Unemployment -- it's worse than you think

The financial meltdown became widely recognized just a few short months ago. The debate over whether or not the US was in recession quickly changed to whether or not we are heading toward a depression. The cheerleaders of the US economy, those who spent last summer blustering on about the economic strength and fundamental soundness of our economy, are much more somber, if not altogether silent, these days (there are a few exceptions, but they are beginning to look a bit ridiculous). Now the debate, subdued as it is, concerns the possibility of a depression in US. In fact, in the comparative assessments of many of the pundits, we have slid from undergoing a recession similar to the post 9-11 era, to the early 1990s and now it is suggested that we will be experiencing a recession that would compare to the length and severity of the early 1980s. The next stop is the 1930s, at which point the debate over whether or not the US is sliding into a depression will have been resolved. 

One point that is being used to mollify us is a comparison between today's unemployment figures with those from the 1930s. The high for that decade was around 25% in 1933. Currently the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, as of October 2008, we have an unemployment rate of 6.5% -- a far cry from the 1930s. This fact has been repeatedly brought up to dispel the specter of a new Great Depression. However, if you look at how the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports its figures, 6.5% measures only those who have actively sought a job in the last four weeks (category U-3). A better estimate is the U-6 category which measures 

1) people that are unemployed and includes those who are unemployed and have looked for work in the past year, but not within the last 4-weeks, and

2) the marginally employed--i.e. those who want full time employment but are unable to find it. 

This more inclusive number put the US unemployment rate at 11.8% in October (see http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm). 

However, the SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate, which includes people who desire employment but have not looked for work during the past year, is much higher. This figure was used until the Clinton administration, but is no longer included in Bureau of Labor Statistics reports as it tends to be politically inconvenient. The SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate is currently at 15%. 

Considering that recent mass layoffs in the financial sector and currently projected layoffs in retail and manufacturing, the unemployment rate could double during 2009.  Even Goldman Sachs projects official unemployment (U-3) rising to 9% in 2009. If the SGS rate correlates with this projected rise in the U-3 rate, then a conservative estimate of the SGS Alternative Rate will shoot to around 23%. At this point we are talking depression era unemployment levels by the end of 2009--and who knows what 2010 will bring. 

If you still have your job, I would begin the uncomfortable process of considering what you would do if you had no income for 6-12 months. Do you have enough savings to see you through? Most Americans don't.  But don't get bogged down with worry and stress-- now is the time to formulate your plans B, C and D. Could you live on unemployment? Would you be able to pick up a comparable job within a few months? Do you have family or friends that could put you up for a while? What possessions would you get rid of first? It is a good idea to immediately identify the top three or four items that you would not be able to afford if you were in reduced circumstances. Too often folks loose their job yet still try to get along as they have in the past, but this denial simply drags them down faster.