The Great Recession: The downturn that wouldn’t end

Nov 8, 2019

3 min

Narayana KocherlakotaLisa KahnDavid Primo

The Great Recession ended 10 years ago, but University of Rochester economist Narayana Kocherlakota says it is still very much with us.


David Primo, associate professor of political science and business administration, agrees that the country continues to feel the effects of the recession, though his take differs from Kocherlakota’s.


And Lisa Kahn, a professor of economics at the University of Rochester, sees another lasting effect from the Great Recession.


“Unemployment is very low right now, leading people to think that we’ve recovered,” says Kocherlakota. “Income levels, however, are now as much as 15 percent below where they might have been, if not for the recession.”


Many economists blame the income slowdown on a natural decrease in the rate at which new ideas are discovered. But Kocherlakota, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, attributes it to something else. “Businesses don’t want to lock up money in physical investments because they’re nervous about another Great Recession,” he says. “That’s why there’s less innovation, and that’s why we have an income slowdown.”


The Great Recession began in December 2007 after the bottom fell out of the US housing market. That was followed by a shortage of assets in the financial markets and the collapse of the financial sector, including banks, credit card companies, and insurance companies. The recession, the worst in the US since the Great Depression of the 1930s, officially lasted through June 2009, though unemployment levels didn’t peak until October of that year.


According to Primo, the losers were homeowners, among others. The banks, which many observers say bear some responsibility for the recession, were bailed out by the government, while homeowners were not. That perceived double standard has led to the Occupy Movement, support for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, and the election of Donald Trump, according to Primo.


“Economists may be 100 percent correct in saying it was necessary to bail out the banks,” says Primo. “But that’s a difficult political argument to hear if you lost your house, while banks were bailed out.”



Says Kahn: “Many firms take the opportunity provided by a recession to introduce technologies that reduce their reliance on workers. In the old days, we had bank tellers giving out money; now machines can do that,” she says. “In manufacturing, we’re shifting more and more to machines instead of workers. And a lot of that shift takes place during recessions.”


Kahn points out that wages and employment have been falling for the last 30 years in exactly the types of jobs that are increasingly performed by machines.


Kahn identifies an additional recession-related phenomenon, one that specifically targets college graduates. “It has always been bad to graduate during a recession,” says Kahn. “But the lost earnings from the Great Recession are much larger than they were in previous downturns, and it’s something that will stay with them long term.”


Not only are fewer jobs available, the graduates find themselves competing against experienced workers who had recently been laid off. The net result is persistently lower wages.

Connect with:
Narayana Kocherlakota

Narayana Kocherlakota

Louis and Henry Epstein Professor of Business Administration at the Simon School of Business

Professor Kocherlakota's research includes theoretical and empirical contributions to many fields in economics

Central BanksU.S. Federal ReserveDynamic Games/ContractsFinancial EconomicsEconomics of Money and Payments
Lisa Kahn

Lisa Kahn

Helen F. and Fred H. Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences

Kahn's research focuses on labor economics with interests in organizations and education

Economic DownturnsContract TheoryEconomics of Organizations
David Primo

David Primo

Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor, Professor of Political Science and Business Administration

An expert in American politics; campaign finance; corporate political strategy, social responsibility & fiscal policy; & airline industry.

Airline IndustryAirline BusinessElection LawFederal Tax PolicyPolitical Gridlock

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Rochester

1 min

Need a music expert? John Covach hits the right notes

Attention music journalists: When there are developments in the music industry — whether it be the emergence of a new sound, a growing trend in experiencing and listening to music, or the death of an influential artist — John Covach lends valuable perspective to your stories. Covach, a prominent rock and pop music historian who directs the Institute of Popular Music at the University of Rochester, is regularly sought out by news outlets around the world. He recently helped The New York Times explain what made the album “Pet Sounds” a masterpiece for Beach Boys chief songwriter Brian Wilson. He has offered commentary to the New York Daily News on why artists might relinquish ownership of their music. Last year, he offered thoughts to The Boston Globe on the timeless appeal of aging rock ‘n’ rollers who are still packing arenas. “It doesn’t matter that they can’t sing the high notes anymore,” Covach told The Globe. “It doesn’t matter that they’re kind of stooped over. We’re seeing the person we remember from 40 or 50 years ago.” Covach is a wealth of knowledge and an accessible expert. Connect with him by clicking on his profile.

1 min

In the News: School Choice and Vouchers

A Trump administration proposal to use the federal tax code to offer vouchers that students could use to attend private secular or religious schools has reignited public debate over school choice. David Figlio, a professor of economics and education at the University of Rochester whose research on vouchers has been widely cited, is available to offer insight on the matter. A recent study he co-authored on a school choice program in Ohio showed that low-income children in the program were likely to realize significant and positive academic benefits. Figlio warned in an interview with National Public Radio, though, that the results need to be taken “with a grain of salt.” “This program was a highly targeted program that bears little resemblance to the statewide, universal vouchers that are being rolled out today,” he said. Figlio’s research spans a wide range of education and health policy issues, from school accountability and standards to welfare policy and the intersection between education and health. Contact Figlio by clicking on his profile.

1 min

Companies pay a price for taking a stand on polarizing issues

News that Target’s sluggish first quarter earnings were partly due to consumers protesting the retail giant’s rollback on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, may have some people wondering why any company would take a position on a politically divisive issue. David Primo, a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester, says political polarization across the country has forced the hands of some corporate executives to take a stand. Perhaps not surprisingly, Americans are split on whether they want big business wading into social and political minefields. “It’s pretty straight forward to think that a corporation ought to be taking positions on issues related to its core business operations,” Primo says. “The challenge for an executive, who has a fiduciary responsibility to the company, is knowing where to draw the line.” Primo regularly shares his insights on a variety of topics with business journalists and political reporters. Recently, he spoke to USA Today about consumers boycotting major retailers. Contact him by clicking on his profile.

View all posts