The thing that makes me suspicious of this is that I don't see the term "laid off" defined except as by the people being surveyed.

I was "laid off" two years ago. I was laid off because my boss was pissed off that I was looking for another job. I was unemployed for about 24 hours. I recieved no severance package other than my unpaid vacation time. I recieved no unemployment insurance (I was fired on Sunday and hired on Monday before I could make a claim.) My former employer did not extend my health benefits. I received no help finding a job, career counseling or skills training. I was given no notice.

Of course, I went to a job that paid me more money for better work, and I never missed a paycheck, but I hit nearly every catagory in the list.

(Whew! warning, long comment follows...)

During the last Bush-induced recession, the one due to the elder Bush, I was working as a contract programmer for a branch of Shell Oil. My project manager, many years my junior and very good at her job, asked me once, during a break, whether I wasn't worried, as a contractor, that I could be let go at a moment's notice. I suppose I could have pointed out to her how much contract work I had managed to find over the years in good times and bad, but instead, I couldn't resist saying, "Jane (not her real name), how does my situation differ from yours? You're employed by a major corp. that is laying off people right and left. As a contractor, I've outlasted a half dozen full-time employees in this department in the few months I've been here. How secure is your situation?" Yes, I know; it's not the kindest thing I could have said.

I also pointed out to her that it is not possible to sustain a company culture, and hence any real team cohesiveness and the productivity benefits from same, using only temp employees like me. Not only do most workers need a predictable job, but most companies, whether they realized it in the crazy Nineties or not, need a stable base of employees. On the other end of things, companies who manufacture things need customers who can consistently afford to buy their products. I may have educated that one young manager, who was receptive to my comments, but I am not complacent about corporate attitudes in general toward the need for steady employment.

My other occupation... musician... is unionized, and on the whole, in good times and bad, whatever jobs I managed to pick up, I have been well-treated by those hiring me. I cannot think that is mere coincidence: being in the union makes a difference.

Until recently, though, IT professionals, both employed and contract, have continued to find work, and some may think themselves invulnerable to the trend, and hence not in need of unions. I believe this is a temporary circumstance, as the internet makes it possible for well-qualified tech people outside the U.S. to provide the services I do much cheaper than I can. How does this relate to your post? More and more, that recently unemployed 20 percent includes workers in the so-called "new economy" (forgive me if I laugh at the term).

In other words, Phelps (above) may rightly congratulate himself for his individual change of circumstance, and quibble at his possibly inappropriate inclusion in the stats this time around. But if I were he, I wouldn't rest easy. Indeed, I don't rest easy. As a bumper sticker I have says, these days, it's "Job Less America."