3 ms·

Your point (and jabits below) is valid but my issue is he didn't spell out the fact that "discouraged workers" were counted in the Great Depression. Also (if y

Your point (and jabits below) is valid but my issue is he didn't spell out the fact that "discouraged workers" were counted in the Great Depression. Also (if you follow the link provided) you'll see we didn't hit the 20%+ numbers until 4 years after the crash and by that measure we still have over a year. I concede we're talking semantics I just think a more accurate way to say it would be "unemployment rose above 20% in the Great Depression while by that same standard we're only at around 17%". Rather than comparing their 20% to our 10% and then mentioning the real unemployment rate as an addendum.

trevelyan 15y ago
17 percent is very much in the range of the Great Depression. Especially since the higher unemployment statistics from the 1930s included workers who were actually employed. Scroll down for the details: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/ http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-rea...
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
> you'll see we didn't hit the 20%+ numbers until 4 years after the crash and by that measure we still have over a year. It will be very interesting to follow this over the next year or so and watch how this trends. I'm not at all persuaded that this isn't another Depression; but like such things, it's hard to tell except in retrospect. Another ongoing employment issue in the USA is the extraordinarily high prison rate. In other countries, most of those inmates would be unemployed rather than incarcerated.