During the Great Depression, shantytowns , inhabited by unemployed people sprang up in and around American cities-these were dubbed “Hoovervilles” (as President Hoover-who was wrongly credited with the depression).
Now, in the middle of this recession/depression, we have the “Occupy _______ (insert city)” movement -these people show every sign of settling in for a long time.
Will the police roust them out (as was done to the Hooverville inhabitants)?
This decade is increasingly beginning to resemble the 1930’s!
Cite?
You’ve got that right, and conservatives are determined to commit the same mistakes (spending cuts and reducing the deficit) that prolonged the Depression for years.
Hoovervilles were essentially refugee camps from people whose livlihood was destroyed by an environmental disaster (the dust bowl). The hooverville residents literally had no place to go, and were often attacked by local citizenry. The residents of hoovervilles had no political aim or goal, other than “not being homeless any more” and perhaps “eating.”
The OWS are not largely or substantially jobsless or homeless. In fact, there have been a few reports of OWS groups refusing to interact with or feed the homeless. (However I wouldn’t call that a widespread phenomenon or one that implicates the entire movement. ) My point is, people are in OWS camps entirely voluntarily and can leave any time they want. They are not wanting for food or shelter on an everyday basis. They have a set of political goals they hope to acheive by their encampment.
So I’d say they are different in almost every possible way. .
Also, “vu”.
The OP shows staggering deficits in basic historical knowledge.
But anything to attack Obama, right?
Who mentioned Obama?-Right?
No. Closer to the Bonus Army.
Hoovervilles weren’t a political statement. People lost their housing and gathered together in makeshift communities to live. You see similar areas in a lot of third-world countries, with ramshackle shacks.
OWS, like the London Underground, is a political movement.
OWS encampments are extended-stay sit-ins, while the Hooverville encampments have their modern-day equivalent in the cardboard and plastic shantytowns you see under highway overpasses. In the case of OWS, they have formed their encampments in part to protest the necessity for the 21st-century Hoovervilles.
I have been visiting Occupy Oakland when time permits me. 
Yes, some homeless folks have moved in at the perimeter of the Occupied zone: I think they did so for safety. I saw more than one occupier gently encouraging them to have better hygiene if they wanted to stay. 
Most of the occupiers are poor but clean.
There are porto-lets present now, a medical tent, kitchen, washing-up facilities, and a multitude of tents. Everyone was friendly.
The camp is operating like a small but well-organized town: I overheard someone coordinating folks to offload some donated provisions, so I offered my help and carried bags to the kitchen, which smelled clean and of good food. Thanks were given and received. I was offered food and drink and massage by many people, but left them for folks who had more need than I.
Like the Hoovervilles, I think the Occupiers are here for a long stay. In this century, they might be better called Bushvilles.