[Homestead] Give up the dream? My dilemma (Egyptian Onions)
bobford79 at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 23 13:19:33 EST 2008
Sure; I wasn't arguing your numbers when I wrote 25.2%. That was the wiki number. Either is close enough to 25. My question is whether they counted women who were willing to work, or men (of other than white color). My parents were born after the depression ended. But, my father family was poor anyway. But, like you said with your parents, they didn't go hungry, because they lived in the country.
BO was on the news this am , talking about creating 2.5 million new jobs building infrastructure. Who is he going to hire? Is collective bargaining going to be available to this new tax-payer funded 'temporary' workforce? Will their wages be minimum wage, like in the '30s, just to have some work; or will the democrats demand union type wages?
Therse are all real questions. They are going to be spending money that doesn't exist. They will be spemding more attachment to our grandchildrens souls. I hope they are as smart as they seem to think they are. ..............bobford
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Marie McHarry <mmcharry at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Marie McHarry <mmcharry at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Homestead] Give up the dream? My dilemma (Egyptian Onions)
> To: bobford79 at yahoo.com, homestead at lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:09 AM
> 1933 was definitely the worse year, and the quickest stats I
> find were 24.9, which is within the margin of error.
> Unemployed white men were the bulk of the people kicked out
> of their
> jobs, so those numbers probably reflected the basic
> reality. It would
> have been worse but much of the country was still rural and
> had food
> handy to eat or barter. My mother was shocked when she went
> away to
> college in the mid 1930s to find out that people were going
> She never had (and her parents were never in danger of
> losing their
> farm because they owned it).
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:53 AM, bob ford
> <bobford79 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Unemployment in 1933 was 25.2%, and if it occurs now,
> I would bet we'll see it in 3 to 4 years, not 10. By
> the way, Pollyana, I don't know exactly how they counted
> unemployment numbers then, but I think that I have read that
> it was pretty much unemployed white men who were counted.
> If everyone who wouldm have been willing to work had been
> counted, might the number have been 50% ? I really
> don't know .............bobf
More information about the Homestead