The economy is tanking. Can we be seeing this soon....?

[Cascadian]

Check this picture out! It is a picture of a shanty town in Seattle circa 1930's. Called a Hooverville. Might be seeing these again in the near future. Call them "Bushvilles"?

http://www.seattlehistory.org/photo_database/photo_preview.cfm?photoid=6614


John

[Ponderer]

1. Not really. Unemployment is only 6.4% now

Back then it was 25%.

Major difference there.

[w13rd0]

2. 6.4% currently drawing benefits...

...doesn't take into account all unemployed...

That stat is likely quite a bit higher.

[Ponderer]

8. The unemployment has NEVER taken into account all unemployed

But unemployment is a lot lower than what it was in the early 30s if we go by the only constant measure.

[deek]

3. over 12%

in my county

[jafap]

4. Give Bush a chance

He is destroying jobs as fast as he can.

I am perhaps too pessimistic about the economy, where it is, and where it is headed. "Tanking" would be my schadenfreude interpretation. My little brother is losing his good paying job at the end of this month. It is not a good time to be looking for work, and I am afraid his is going to face a big pay-cut at best.
Myself, back when the economy was great in 1998, I was unable to find a non-temp job in Iowa where our Democratic governor wanted to encourage immigrants to combat our projected future labor shortage. I am still only working part-time, unable to escape the bottom quintile. Unemployment is only part of the picture since you have temp employment as well as part-timers unable to get full-time work. Then there is underemployment. Let's not go there.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. 6.4% but factor in that it takes two earners now for most families

to make it versus then and I think 6.4 is a bit more significant than then...but I am no economist..anyone with an economic background that can back me up on my suspision that it is a bit more of a concern than the number would suggest?

[deek]

5. Where's bpilgrim's images???

He has a classic one (which I "tote" around on a bag) which shows a depression-era familly in front of their tent.

Where is your work, Billy???

I can't find it on www.globalfreepress.com nor on www.QuestionW.com in order to share it on this thread.

:shrug:

[NYC]

6. I don't think we will see those again.

I think cities have learned how to disperse poor people so they are less visible.

[The Lone Liberal]

9. Only Hoover lost more jobs than has GW(Blame the CIA)BUSH.

Christian Science Monitor. Posted this on Monday.http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p03s01-usec.htmlUnless the economy improves, Bush will have to run on a record of losing jobs - so far 2.5 million. That would give him the dubious distinction of being behind only Herbert Hoover in terms of job losses. Even the divided Democrats are quickly homing in on the economy, and their constant harping could prod voters to forget the quick war in Iraq or other foreign incursions. "He remains quite vulnerable on the economy," says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481/
Bush is also dumping data that would show that the economy is worse that is being reported. That was posted to DUGD was part of my post on Monday and was then repeated in a post on Wednesday by another member. Slate was the source.

"All in all, some 2.7 MILLION Americans have lost their jobs since George W. Bush became President. In fact, only Herbert Hoover lost more jobs than George W. Bush has. The stock market is down. Republicans have driven America’s deficit so high that the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department has twice asked the Congress to raise the debt limit so they can borrow more money. And Alan Greenspan is worried about the long-term economic damage that would be caused by even more budget-busting tax breaks." U.S. Rep. Martin Frost (TX) http://www.house.gov/frost/pr03/050803.htm


http://www.uswa.org/steelabor/2003Spring/joblosses.html
According to statistics released by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Bush Administration’s economic record continues to deteriorate. Barring an economic miracle, President Bush will preside over the only administration since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs over the course of an entire four-year term.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082321/
George Walker Hoover?
President Bush is on track to match Herbert Hoover's record of job destruction.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/Squandering_Prosperity.html
Squandering Prosperity
George W. Bush has the worst economic record of any president
since Herbert Hoover.
by Harold Meyerson

But 1.4 million jobs in 18 months isn't many jobs, and it isn't much growth. By historical standards, when it comes to job creation, Bush is shaping up to be more like Herbert Hoover than Ronald Reagan. He stands to preside over the first presidency since Hoover's in which the American economy lost jobs. ...


http://radio.weblogs.com/0100530/2003/04/30.html
The good news for Bush is that with a base of 130 million jobs, adding 1.4 million in an 18-month period isn't out of the ordinary. In fact, 1.4 million jobs would still be below average: Over the past 84 years, the economy typically adds nearly 2 million jobs every 18 months.

The bad news for Bush is that even if the economy does add 2 million jobs by October 2004, he will still have presided over the only job-losing presidency since Hoover."


http://www.tidepool.org/poverty.cfm
Richard Burdick has lived since last September on a corner lot at "Fire Camp" - a motley collection of blue tarps, weather-worn tents and cobbled-together scraps of building materials between the railroad tracks and back fences of Highway 99 businesses in northwest Eugene. (04-Jul-03) Eugene Register Guard

[teryang]

10. This economy is based on huge consumer debt

The wave of purchasing that has been supported by that debt is reaching its limit and about to crest.

[The Lone Liberal]

11. Kick

this needs to be read and understood.