So far this recession is not worse than the last one

**Solidec** · 13 February 2009, 13:37

Selective tractor stats in that article. Tells us not much to be honest.

They should reverse engineer Unemployment by counting the number of individuals registering income with HMRC and substracting that from the Census statistics of working age people.

I bet that figure for this recession is already higher than the same time period of the last recession.

**snaw** · 13 February 2009, 13:46

Dunno if it's worse or better from a big picture economics perspective, all I know is I know lots of people who have lost their jobs, my houses are worth less and the contract market actually seems to have almost dried up entirely (Unless you want to work for McDonald's rates).

Pretty sh!te state of affairs IMO.

**Doggy Styles** · 13 February 2009, 15:39

Comparing 1990 stats with 2008 stats is comparing apples with oranges. For example...

The effect on the figures of the large number of people on incapacity benefit is worth bearing in mind here, and might suggest that the true unemployment level is higher than it looks. But incapacity benefit was also there in the 90s recession.

No comment necessary.

When all's said and done/at the end of the day/the bottom line is ... debt levels today knock those of the early 1990s into a cocked hat. That's the problem that f***ed Japan for nearly 20 years, and it will f*** us too.

Hang on, that sounds a bit too depressing doesn't it. Cheer up, it's nearly Shrove Tuesday.

**sasguru** · 13 February 2009, 15:52

Are you sure?

Some more Blastland observations. I reckon he has a point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4981188.ece
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...stics_politics

**minestrone** · 13 February 2009, 15:58

Are we in recession?

**Swiss Tony** · 13 February 2009, 16:07

My 2 Cents

While this article certainly does spin the stats, the stats themselves are rather questionable to begin with.

I would say the population of the UK has managed to grow in the last 18 years, and that actually backs up the article in question. Not to worry it is soon thrown into disrepute the way in which Liebour measures unemployment. Some of you may remember that when good ol Tone came into power they reassessed the way in which unemployment is measured.

Anyone over 60 was said to be not unemployed as they could have early retirement. So bang an immediate 1+ million jobs created by not taking into account that there was, and still is, a large population from 60-65 of people who are unemployed.

**PM-Junkie** · 13 February 2009, 16:08

Originally posted by sasguru View Post

Are you sure?

Some more Blastland observations. I reckon he has a point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4981188.ece
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...stics_politics

Economically he doesn't have a point. If you are not going to include PFI obligations and "invalidity benefit" claimant numbers, these figures are meaningless.

As for his observations about the media, and of labour and the conservatives being equally bad, I heartily agree.

**ThomasSoerensen** · 13 February 2009, 16:24

i agree . no recession here

just look at this

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02...ii-recessions/

**sasguru** · 13 February 2009, 16:39

Originally posted by ThomasSoerensen View Post

i agree . no recession here

just look at this

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02...ii-recessions/

Crap graph as it shows absolute values not percentage - exactly what Blastland is talking about.

This one is better:

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....the-last-five/

Also note these are American nums not British ones,

So far this recession is not worse than the last one