Well, good to know that the recession is just a matter of my attitude. Yes, while how you think about something can help you weather it, the FACT is that economically we're hurting. The second link says wages are stagnating or declining ... I guess my being laid off in January would qualify as a decline, a rather steep and nasty decline.

I left the state and had (what I thought) were two rather good interviews last week. If I get hired in either of these positions I will start at a wage higher than the position that no longer exists (and in a state with no state income tax). But in most of my previous interviews I made the top 20 out of 200 applications (in one of these I was in the top 6, the other one didn't say). No, we're not in a recession because we think we are ... we think we are, because economically we know we are.

Is it suppose to be a Jedi mind trick?

good to know that the recession is just a matter of my attitude

I'm always impressed at how enthusiastically people twist an idea into something silly in order to knock it down. Few if any serious people say recessions are "just a matter of attitude"; certainly the article Jack linked to doesn't say that. In fact, the article wasn't about recessions at all -- it was about fear of depression. The article makes the rather obvious point that "The popular mood has a huge impact on the economy" - but it doesn't say we're not in a recession, it doesn't say people aren't hurting, it doesn't say the recession isn't a product of fundamental economic problems. All it says, for crying out loud, is that the fear of this recession becoming a depression isn't as great as it has been in past similar episodes and that the fear that we have experienced this time around is receding. And it offers some speculation as to why that is the case, and whether this relatively optimistic view is well-founded.

Meanwhile, Former Oregonian, best of luck in your job search.

Pete, I understand your comment playing the other side of the depression issue, but I also read into these two posts Jack inserted a similar response as Former Oregonian.

What I'm finding frustrating from the general media is the continual bias on issues.

For example, today's Oregonian in the front page of the "O",is the article "Unsettled South Waterfront is fertile ground for artists". Many of us know the real history,unfinished-unfunded projects, financial failure, the $290 Million taxpayer costs plus other debt costs that adds up to over $1.2 Billion in public costs, plus the actual urban planning failure of South Waterfront.

The Oregonian writer states:

"For a moment, let's look at South Waterfront from another point of view, as much a part of the place as the jackhammers and cranes and pioneers' moving vans. From this perspective, South Waterfront, where so much is unsettled, unanswered, the seams still visible, also means" rich material. Specifically, rich material for artist."

Do we need to spend $1.2 Billion in taxpayer dollars to create an artist's canvas? Couldn't we just have not spent a dime in South Waterfront and let things happen naturally-isn't that a "canvas" also? Art can happen without public subsidy. In fact, many artists prefer not to work under the directorship of government.

This is not a comment about the glass being half empty or half full. It is about the bias that we have in the media that thinks asking questions about the issues in the half empty glass is wrongful. We should be able to learn from the questions and answers in the half empty side to help in the half full side.

Art can happen without public subsidy.

Yet, here in Oregon, all public projects are required to have a percentage of the funding set aside for art. And just look at all the transit stations for some of the crap they buy with that money...