According to Ambrose Pierce-Evans at The Telegraph, The Centre for Labour Market Studies (CLMS) in Boston (US spelling: Center for Labor Market Studies (Northeastern University, Boston), because if you google Centre for Labour Market Studies, even with Boston, you get a different economic group) keeps a count of unemployment using the pre-WWII measurement system, which makes comparisons to the Great Depression possible. That number rose to 18.2% in May, the most recent number noted. He also mentions - I forgot to include this in my last post - that hours per week have fallen to the lowest since the number started being recorded, to 33 hours per week.
Anyway, I suggest reading the article, because the deflationary wage cycle is pretty clear at this point, and he outlines how much of it is hidden via unpaid furloughs and so forth. One thing I did not put together, however, is this little comparison:
eta:
rozasharn looked up data and did math in comments below! Adjusting for homeownership rates on top of population, her math shows we're at four times the foreclosure rate of 1932. Thanks,
rozasharn, for being less lazy than me! ^_^
Anyway, I suggest reading the article, because the deflationary wage cycle is pretty clear at this point, and he outlines how much of it is hidden via unpaid furloughs and so forth. One thing I did not put together, however, is this little comparison:
Some 342,000 homes were foreclosed in April, pushing a small army of children into a network of charity shelters. This compares to 273,000 homes lost in the entire year of 1932.That's quite the cold splash of water, even given the large differences in population. Say, why don't we do that math? US population, 1932: 124,840,471. US today: 306,839,779 (est), 2.46 times as many people. Adjusting for that would make 1932's foreclosure rate yield 682,500 foreclosures per year. April 2009's rate yields, 4,104,000 per year. That's six times the rate of 1932. Also note that April was still in an era of partial foreclosure forbearance, and that's over now, so the rate is probably going to climb from that, not fall.
eta:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)