4 ms·
A minor blip where millions lost their jobs, houses, and businesses... The hard part about economic analysis is you can never know all the variables in a dynam
by hl5 10y ago
A minor blip where millions lost their jobs, houses, and businesses...
The hard part about economic analysis is you can never know all the variables in a dynamic system. It's a common error to summarize based on variables convenient to the theme you choose to present only to later realize your analysis should have included some fairly obvious factors.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoYes millions lost their jobs, houses, and business. And yes it was a minor blip. If you think otherwise, you don't grasp how bad the Great Depression was. Think about 35% unemployment for years. The majority of mainstream economists didn't see it coming. That's a totally valid criticism. But they did a much better job of handling it than in 1929, and the damage, while major, was still nothing like the Great Depression.
- ThomPete 10y agoI think you owe it to yourself to look up how the US defines a job. Most jobs created since 2008 are trmp jobs not actuallu structurally solid jobs so sure there is less unemployment but the employment there is is way more fragile.
- matt4077 10y agoThe actual criticism is the US not counting people not actively looking for a job as unemployed, thus dismissing those who have given up/gone back to school/retired early/found their calling as a stay-at-home dad. Still: if you believe today's troubles are in any way comparable to the 20s, you owe it to yourself to read up on that period. Check for "starvation" in the index.
- ThomPete 10y agoWe are talking jobs not the consequence of not having jobs. Point is there are a lot more who have jobs which arent actually jobs on any way comparable to back then.
- slededit 10y agoU-3 includes discouraged workers and is back to 1997 levels. U-6 includes discouraged workers and even workers unwillingly working part time when they want full. Even that more expansive definition is back at levels from the 90s. People who criticize what is and is not counted and don't specify which unemployment number are uninformed.
- hl5 10y agoFederal nutritional programs weren't available until 1932. Social Security Act passed in 1935. It's these programs that eliminated the starvation headlines in the US. I agree it's not comparable -- many billions more people are negatively affected by the Great Recession simply because world population has grown so much since 1929.
- hl5 10y agoI see your 42 million unemployed people in 1929 and raise you 100 million people not currently looking for work in 2017.
- silverlake 10y agoDon't just regurgitate Trump's tweets: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/...
- hl5 10y agoPoltifact's description of an environment where all students and retirees don't need to work is not only unlikely but unrealistic.
- srtjstjsj 10y agoUS population has more than tripled since 1929. are "unemployed people" and "not currently looking for work" comparable measures, or where there man more people "not looking for work" in 1929? (most women, for example?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States#/media/File:U.S._employment_ratios_for_prime_working_years_25-54.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Sta... suggests that many of those 100million are relatively old or not interested in jobs even if jobs were on offer.
- dragonwriter 10y agoA lot of those 100 million are elderly, children, or permanently disabled. There's a reason we count unemployed in a different manner than just "not currently looking for work."
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]