More generally, the Manchester index (Unemployment rate * duration of unemployment) is a shaky. If you multiply two numbers that move together most of the time, you get a number that exaggerates the movement of either one. There isn't much in the way of new information.
------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug > Henwood > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] FW: New column in Salon: "Length > matters" -- on the > duration of unemployment > > > Devine, James quoted Jamie Galbraith: > > >As the chart shows, the index reached highs on three > occasions. The first > >was just after President Reagan's stinging midterm election > defeat in 1982. > >The second was just as Bush the elder was beaten in 1992. > And the third > >peak came in 2003, with a trivial decline since then. > > The first instance was at the end of a long deep recession, and > immediately preceded a period of strong employment growth. The second > was at the end of a long period of stagnation and jobless recovery, > and immediately preceded a period of strong employment growth. Past > performance in no indication of future results, but I wouldn't put it > to the same use as Jamie G. did. > > Doug >
