Newsweek: Why losing 84,000 jobs isn’t that bad

For a while on MO, we played a game where we’d look at how job gains or losses were talked about in the press under Bush. One thing that I was almost right about was that when the jobs report got big coverage the day before it was released, the numbers were worse than “expected.” Whenever the report wasn’t covered beforehand, the gains were good or better than predicted and were “unexpected.”

Now suddenly we’ve got an “unexpected” big loss of jobs. First, it was “unexpected.” Now it’s “not that bad.”

Meanwhile, here are some reasons why things might be much worse than 1982.