have been if the participation rate had not declined since January 2007. The difference is a staggering 6827 thousand workers who have exited the labour force -- most of whom would have joined the ranks of the hidden unemployed. If they had have stayed in the labour force, then as I show below, the unemployment rate would be nearer 11.7 per cent rather than 7.8 per cent. I recomputed the numbers using the same method, which produced the tables above, but this time using the peak participation rate (66.4 per cent) as my benchmark. And then did the same decomposition. Summary -- deplorable loss of jobs and loss of workers to unemployment and hidden unemployment. Conclusion I have run out of time tonight. I will have more to say about these issues in coming blogs. For now, consider that the US economy is in a parlous state even though it is maintaining growth on the back of existing fiscal deficits. There is an urgent need to push growth faster and in an employment rich direction. Any thoughts of following the European or UK austerity route should be expunged from the public debate immediately. The opposite is the need. The problem is that the two major parties, from what I have been seeing in the current election campaign do not understand these issues. And then there is Jack Welch! First off: Thanks a lot, I haven't seen such an in-depth comment and discussion on employment statistics somewhere else (which nonetheless could