Recession Officially Over, U.S. Incomes Kept Falling
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Obama, talking about his jobs bill in a news conference Thursday, called the economic situation"an emergency."
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: October 10, 2011
WASHINGTON - In a grim sign of the enduring nature of the economic slump, household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself, new research has found.
Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession - from December 2007 to June 2009 - household income fell 3.2 percent.
The finding helps explain why Americans' attitudes toward the economy, the country's direction and its political leaders have continued to sour even as the economy has been growing. Unhappiness and anger have come to dominate the political scene, including the early stages of the 2012 presidential campaign.
President Obama recently called the economic situation "an emergency," and over the weekend he assailed Congressional Republicans for opposing his jobs bill, which includes tax cuts that would raise take-home pay. Republicans blame Mr. Obama for the slump, saying he has issued a blizzard of regulations and promised future tax increases that have hurt business and consumer confidence.
Those arguments may be heard repeatedly this week, as the Senate begins debating the jobs bill. The full bill - a mix of tax cuts, public works, unemployment benefits and other items, costing $447 billion - is unlikely to pass, but individual parts seem to have a significant chance.
The full 9.8 percent drop in income from the start of the recession to this June - the most recent month in the study - appears to be the largest in several decades, according to other Census Bureau data. Gordon W. Green Jr., who wrote the report with John F. Coder, called the decline "a significant reduction in the American standard of living."
That reduction occurred even though the unemployment rate fell slightly, to 9.2 percent in June compared with 9.5 percent two years earlier. Two main forces appear to have held down pay: the number of people outside the labor force - neither working nor looking for work - has risen; and the hourly pay of employed people has failed to keep pace with inflation, as the prices of oil products and many foods have jumped.
During the recession itself, by contrast, wage gains outpaced inflation.
One reason pay has stagnated is that many people who lost their jobs in the recession - and remained out of work for months - have taken pay cuts in order to be hired again. In a separate study, Henry S. Farber, an economics professor at Princeton, found that people who lost jobs in the recession and later found work again made an average of 17.5 percent less than they had in their old jobs.
"As a labor economist, I do not think the recession has ended," Mr. Farber said. "Job losers are having more trouble than ever before finding full-time jobs."
Mr. Farber added that this downturn was "fundamentally different" from most previous ones. Historically, other economists say, financial crises and debt-caused bubbles have led to deeper, more protracted downturns.
Mr. Green and Mr. Coder said the persistently high rate of unemployment and the long duration of unemployment helped explain the decline in income during the recovery.
In the recession, the average length of time a person who lost a job was unemployed increased to 24.1 weeks in June 2009, from 16.6 weeks in December 2007, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since the end of the recession, that figure has continued to increase, reaching 40.5 weeks in September, the longest in more than 60 years.
The new study by Mr. Green and Mr. Coder is based on monthly census surveys, rather than the annual data that appeared in last month's census report on income. The monthly figures allow researchers to measure income changes more precisely during a recession or a recovery and provide more current information. The annual report is based on surveys conducted early in the following year, and people sometimes confuse how much money they are making at the time of the survey with how much they made the previous year. Additionally, recessions usually do not line up with a calendar year.
A committee of academic economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private group widely considered the arbiter of the business cycle, judged that the most recent recession began in December 2007. The bureau defines a recession as a significant, broad-based decline in economic activity.
The economists said the recession ended in June 2009. In every quarter since then, the economy has grown.
Some economists see signs that the United States may be in or about to enter another recession, though the evidence is mixed.
In their new study, Mr. Green and Mr. Coder found that income dropped more, in percentage terms, for some groups already making less, a factor that they say may have contributed to rising income inequality.
From June 2007 to June of this year, they said, median annual household income declined by 7.8 percent for non-Hispanic whites, to $56,320, and by 6.8 percent for Hispanics, to $39,901. For blacks, household income declined 9.2 percent, to $31,784.
Mr. Green and Mr. Coder, who both worked at the Census Bureau for more than 25 years, found other income changes over the four-year period examined.
For example, income, after adjustment for inflation, declined fairly substantially for households headed by people under age 62, but it rose 4.7 percent for those headed by people 65 to 74, many of whom are not in the labor force. The change was negligible for those 62 to 64.
The type of employment also made a difference. Real median annual income declined to a similar degree for households headed by private-sector wage workers (4.3 percent) and government-sector workers (3.9 percent), but fell much more for the self-employed (12.3 percent).
Family households generally had larger declines in real income than other households. Men living alone showed a bigger decline than women living alone.
Education levels were also a factor. Median annual income declined most for households headed by someone with an associate's degree, dropping 14 percent, to $53,195, in the four-year period that ended in June 2011, the report said.
For households headed by people who had not completed high school, median income declined by 7.9 percent, to $25,157. For those with a bachelor's degree or more, income declined by 6.8 percent, to $82,846.

I really don't know how these "Economy Experts" (Economists) define the "end" of the Recession, but I'll be that they are the same ones that say if we dip water from one end of the bathtub, and pour it into the other end, our problems will be solved.

Can we PLEASE get someone with competence and common sense in the position of leadership?

I always think of recession as something becoming smaller,,,so when its on the downhill it is economic recession, when it is going up it is an expansion


I think we are at a standstill now where we have stopped going down,,,for now

thus, no longer in a 'recession' period economically

The recession over? I would love to see proof of that!

No one believes these numbers are true. The money supply is being choked to cause bankruptcies, foreclosures, and bad credit, so the financiers can steal the fruits of our labor at fire sale prices. These numbers show a different story: massive unemployment, steady foreclosures, no liquidity for small businesses. Time to reorganize our banking system and money creation process. Cities, counties, states, and countries need to take back control of their money through public banks.

The NBER committee made its determination after considering numerous economic data and concluding that several key measures of economic activity — including total output and industrial production — pointed to June 2009 as the trough of that business cycle.

The 18-month recession that started in December 2007 was the longest since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-recession-over-20100921


Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity?

A: It's more accurate to say that a recession–the way we use the word–is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when economic activity is contracting. The following period is an expansion. As of September 2010, when we decided that a trough had occurred in June 2009, the economy was still weak, with lingering high unemployment, but had expanded considerably from its trough 15 months earlier.

from http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

Economic News Release
FONT SIZE: PRINT: LAU SAE
Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary
For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Friday, September 16, 2011 USDL-11-1329Technical information:Employment: (202) 691-6559 * sminfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/saeUnemployment: (202) 691-6392 * lausinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/lau
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- AUGUST 2011Regional and state unemployment rates were generally little changed in August. Twenty-six states and theDistrict of Columbia reported unemployment rate increases, 12 states recorded rate decreases, and 12 states had no rate change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Thirty-seven states registered unemployment ratedecreases from a year earlier, 11 states and the District of Columbia had increases, and 2 states experienced no change. The national jobless rate was unchanged at 9.1 percent but was 0.5 percentage point lower than a year earlier.In August, nonfarm payroll employment decreased in 30 states and the District of Columbia and increased in 20 states. The largest over-the-month decreasein employment occurred in New York (-22,700), followed by Georgia (-18,200) and the District of Columbia (-12,500). The largest over-the-month increase in employment occurred in Minnesota (+28,400), followed by North Carolina (+16,500), Arizona (+15,400), and Florida (+9,900). The District of Columbia experienced the largestover-the-month percentage decline in employment (-1.8 percent), followed by Rhode Island (-1.3 percent) and Hawaii (-0.9 percent). Minnesota experienced the largest over-the-month percentage increase in employment (+1.1 percent), followed by Arizona (+0.6 percent) and Idaho and Vermont (+0.5 percent each). Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in44 states and the District of Columbia and decreased in 6 states. The largest over-the-year percentageincrease occurred in North Dakota (+5.0 percent), followed by Utah and Wyoming (+3.0 percent each). The largest over-the-year percentagedecrease in employment occurred in Delaware (-1.0 percent), followed by Georgia and Indiana (-0.8 percent each).Regional Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)The West recorded the highest regional unemployment rate in August, 10.6 percent, while the Northeast reported the lowest rate, 8.2 percent. Over the month, the Midwest was the only region to experience a statistically significant jobless rate change (+0.2 percentage point). Two of the regions had significant rate changes from a year earlier, both decreases: the Midwest (-0.5 percentage point) and West (-0.4 point). (See table 1.)Among the nine geographic divisions, thePacific continued to report the highest jobless rate, 11.2 percent in August. The West NorthCentral again registered the lowest rate, 6.9 percent. Over the month, the East North Central was the only division to experience a statistically significant unemployment rate change (+0.2 percentage point). The East North Central also recorded the only significant rate change among divisions over the year (-0.6 percentage point).State Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)Nevada continued to report the highest unemployment rate among the states, 13.4 percent in August. California posted the nexthighest rate, 12.1 percent. North Dakota registered the lowest jobless rate, 3.5 percent, followed by Nebraska, 4.2 percent. In total, 25 statesreported jobless rates significantly lower than the U.S. figure of 9.1 percent, 8 states and the District of Columbia had measurably higher rates, and 17 states had rates that were not appreciably different from that of the nation. (See tables A and 3.)Seven states experienced statistically significant over-the-month unemployment rate increases in August. Illinois and Pennsylvania reported the largest of these (+0.4 percentage point each), followed by North Carolina (+0.3 point); Maryland, North Dakota, and Virginia (+0.2 point each); and Georgia (+0.1 point). The District of Columbia also posted asignificant over-the-month rate increase (+0.3 percentage point). The remaining 43 states recorded jobless rates that were not measurably different from those of a month earlier, though some had changes that were at least as large numerically as the significant changes.New Mexico registered the largest jobless rate decrease from August 2010 (-1.9 percentage points). Four additional states reported smaller but also statistically significant decreases over the year: Oklahoma (-1.4 percentage points), Indiana (-1.3 points), Oregon (-1.1points), and Florida (-0.9 point). The District of Columbia posted the onlysignificant rate increase from a year earlier (+1.3 percentage points). Forty-five states recordedunemployment rates thatwere not appreciably different from those of a year earlier.Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Seasonally Adjusted)Over the month, 13 statesand the District of Columbia recorded statistically significant changes in employment. The largest over-the-month statistically significant declines in employment occurred in New York (-22,700), Georgia (-18,200),and the District of Columbia (-12,500). The largest over-the-month statisticallysignificant job gains occurred in Minnesota (+28,400), North Carolina (+16,500),and Arizona (+15,400). (See tables B and 5.)Over the year, 25 states experienced statistically significant changes in employment, 24 of whichwere increases. The largest increase occurred in Texas (+253,200), followed by California (+171,300), New York (+83,400), Ohio (+80,300), and Michigan (+79,800). The only state with an over-the-year statistically
significant decrease in employment was Georgia(-29,500). (See table C.)____________The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for August is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, September 28, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment news release for September is scheduled to be released on Friday, October 21, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).Table A. States with unemployment rates significantly differ-ent from that of the U.S., August 2011, seasonally adjusted -------------------------------------------------------------- State | Rate(p) --------------------------------------------------------------United States (1)...................| 9.1
| Alaska ..............................| 7.7 California ..........................| 12.1 Delaware............................| 8.1 District of Columbia................| 11.1 Florida .............................| 10.7 Georgia .............................| 10.2 Hawaii ..............................| 6.2 Iowa ................................| 6.1 Kansas ..............................| 6.7 Louisiana...........................| 7.2 | Maine ...............................| 7.6 Maryland............................| 7.3 Massachusetts.......................| 7.4 Michigan............................| 11.2 Minnesota...........................| 7.2 Montana.............................| 7.8 Nebraska............................| 4.2 Nevada ..............................| 13.4 New Hampshire.......................| 5.3 New Mexico..........................| 6.6 | New York............................| 8.0 North Carolina......................| 10.4 North Dakota........................| 3.5 Oklahoma............................| 5.6 Pennsylvania ................. .......| 8.2 Rhode Island........................| 10.6 South Carolina......................| 11.1 South Dakota........................| 4.7 Texas ...............................| 8.5 Utah ................................| 7.6 | Vermont.............................| 5.9 Virginia ............................| 6.3 Wisconsin...........................| 7.9 Wyoming.............................| 5.8 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Data are not preliminary. p = preliminary.Table B. States with statistically significant employment changes fromJuly 2011 to August 2011, seasonally adjusted-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | July | August | Over-the-month State | 2011 | 2011(p) | change(p) --------------------------------------------------------------------------Arizona.......................| 2,393,000 | 2,408,400 | 15,400 Connecticut...................| 1,626,300 | 1,617,700 | -8,600 District of Columbia..........| 714,100 | 701,600 | -12,500 Georgia.......................| 3,816,400 | 3,798,200 | -18,200 Hawaii........................| 595,300 | 590,200 | -5,100 Idaho.........................| 605,700 | 608,900 | 3,200 Kansas........................| 1,320,000 | 1,325,400 | 5,400 Massachusetts.................| 3,244,500 | 3,235,600 | -8,900 Minnesota.....................| 2,653,700 | 2,682,100 | 28,400 New York......................| 8,660,200 | 8,637,500 | -22,700 | | | North Carolina................| 3,866,000 | 3,882,500 | 16,500 Rhode Island..................| 467,200 | 460,900 | -6,300 South Dakota..................| 408,800 | 406,500 | -2,300 Utah..........................| 1,213,000 | 1,218,000 | 5,000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- p = preliminary.Table C. States with statistically significant employment changes fromAugust 2010 to August 2011, seasonally adjusted-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | August | August | Over-the-year State | 2010 | 2011(p) | change(p)--------------------------------------------------------------------------Arizona.......................| 2,368,700 | 2,408,400 | 39,700California....................| 13,885,900 | 14,057,200 | 171,300Georgia.......................| 3,827,700 | 3,798,200 | -29,500Hawaii........................| 581,800 | 590,200 | 8,400Illinois......................| 5,617,700 | 5,660,100 | 42,400Iowa..........................| 1,466,200 | 1,486,200 | 20,000Kentucky......................| 1,771,400 | 1,793,300 | 21,900Louisiana.....................| 1,880,500 | 1,912,100 | 31,600Massachusetts.................| 3,187,600 | 3,235,600 | 48,000Michigan......................| 3,854,600 | 3,934,400 | 79,800 | | | Minnesota.....................| 2,637,800 | 2,682,100 | 44,300Nebraska......................| 940,200 | 956,600 | 16,400New Hampshire.................| 621,800 | 632,500 | 10,700New York......................| 8,554,100 | 8,637,500 | 83,400North Dakota..................| 376,100 | 395,000 | 18,900Ohio..........................| 5,036,200 | 5,116,500 | 80,300Oklahoma......................| 1,524,000 | 1,566,700 | 42,700Oregon........................| 1,599,300 | 1,622,500 | 23,200Pennsylvania..................| 5,627,000 | 5,683,600 | 56,600Texas.........................| 10,361,800 | 10,615,000 | 253,200 | | | Utah..........................| 1,182,800 | 1,218,000 | 35,200Vermont.......................| 297,100 | 302,900 | 5,800Washington....................| 2,774,400 | 2,815,900 | 41,500Wisconsin.....................| 2,741,700 | 2,766,400 | 24,700Wyoming.......................| 283,900 | 292,300 | 8,400

thats REALLY hard to read,,,,