3 ms·
I see your 42 million unemployed people in 1929 and raise you 100 million people not currently looking for work in 2017.
by hl5 10y ago
I 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]