The Glade 4.0

Well, women were already represented pretty much as they are now in the workforce by that time... not sure what would be more obvious than that...

I'd guess that jobs started being farmed out overseas in greater numbers and a trade imbalance.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

the amount of people on government assistance programs.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I'd consider that a symptom, really. A consequence of other factors.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, it's just an issue of supply and demand.

1. More women entering the workforce in non-professional positions relative to the 1960s.

2. Open enrollment graduates start showing up around 1972.

So, the workforce expands at both the entry level and the professional level while market demands continue to push the value of labor down. By the middle 1980s, the two-income family is well beyond the norm; it is, in fact, almost mandatory for 90% of wage earning households. A number that continued to rise (as a general rule) through the 1990s and first decade of this millennium.

But, basically, the answer is that the supply of labor pushed down the value of labor, especially as we stopped making tangible things. The emergence of a "Service Economy" is a byproduct of having too many for too few material employment positions.

In any case, this gets back to very long posts I've made about over-employment in the United States; it also gets back to lying with statistics. The absolute number of jobs and the relative participation rates have been touted as signs of progress (by progressives) and growth while wages and household incomes remained flat or declined over the same period of time. But, the distribution of income doesn't change as much as anyone really thinks ...

The rich people still control the majority of wealth, but not the majority of income until we start changing what constitutes real income in both law and accounting during the same time period. Stock Holdings were only income if they paid dividends (most did during the early half the 20th Century); most don't know. Now we consider income to be the difference in absolute dollar value primarily accounted for by inflation with most stocks. There are extreme outliers like Cisco or Big Blue or Microsoft, but for the most part: the actual market value of a company's shares in circulation tends to stay flat when adjusted for inflation: this is why you invest in index funds.

All of that said, the problems we're facing now and the reason's we're in a depression have more to do with long term corrections and the untenability of our reporting and policy practices: which is to say, telling the truth might very well cause a confidence crisis.

_________________

Working age population based on census data in 2010 was 192,800,113 (18-65).

Working age population based on census data in 2000 was 174,136,341 (18-65).

Working age population based on census data in 1939 was 47,023,247 (over 20).

Total jobs 2010 = 132,344,898*
Total jobs 2000 = 134,789,796*
Total jobs 1932 = 23,979,592*

* These numbers assume 2% of the labor force is farm hands, which is very low for 1932.

So, the portion of the working age population that is employed in 2000 was 77%. 2010 was 67%. 1932 was 51%.

This is not even close to 1932. So, maybe a bad recession, maybe a light depression, whatever, but it's been a whole lot worse.

Arathain:

You're making some grossly erroneous assumptions in your comparison.

1. How many households are represented by the 52% of the Working Population in 1932?

2. How many households are represented by the 77% of the Working Population in 2000?

The problem here is that most contemporary models fail to adequately explain the Great Depression; the neo-Keynesian models mainstream economists use are wrong, as evidenced by the perpetual failure of those policies to solve both the Great Depression and future economic downturns.

Inasmuch as its mainstream Real Business Cycle Theory is likely the best contemporary model not born of Hayek and Rothbard, but it gets little press and less leverage because it doesn't substantiate the Harvard and MIT models of the 70s. Consequently, places where we can find valid tools often get overlooked because simplistic comparisons such as yours.

_________________

It can't be right because some guy in a suit told you so?

The numbers I provided are total numbers of people within the working age you defined (or close to it, anyway). It's a serious simplification, I'll be the first to say that, but I'm not convinced that number of households is particularly relevant. Total potential workers, total jobs.

Now, if you want to make the point that women were not in the working class in 1932, then you'd only be partially correct, but the key phrase there is "make it". Make your point. I'm not particularly excited about researching the answers to your questions so that you can maybe make a point depending on whether or not you like the answer.

Show your numbers. Illustrate why the comparison I made is too simplified to be applicable, and make your own comparison. You'll need to use data, and yes - it will need to be referenced.

Having you just make declaration doesn't mean much to me.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

More people working = higher GDP, regardless of the number of households.

Inflation surges!!!....to 25% below target.

Of a meaningless metric. Which you already understand.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Ignoring rice, wheat, cotton, copper, iron, silver, and other things that actually make up most of consumer spending.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It's not a meaningless metric. It has value. As long as you pay attention to the other portions of the economy, it's not meaningless to look at this portion.

That's like saying it's meaningless within an auto manufacturer to watch the price of plastic because it's dwarfed in spending by the cost of labor. You have to look at both, and it helps to separate out labor so the change in plastic costs is visible.

I believe what he meant was that it was meaningless as a metric of overall inflation, not that it was meaningless in purely information theory sense.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Ayup.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Um, ok, but I don't think any economists use the core inflation rate as a metric of overall inflation. I think most, if not all, economists understand the difference.

Furthermore, the article linked doesn't discuss food and energy inflation, other than to generically say it is increasing. So, the "inflation surges" part of the article's title is referring only to core inflation which, as pointed out by RD, is below targets. Thus, so what?

Furthermore, and I don't have numbers, but I heard there is downward pressure on oil prices at the moment.