For radically different worked efficiencies to account for a different unemployment numbers, something about the distribution of worker efficiencies has to have changed since the last recession. But workers have always had different levels of productivity and efficiency, and in hard times the less efficient are more likely to be out of work.
As work becomes more skilled, the differences between the average and best workers tend to increase, but the amount by which work has become more skilled and technical between the last two recessions, and say the 2d and 3d last recessions, does not seem to be revolutionary. The mathematical relationship the article notes did not have to be gradually adjusted as the workforce became more technical over the last 60 years; rather, it held until it suddenly broke now (if you believe the article).
An alternate explanation, would be that 1) economists and their mouthpieces don't know as much as they pretend, and 2) there is a high liklihood that this is the start of a big depression, not a "really really bad recession", and most businessmen are correctly assessing that liklihood, and rather than expanding their businesses to meet a fantasy future bigger market, they are waiting for the market to shrink to match their business.
Another, less dire reason for these numbers might be a general shift towards more home-based and freelancer type employment; such employment may be undercounted in the economists' numbers.
It seems likely that there are multiple effects here. Perhaps work has become skilled enough to produce large enough differences in productivity that it necessitates an adjustment to the model. This might help explain why the recent recessions were considered fairly jobless relative to those that came before. It might also help in explaining the increasing compensation gap that we see.
It may also be the case that businesses are delevering in the same way that households must. This would be a rational reaction to the dangers of debt financing that have been placed in stark relief by the crisis. Businesses that are reducing their dependency on debt by switching to internal financing will have less capital available for expansion.
The rising cost of benefits may have also started to effect the demand for full time workers and pushed businesses over into hiring temps and part timers.
It occurs to me that it also might be due to efficiencies in different industries, and the industries that are being hit in this particular recession are different than the previous. and so on.
As work becomes more skilled, the differences between the average and best workers tend to increase, but the amount by which work has become more skilled and technical between the last two recessions, and say the 2d and 3d last recessions, does not seem to be revolutionary. The mathematical relationship the article notes did not have to be gradually adjusted as the workforce became more technical over the last 60 years; rather, it held until it suddenly broke now (if you believe the article).
An alternate explanation, would be that 1) economists and their mouthpieces don't know as much as they pretend, and 2) there is a high liklihood that this is the start of a big depression, not a "really really bad recession", and most businessmen are correctly assessing that liklihood, and rather than expanding their businesses to meet a fantasy future bigger market, they are waiting for the market to shrink to match their business.
Another, less dire reason for these numbers might be a general shift towards more home-based and freelancer type employment; such employment may be undercounted in the economists' numbers.