# 25% Unemployment during Great Depression: How was workforce defined? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 6, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006 "2008-12-06T16:13:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/1 "2008-12-06T16:13:54Z")
I keep hearing and reading that today’s economic crisis isn’t as bad as the Great Depression because the unemployment rate is not projected to get anywhere near the 25% unemployment rate recorded then. But is that really an apples-to-apples comparison? I presume the “work force” then was not defined to include women. Now it is. Also, in the 30s, most people lived on farms (which is of course no longer the case). Were farm workers included in “unemployment” stats? Can we make any meaningful comparison between unemployment stats of the 1930s and unemployment stats today? Or is the economy too different? (There may be a simple GQ answer to this, if not, it may turn into a debate. I’ll start the thread in GQ, and we’ll see where it goes.) ---
**Author:** ![Spezza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a698b9/32.png) [@Spezza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spezza)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/2 "2008-12-06T19:33:21Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Also, in the 30s, most people lived on farms (which is of course no longer the case). Actually, by 1920 most people lived in urban areas. In the 1910 census the majority still lived in rural areas. However, by the 1920 census there were more urban dwellers than rural folk. 1910 Rural: 49,806,146 Urban: 42,166,120 1920 Rural: 51,406,017 Urban: 54,304,603 Pertinent [1920](http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/41084484v1ch1.pdf) Census Data (warning pdf). See Table 26, page 43. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/3 "2008-12-06T23:20:32Z")
Thanks for the correction, **Spezza**. The point remains that the rural-to-urban ratio was very different then than now. Did that affect calculation of unemployment numbers? ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/4 "2008-12-06T23:48:40Z")
Today, you’re “unemployed” if you’re willing and able to work. Women weren’t willing to work, so why would they be counted? I’m not sure of your line of reasoning that it’s not apples-to-apples. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/5 "2008-12-07T01:10:56Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Today, you’re “unemployed” if you’re willing and able to work. Women weren’t willing to work, so why would they be counted? I’m not sure of your line of reasoning that it’s not apples-to-apples. My point is that a much larger percentage of Americans is in the work force today than in the 30s. (They _have_ to be, unlike the 30s when they could stay on the family farm or in the kitchen.) And so 8% unemployment today might actually represent a larger portion of the _total population_ needing (but not finding) work than 25% unemployment in the 30s. I don’t know the actual numbers or with certainty how unemployment was calculated then, which is why I started this thread. But let’s say that roughly 60% of all working-age people were off the farm and in the work force by the 30s, leaving 40% on the farm. And let’s say that half of those 60% working-age-non-farm-dwelling people were men (and therefore likely part of the work force) and half were women. Let’s say 10% of those working-age-non-farm-dwelling-women were in the work force and 90% were homemakers. If all that were true, “25% unemployment” in the 30s might mean that only a little over 8% of the total working-age population (including farm-dwellers and homemakers) was needing but not finding work. Whereas today, because we have far fewer people living on family farms and far fewer women dropping out of the work force to be homemakers, an 8% unemployment figure comes a lot closer to actually meaning that 8% of the total working age population needs but isn’t finding work. Of course, I pulled all those numbers out of thin air simply to illustrate what I mean when I say we may not be comparing apples to apples. If I’m right, we will be in Great Depression territory long before hitting 25% unemployment (as unemployment is calculated today). ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/6 "2008-12-07T03:53:52Z")
Weren’t kids working during the depression, too? Like in factories and coal mines? Or was that sort of stuff over by then? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/7 "2008-12-07T11:23:28Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > If I’m right, we will be in Great Depression territory long before hitting 25% unemployment (as unemployment is calculated today). I think your suspicions/ideas are probably correct, but I think your conclusion is, partly, the wrong way round. If, for simplicity’s sake, we assume that in 1930 no women worked, and that 25% unemployment means 1 in 4 men were out of work, then 1/4 households had no income. Whereas, if we simplify again and assume 100% two income households today, 8% unemployment today might mean anything between 4% of households with no income and 8% with a severely reduced income. Of course this ignores the effect on the level of unemployement caused by people who stop looking for work, which might have been your point. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/8 "2008-12-07T12:28:36Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Today, you’re “unemployed” if you’re willing and able to work. No, you’re not. The [Bureau of Labor Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5) defines the unemployed as: > [@](#): > > Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. This does not include the hundreds of thousands of “[discouraged workers](http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#D)”: > [@](#): > > Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify. Furthermore, this does not include those who are underemployed, working part time when the would rather be working full time. The government unemployment figures would be much higher if they accurately represented the willing workforce who is not working full time. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/9 "2008-12-07T17:07:44Z")
> [@naita](#): > > If, for simplicity’s sake, we assume that in 1930 no women worked, and that 25% unemployment means 1 in 4 men were out of work, then 1/4 households had no income. > > Whereas, if we simplify again and assume 100% two income households today, 8% unemployment today might mean anything between 4% of households with no income and 8% with a severely reduced income. This is a good point. I hadn’t considered the issue from this angle. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/10 "2008-12-07T17:11:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The [Bureau of Labor Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5)…does not include the hundreds of thousands of "[discouraged workers](http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#D)…[and] does not include those who are underemployed, working part time when they would rather be working full time. The government unemployment figures would be much higher if they accurately represented the willing workforce who is not working full time. **Fear Itself** , this is part of my question. I wonder if “unemployment” was calculated in the same way in the 1930s when the notorious 25% unemployment figure was reached, or if a different method was used. Does anyone know? ---
**Author:** ![xcheopis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bc8723/32.png) [@xcheopis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcheopis)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/11 "2008-12-07T23:40:25Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Women weren’t willing to work, so why would they be counted? . Are you stoned or stupid? Women have always worked. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/12 "2008-12-08T00:53:45Z")
> [@xcheopis](#): > > Are you stoned or stupid? Women have always worked. We’re talking about paid employment. Which in the 1930s women were less likely to seek than today, opting to tend to the house and children instead. I’ll look for a cite if you insist but not going to write a doctoral thesis to prove to you that women used to be more inclined to stay at home in the past than today. ---
**Author:** ![xcheopis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bc8723/32.png) [@xcheopis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcheopis)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/13 "2008-12-08T01:02:39Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > We’re talking about paid employment. Which in the 1930s women were less likely to seek than today, opting to tend to the house and children instead. I’ll look for a cite if you insist but not going to write a doctoral thesis to prove to you that women used to be more inclined to stay at home in the past than today. Yes, I do insist on a cite that women had the free option to either work or take care of the home, instead of doing both. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/14 "2008-12-08T01:08:45Z")
> [@xcheopis](#): > > Yes, I do insist on a cite that women had the free option to either work or take care of the home, instead of doing both. Considering I did not say that… I don’t know who you’re asking for a cite. ---
**Author:** ![xcheopis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bc8723/32.png) [@xcheopis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcheopis)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/15 "2008-12-08T01:16:40Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Considering I did not say that… I don’t know who you’re asking for a cite. Yes, you did. You claimed that women **opted** for home over work, because we all know that no one ever refused to hire women and that working as maids/cooks/laundresses/prostitutes/shop-girls/factory-girls/seamstresses/nannies/etc. isn’t really work, right? So make with the citations about all the **options** available to women in the 1930s. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/16 "2008-12-08T01:22:38Z")
> [@xcheopis](#): > > Yes, you did. You claimed that women **opted** for home over work, because we all know that no one ever refused to hire women and that working as maids/cooks/laundresses/prostitutes/shop-girls/factory-girls/seamstresses/nannies/etc. isn’t really work, right? So make with the citations about all the **options** available to women in the 1930s. I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here. Initially you said women have always worked. I said at that time a significantly lower percentage of the female population had paid employment than they do today. Now you’re harping about the fact that maybe they couldn’t do the kind of work they wanted because of sexual discrimination in hiring, so they didn’t have an option. But regardless of how vast their options were it’s irrelevant to the discussion here. ---
**Author:** ![xcheopis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bc8723/32.png) [@xcheopis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcheopis)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/17 "2008-12-08T01:33:38Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here. Initially you said women have always worked. I said at that time a significantly lower percentage of the female population had paid employment than they do today. [Here is a link to help you recollect exactly what you said.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10542896&postcount=12) Attempts at goal-post shifting merely make you look more of a fool, so produce the cite or stop making idiotic claims. > [@Rigamarole](#): > > Now you’re harping about the fact that maybe they couldn’t do the kind of work they wanted because of sexual discrimination in hiring, so they didn’t have an option. But regardless of how vast their options were it’s irrelevant to the discussion here. Actually, the entirety of what I said can be found [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10542969&postcount=15). You know, just for your reference because you seemed to have had difficulty reading the entire sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/18 "2008-12-08T03:21:16Z")
Please stop this hijack. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/19 "2008-12-08T04:35:10Z")
[According to the FDR Library and Museum web site:](http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/depres24.html#) “At the height of the Depression in 1933, 24.9% of the total work force or 11,385,000 people, were unemployed. Although farmers themselves technically were not unemployed, drastic drops in farm commodity prices resulted in farmers losing their lands and homes to foreclosure.” Not to discount the current financial crisis, but I have a lot of trouble deciphering any of the bullshit I see on the TV. Sure there are tons of annecdotal stories of people unable to find jobs and the standard white collar douchebag wearing a fancier version of the “will work for food” placard (instead of doing something to actually find a job), but according to [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png)chart, the current unemployment isn’t even as bad as it was during the 80s. That’s not to say it isn’t bad, but when I see thousands of displaced families wandering the countryside and hobos living in Hoovertowns in Central Park, then we can start making comparisons to the Great Depression. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006/20 "2008-12-08T14:14:48Z")
> [@xcheopis](#): > > Are you stoned or stupid? Ahem. Are you thinking you are in the Pit? That’s several floors down. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/25-unemployment-during-great-depression-how-was-workforce-defined/476006.md?page=2)