Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level

the take away here is that the dividing line between the halves and the halve nots was the level of income, where as now it is between having a steady income and none at all. Also, the size of the have not pool is triple what it was. Also, there is no fix evident until there is political reform which it appears will take political revolution.

The fix will come, but not for awhile, and when it does it will be through violence, at least political violence if not physical violence.

In adjusting the modern unemployment level, the author fails to realize that almost half of the population wouldn't have been included in the unemployment numbers from the great depression. I can guarantee that married women weren't counted in the numbers from the 1930s like they are today.

To adjust the modern numbers while not doing the same thing for the Great Depression numbers is disingenuous.

Married women's income was not necessary for the financial health of the family, where as it is now. We are using the unemployment number to measure harm to citizens, by way of looking at the total number of people needing work not having enough work to support themselves and those who depend upon them. We SHOULD be looking at the males out of work during the 1930's compared to both sexes out of work today.

Your argument is hogwash.

I don't think you know one end of a hog from another hawkeye, let alone which parts need washing.

If the husband was out of work in the 30s, how does that translate to the woman suddenly being financially healthy and therefore didn't need to work? You don't get to change the numbers however you want on one end without applying the same standards to the other end. Standards have changed, but you don't get to change how we count the unemployed today simply because it makes your argument look good.

Are you really that ignorant?? in 1930 if the man was out of work then the family went without, there was no option for the woman to work. No self respecting employer would give a job to a woman when there was so many men out of work, except for jobs that were strictly woman's work. Women's work was not available either, because there was less of it so the jobs went to the women with experience, not to women who were trying to get into the work force for the first time.

I see.. So in 1930, if a woman wanted to work but there was no work for her, we wouldn't count her as "unemployed" but in 2009 we would count anyone that wants to work but has no work?

Hmm.... That doesn't seem a fair comparison, does it?

fairness to the individuals is irrelevant, life is not fair, get used to it. The purpose of the unemployment number is to gage economic hurt in the society, they way we did not classify women as unemployed in 1930 but do now is consistent with the accurate measurement of economic pain because it tracks with changes in how families support themselves. We could come up with a number that was consistant with your moral views on gender equality, but it would be useless, it would not tell us what we need to know.

LOL..

Except the ENTIRE POINT of this thread was to NOT USE the numbers put out by the government (which have nothing to do with my moral views on gender equity). It was a silly exercise in changing those numbers to make them seem as high as they were in the Great Depression while ignoring how the numbers were created and failing to make the same changes to both sets of numbers.

You are arguing for misusing the statistics hawkeye. The changed numbers are the ones that are useless. You seem to recognize that if I change the numbers from the 30s they become useless. Why can't you reach the same conclusion about the current numbers when they are changed?