Talk:Jobless recovery

message: This article is quite bad, the first two links are totally broken and don't even define the term!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.254.115 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

message: Though the article is in some places unsubstantiated, the original author does provide a good framework as far as breadth. I like all the different consequences of a jobless recovery.
~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.156.229 (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words in the past. I wanted to note, now that those sections have been deleted by someone else, that they are accessible in the Wikipedia history here. One of the first things to be deleted was a link (added by someone else) about a Harvard professor of religion (Harvey Cox) writing about how mainstream economics is basically immersed in unacknowledged theology. So, this article maybe is heresy by that standard that perhaps some people felt compelled to stamp out (starting with stamping out the very idea that mainstream economics is more a religion than a science because of all the assumptions it makes about human nature)? I don't really know what I can do about that, and I feel the article's explanatory power (as well as related citations to heterodox thinkers) is rapidly eroding with the death of 1000 cuts by presumably several mainstream economics believers who want to remove alternative views. The same mainstream ideological forces that failed to predict the Jobless Recovery problem, that failed to rapidly cure it, and that offer mostly apologetics for suffering of so many in the world seem to be at work here (and that is not to accuse anyone of ill will, just that such behavior comes from people advocating what they have been trained to believe in as economic theology, often even to their own personal detriment sometimes). But, life goes on, and I'm not going to engage in an edit war over this myself, which is probably what would happen were I to revert the article to a version that had the text you praised. Anyone looking for a broader understanding of the topic of a Jobless Recovery from a variety of perspectives, or how it impacts real people (as opposed to theoretical ones), and lots of possible solutions to it (by the way, listing possible alternatives is not the same as a "crystal ball" prediction as supposedly justified the deletion of the text you praised), and links to writers ranging from Marshall Brain (futurist, businessperson) to Marshall Sahlins (anthropologist) to Suniya Luthar (psychologist) to Bob Black (lawyer) to substantiate those points, you can check out that old version linked above before deletionists took over the article. (Again, this is not to say that article could not have been improved, including with more references or reorganization or judicious editing.)--Freevolution (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Breadth

message: This is probably the worst article I've ever laid eyes on. It's not even about jobless recovery but unemployment in general and belongs in a 9th grade dissertation. - 80.169.161.162 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:NOR

message: This is a political diatribe and deserves to be killed - I'd VfD it, except it's such a hassle to list things on VfD these days! - DavidWBrooks 17:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: How do the Analysis figures illustrate a jobless recovery? -- Beland (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation needed 

message: This is among the worst written articles on Wikipedia and is clearly written to support a political stance.  The person who keeps editing it is named "Freevolution", go figure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedVest (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupidity

message: I have requested third opinions, or any other comments/criticism, over at WikiProject Economics. 
bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: This is the worst entry on this site. Almost all information on this page is peripheral, a normal reader would come away with no basic knowledge of Jobless Recovery. Wikipedia articles should be concise, direct and to the point of ONE IDEA. There is no room for socio-political posturing or advocacy in an encyclopedia article. It should be SCRAPPED COMPLETELY and written over by someone with more restraint and knowledge of Jobless Recovery. Please Freevolution, give this article up! Its truly a disgraceStevIstKrieg (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I think the article is well beyond the point where even moderate tweaks can bring it up to any thing half-decent. Basically everything that is unsourced and everything that is only barely relevant to the topic should be mercilessly removed per 'be bold!'.
Couple quick random observations:
# This article is NOT on the subject of "unemployment" in general. It is about a specific economic phenomenon where output per capita recovers but employment does not increase. Everything that is not explicitly connected to this phenomenon needs to go. This includes all the hodge podge of theories of what causes unemployment (as opposed to what causes it to stay high in a recovery), how the unemployed "feel", social impacts of unemployment etc.
# The most common theory for a "cause" is not mentioned at all, even though the article has a whole list of barely relevant and crank-ish theories about 'causes'. The most common explanation (almost an accounting definition) is that worker productivity rises in a recovery, which raises output per capita, but due to uncertainty about the future, individual firms hold off on hiring extra (more productive workers) in order to avoid training and hiring costs until the economy wide situation becomes clearer. Since everyone thinks this way, the # of jobs does not increase, further fueling concerns about the future (in essence, a form of coordination failure).
# Discussion of historical issues should be limited to episodes where there really was a 'jobless recovery' not to unemployment trends or structural unemployment or the fact that unemployment goes up during recessions. Basically it should be limited to: a) Great Depression - and even there it's not 100% that the period in between the two recessions that comprised it was one of "jobless recovery" (which is different from a "slow recovery"), b) aftermath of the 2000 recession and c) present situation.  
Ok that's just for starters.radek (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use a hatchet, not a scalpel 

message: I've reverted a section deletion of Population growth vs. employment growth
The editor claims, WP:SYNTHESIS, yet there is no conclusion made here, just the notation that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not offer the data in the age-ranges depicted, some grade-school addition and subtraction is explained and outlined in the accompanying text. 
WP:SYNTHESIS states:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
The section is entirely sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey (thus no multiple sources) and there is no conclusion or implication because the table displayed is WP:CALC. The section quite relevant to the Jobless Recovery topic as employment creation, retirements and labor availability are primary components of the Jobless Recovery phenomena. 009o9 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely nothing in the source about "jobless recovery", and a huge table which draws no conclusions about this neologism obviously has no place in the article. bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted section blanking 

message: I'm willing to take on a cleanup of this article and I'm writing to see how many other editors are still interested in this topic.  (When I added my section, this discussion was very dated.)
I believe that the section Recent employment trends in the USA should be removed from the Causes section, and "Recent..." appears to now be 3 years old.  Some of that section looks okay, but it seems to be suffering from what I call drive-by edits -- a few un-sourced sentences pasted in around the content.
There is a ton of credible reference material out there, and for the United States, the Jobless recovery publications generally start with early 1990's, however some do note the Great Depression having a jobless recovery. I'm thinking that maybe an upper level section Recessions that exhibited jobless recoveries with subsections for each.  Perhaps something from the Recent employment trends in the USA lecture can be salvaged for a Great recession section. 
Perhaps an outline like this:
 Lede 
:  Official Definitions  (some economists are now calling it "persistent unemployment")
: Causes
:: Theory 1
::  Theory 2...
: United States
:: Recessions that exhibited jobless recoveries
::: Recession 1 
::: Recession 2... 
::  Data 
Additionally, I want to move the existing reverences to a Reflist | refs = section. I feel that it is a better format and makes it easier reading when the references tags are not commingled with the text.  (It's still okay to add inline just easier to read) If there are no objections, I will work on the article directly as I find time -- probably mostly just quotes from notable economists 009o9 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: The table of employment and population statistics at the end of the article is several years out of date. Could someone update it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.105.124 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * 104.174.231.6 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table update 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jobless recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009010623/http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-4.pdf to http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified