I'm a bit younger than you, in junior high or HS, at the time, so my direct personal experience is less relevant, but then personal experience doesn't really settle the issue, different places and different industries suffered more or less during the two recessions.
Unemployment was slightly worse overall back then, but the two are comparable by that measure. The change in unemployment leading in to the recession was smaller in the 80s, but that's largely because unemployment was already high because of an earlier shallower recession in 1980, that we had not had a serious recovery from yet (at least no serious enough to create a lot of new jobs), it was basically a double dip recession with the 2nd dip being worse. Assuming we don't get a double dip now (which isn't a safe assumption, the total time in recession conditions from this one will apparently be less.
Interest rates obviously where a lot higher back then, so theoretically the FED had a lot more room to cut, but if it had done so, the inflation of the 70s probably never would have been stomped out.
By some measures this recession is worse, but not by a lot. Its pretty similar in many ways (but not in what initiated it).
We're going to have to restructure our entire economy
Do you mean what Arnold Kling would call a "recalculation", where businesses sort out what new areas to invest in might be profitable, and the workforce changes (partially through retraining and gaining new skills, partially through what skills and eduction new entrants choose to develop), or something more centrally planned?
-----------------------
Arnold Kling on recalculation
--
Rethinking Macroeconomics, Continued
econlog.econlib.org
The Recalculation Model, Simplified
econlog.econlib.org
and
"...These were recessions in which we knew where the employment gains would take place. The current recession is one in which we do not know this. That is the primary empirical distinction between Recalculation and Aggregate Demand. The more precisely you know where the employment growth is going to take place, the more reasonable it is to think in terms of aggregate demand. On the other hand, if you do not know where job growth will take place, then we must include Recalculation as part of the story.
In the aggregate demand story, the recovery comes from restoring consumer spending. Make consumer credit more readily available, get people buying houses and consumer durables, and the economy will recover.
In the Recalculation Story, the recovery comes from profits in new businesses. As new businesses emerge and earn profits, they expand employment. If you are going to stimulate anything, stimulate business profits. That is why cutting the employer portion of the payroll tax appeals to me.
I have a longstanding bias in favor of profits and internal finance for business. In my first book, Under the Radar, I tried to talk entrepreneurs into selling to customers, not to investors. I said, "Fundraising is not for businesses. Fundraising is for charities." So keep in mind that it could be that my bias in favor of profit-financed business as opposed to investor-financed business is creeping into my macroeconomics.
I am prepared to argue that both the Great Depression and the current recession fit the Recalculation Story. The economy that woke up around 1950 was very different from the one that went to sleep around 1930. The post-Depression economy was much more oriented around gasoline-powered transportation. Farming became concentrated in farm belts and diminished near cities. Manufacturing dispersed out of central cities. Clerical work expanded relative to physical labor.
The biggest problem with the Recalculation Story concerns timing. The economy is restructuring all the time, and for many decades this can proceed smoothly. What is it that throws the economy off of the smooth restructuring path and throws it into Recalculation?
I have sort of a hand-waving answer to this question. I think that what happens during a boom is that you get an accumulation of postponed adjustments and maladjustments. Too many people stay for too long in obsolete occupations and too many people chase illusory opportunities..."
econlog.econlib.org |
