The charts also show an unusual asymmetry in the current recession. In the earlier V and U recessions, the down slope at the outset is comparable in magnitude to the up slope at the end. The "Verizon V" is different because the up slope is measurably shallower than the down slope. If the slopes were comparable as in previous recessions the relative percent job losses would have been back to 0 about a year or two ago.
Its about the same as the S&L crash of 1990 and the tech stock + 9/11 crash of 2001. ...except more severe. Though I do understand that between WWII and around the time I was born, that recoveries were much more robust. In fact, this shows that the U numbers may have masked this monster. In the early 80s, women were still probably mobilizing into the workforce, driving the U up and now, retirees are leaving the work force driving it down!
Maybe you are trying to say that Obama hobbled the recovery but I don't think McCain would have done better. I think his victory would have uniquely demoralized Democrats and he could have won in 2012, if Hillary didn't run.
I'm not saying anything about causes, political or otherwise. I'm looking at the data from an analytical perspective to claim that it is neither U, V, or W as economists might have described them. You are correct that both of the two prior recessions in 1990 and 2001 the U shape is unlike the prior recessions. However in both of those, the period of time it took to get 2/3 of the way down is comparable to the time it took to get from 2/3 of the way down back to the previous peak employment numbers.
The 2007 downturn is measurably different. It took about 14 months to get to 4.2% job losses in the following graph, which is about 2/3 of the way down to the peak losses of about 6.4%. 14 months after crossing back upward through the -4.2% line the economy was still at -2.4% in jobs which is not even half way back to 0% from -4.2%.
This graph ends in Mar 2013, and the
May 2014 reports finally claimed that the jobs had reached pre-recession levels. That means that the recovery from -4.2% to 0% ended up taking about 30 months, more than double the time it took to go down. That doubling of time on the recovery side is what gives rise to the Verizon V you initially noted.
Though I am not ascribing any cause to the shape, I do believe that the difference contributes to the public frustration with the economy. I think the inability of the economy to have caught up to the previous level of jobs at the same pace as in other recent recessions can drive people to feel that the economy hasn't really recovered.
Poll
