It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by finemanm
My question is, did they have the proper records keeping ability to really know the unemployment rate in 1933. Computers had not yet been invented, how did they keep track? Also, the real unemployment rate is actually a lot higher because there are a lot of people that aren't counted.
When you include people who are working crappy part time jobs because they can't find full time employment, the real figure is 17%.
Originally posted by djvexd
Wait! Didn't our Overseer say that he has saved or created over 4 million jobs?
Originally posted by Morbo the Annihilator
reply to post by born2BWild
Yeah. I was watching CNN today and they were saying that the new unemployment numbers were surprising and indicated a "slowing of recovery".
And I had to laugh. What recovery?
[edit on 2/10/09 by Morbo the Annihilator]
Originally posted by Pathos
Originally posted by finemanm
My question is, did they have the proper records keeping ability to really know the unemployment rate in 1933. Computers had not yet been invented, how did they keep track? Also, the real unemployment rate is actually a lot higher because there are a lot of people that aren't counted.
When you include people who are working crappy part time jobs because they can't find full time employment, the real figure is 17%.
That is a good estimate. I hear something around 15 to 17% as well. Since many people have fallen off the grid, the government is unable to track the actual amount of people who are unemployed. We can only count those who are on unemployment.
Quoted for emphasis:
Originally posted by djvexd
Wait! Didn't our Overseer say that he has saved or created over 4 million jobs?
Only in his mind.
[edit on 3-10-2009 by Pathos]