Copy that. In the recent kerfuffle, I think folks may have forgotten how brief and transitory the boom was. I can remember a student/grad from the early 90s--quite a good one, really, high grades, good presentable manner-who told me felt like the velvet cord had been drawn up just in front of him. In retrospect--if so, it was because they were reconfiguring the theatre for the Next Big Extravaganza. Granted that nobody wants another real estate boom--which was all smoke and mirrors from the start--another dotcom boom, with all its innovation and intellectual electricity--why, that doesn't sound bad at all.
Lowenstein also says that one out of six construction workers is out of work. Sic? I would have thought maybe it was five out of six.
Afterthought: Lowenstein also tangentially hits upon one of the reasons why "economics" drives so many people so nots. He refers to "Okun's Law"- - "a mathematical relationship," as Lowenstein puts it, "between the decline in output (that is, goods and services produced) and the rise in unemployment." Lowenstein says:
It held up pretty well until recently. But this time around, although the decline in output would have predicted a rise in unemployment to 8 percent, the actual jobless rate has soared to 9.5 percent. So this recession is killing off jobs even faster than the things — like automobiles, houses, computers and newspapers — that jobholders produceAlright, fine. So far so good. Fine fellow, Okun, useful research. BUT IT ISN'T A LAW. It's an insight, a generalization, a quaint observation, a description of some data. BUT IT ISN'T A LAW or we wouldn't be able to blow it off so easily. Got that? IT ISN'T A LAW. And, yes, I am writing in caps.