Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Businessweek Archives

More on length of unemployment

? Length of Unemployment: Up or Down? |


| Are Our Lives Riskier Today than in 1979? ?

May 25, 2005

More on length of unemployment

Michael Mandel

A reader suggested that, to be fair, I show DeLong's chart of unemployment duration, which is adjusted for the business cycle. That is, he estimates what the duration of unemployment would be if the unemployment rate was 6%. Here is his chart.

Antler is arguing that the duration of unemployment has gone down, or at least not gone up. DeLong is firing back, saying that he would have expected the duration of unemployment to have fallen more, considering that the unemployment rate is a lot lower than it was in the early 1980s.

Comments? Which one do you believe?

11:31 AM

Labor Market

TrackBack URL for this entry:

"DeLong is firing back, saying that he would have expected the duration of unemployment to have fallen more..."

Which concedes that Antler is correct, and Krugman is wrong. Krugman is also wrong that people lose their jobs more often now. I've graphed that from 1967 to today at my blog (click on my name to see it)

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at May 26, 2005 10:36 AM

Thanks, Patrick. I've looked at this myself, and I think that all things being equal, it looks like there is somewhat more employment risk.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:11 PM

blog comments powered by Disqus