It’s pretty clear that millions of Americans remain unemployed because the jobs aren’t there — not becuase they aren’t trying hard enough to find them. In fact, it’s not even close.” - Daniel Indiviglio (formerly wrote for Forbes) - TheAtlantic 

“From now until Nov. 2, the Republican Party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: The more people who are unemployed on Election Day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.”

Republicans Want as Many Unemployed People as Possible, Because They Think It Will Get Them Elected

continue reading… AlterNet 

Republicans continue to show their compassion for “the folks”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has blocked passage of a crucial package of expiring provisions, including extended unemployment insurance benefits that are scheduled to run out on April 5.

Coburn has balked at Democrats’ request for unanimous consent to pass the extensions, threatening a standoff similar to one that pitted Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) against the Democratic leadership last month.

continue reading… thehill