Now and then...

[one_voice]

[LiberalEsto]

1. They didn't carry signs in 1929?

[lunatica]

14. The Suffragettes did

But this was earlier than 1929

[CrispyQ]

2. Great shots.

I like this one too.

[Jnana]

3. Then and now...another view.

[DURHAM D]

4. Where did you get this - it is obviously several years out of date.

[Cerridwen]

5. It's from 2008 from a blog which points to another blog which quotes chuckie schwab.

I'm sure it's 100% reliable. Really I am sure. /sarcasm

I was just getting ready to point that out. BTW, the two blogs I found which used those numbers are from real estate agents. Just FYI.

edit to add: the link at the 2nd blog that quoted ol' chuckie and points to chuckie's site, is not found. I'm still looking.

2nd edit: it appears the site schwabinsights is gone. WaybackMachine has only up to 2009 and the Oct. 2008 info mentioned in graph isn't there.

[NBachers]

6. 6%?

[Jnana]

8. My apoligies....the unemployment stat is showing its age. Here is another look...

[Cerridwen]

9. Why aren't you just the cutest thing? First chuckie schwab and now michelle malkin.

Interesting they didn't post the numbers from the 1980s, isn't it? Since the 1980s were smidges higher than we are now. Of course the way numbers are calculated is different but I'm sure ms. malkin and the wall street journal took that into account. Right?

Cute site you found. I don't blame you for not linking it directly. They sure hate the Democrats over there. Hell, they've even trying to equate the OWS movement with nazis. Interesting site...very interesting.

Even more interesting you came here to share it with us.

Bless your heart.

[Jnana]

10. It's very strange...

The thumbnail indicated that the source was the Bureau of Labor, but that does not appear on the chart in the post.

This chart does appear to be actually based on Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[Cerridwen]

12. You're just having the toughest time making your point while using

questionable sites, aren't ya?

Try the site from which that chart came. tradingeconomics.com They even have a way to show the chart for way back into the 80s. It's quite enlightening. Seems ronnie's years had worse unemployment than now; and the banks hadn't even bothered to commit their most recent crimes. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

You could also go directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics rather than trying to make your case using...questionable sites.

[Jnana]

16. I'm not so much interested in the site as the accuracy of the information.

As for the Bureau of Labor Statistics site--there is just too much information to quickly find what you are looking for. I prefer to google.

Although you can adjust the dates at tradingeconomics, the subsequent image behaves like a flash and provides an unpredictable url.

This is what I go when I set the start date to 1980: (I get something different each time I click the link)

&g=8c53834680404abd8143d45d15087e7e

[Cerridwen]

17. Your words contradict themselves.

If you care for accuracy of information you care for source and valid use of information. That means checking for reliable sites and sources.

If you care about accuracy of information, then you make the effort to go to reliable source and present it.

Instead, you grabbed the first things you googled and brought r/w crap into a discussion to make a point that couldn't be made.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has search-able databases here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm I suggest looking at the U-6 which is rarely, if ever, published in any media in the US. Take a look from Jan 2001 through Jan 2009. You'll see what happened while the shrub occupied the White House.

I found it by using the search function at the BLS site.

The other site, Trading Economics http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate also has databases you can interact with. A couple of clicks to the United States and then unemployment and I was there.

From the BLS site:

Series Id: LNU03327709
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Special Unemployment Rate U-6
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached


Download:
Year Jan--- Feb--- Mar--- Apr--- May--- Jun--- Jul--- Aug--- Sep--- Oct--- Nov--- Dec--- Annual

2001 8.1-- 7.9--- 7.6--- 7.1--- 7.2--- 8.2--- 8.1--- 8.1--- 8.2--- 8.7--- 9.0--- 9.3--- 8.1
2002 10.5- 10.1--- 9.9--- 9.4--- 9.2--- 9.8--- 9.9--- 9.5--- 9.0--- 9.0--- 9.4--- 9.6--- 9.6
2003 11.0- 10.8-- 10.4--- 9.8--- 9.7--- 10.6--10.5-- 10.0--- 9.8--- 9.5--- 9.7--- 9.6-- 10.1
2004 10.9- 10.3-- 10.4--- 9.3--- 9.3--- 9.8--- 9.8--- 9.3--- 8.9--- 9.1--- 9.1--- 9.1--- 9.6
2005 10.2-- 9.9--- 9.4--- 8.7--- 8.6--- 9.3--- 9.1--- 8.8--- 8.5--- 8.1--- 8.4--- 8.4--- 8.9
2006 9.2-- 9.0--- 8.5--- 7.9--- 7.9--- 8.7--- 8.8--- 8.3--- 7.6--- 7.6--- 7.8--- 7.8--- 8.2
2007 9.1-- 8.7--- 8.3--- 7.9--- 7.9--- 8.5--- 8.6--- 8.4--- 8.0--- 7.9--- 8.1--- 8.7--- 8.3
2008 9.9-- 9.5--- 9.3--- 8.9--- 9.4-- 10.3-- 10.8-- 10.7-- 10.6-- 11.1-- 12.2-- 13.5-- 10.5
2009 15.4- 16.0-- 16.2-- 15.4-- 15.9-- 16.8-- 16.8-- 16.5-- 16.1-- 16.3-- 16.4-- 17.1-- 16.2
2010 18.0--17.9-- 17.5-- 16.6-- 16.1-- 16.7-- 16.8-- 16.4-- 16.2-- 15.9-- 16.3-- 16.6-- 16.7
2011 17.3--16.7-- 16.2-- 15.5-- 15.4-- 16.4-- 16.3-- 16.1-- 15.7---

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Yep, it required a bit of an effort and it's more than ugly; but maybe it will get others to click and go look for themselves. I prefer dealing with reliable information. Or at least as reliable as I can find.

[JoePhilly]

13. Wow, you can really see the negative impact of 8 years of GOP economic control in that graph.

Thanks!!

[Yavapai]

7. Shows the great advancement in cooking the books!

The unemployment rate was figured differently and also the rate of inflation is now figured differently.

Unemployment rate now leaves out those who no longer are ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Inflation no longer takes into account the costs of energy or food.

(If my memory serves correctly.)

[lunatica]

15. Unemployment at 6% today? Sure.

I see the source is the Federal Reserve - not a government organization in spite of the name. This month it's 9.1% nationwide and going up

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

[Kablooie]

11. Actually kind of depressing...

when you realize how much effect the protests had in 1929.

They still had to go through a decade of the great depression.

[Fumesucker]

18. We'll be lucky to climb out of this hole in only a decade..

Indeed, I'm not sure we ever will.