Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely agree with this. We're able to reach all over through social media and learn what's happening in other parts of the country and the world.
The current recession is into its fourth year. The Great Depression ran from 1929-41 (12 years) and ended only because WWII began in '39. In 1933, there were around 25K banks in the U.S. By 1933, almost half of them had failed and money (and property including farms) gone ... which is why, in '34, FDIC was formed. Also, in 1933, the entire U.S. unemployment rate was 25%.
No way is this recession remotely as devastating as the Great Depression. However, it IS the worst recession this country has seen since then. With all the whiners about how bad it's been the past four years, it makes me wonder if they would have even had the strength and courage to endure, as the Depression-era population did.
When the U.S. got sucked into World War II, FDR was forced to abandon his policies that strangled industrial production (and prolonged the depression) in order to produce all that was needed to win the war.
Roosevelt’s death in the last year of the war prevented him from unveiling his New Deal revival. But President Harry Truman was on board for most of the new reforms. In the months after the end of the war Truman gave major speeches showcasing a full employment bill—with jobs and spending to be triggered if people failed to find work in the private sector. He also endorsed a national health care program and a federal housing program.
But 1946 was very different from 1933. In 1933 large Democratic majorities in Congress and public support gave FDR his New Deal, but stagnation and unemployment persisted. By contrast, Truman had only a small Democratic majority—and no majority at all if you subtract the more conservative southern Democrats. Plus, the failure of FDR’s New Deal left fewer Americans cheering for an encore.
In short the Republicans and southern Democrats refused to give Truman his New Deal revival. Sometimes they emasculated his bills; other times they just killed them.
Fortunately, Congress did not re-implement the policies that strangled the economy before the war after the war was over.
Yeah, it was a total mess back then, Yooperkat. My parents were married in '38 and they told me stories that made me cry. Hearing similar stories going on today gives me chills. My mom's dad literally lost their farm in South Dakota, during that time. She hated FDR and was very vocal about it. Dad, on the other hand, was a quiet man and didn't judge but he'd tell stories of things that would really make you think. That was one of the best things about him. He never told you how you think. He'd just try to give you facts about both sides and let you decide for yourself. I really miss talking to him but I know he'd be shaking his head at all this going on today. Ironically, both he and my mom passed in 2008, right about the time things started getting really bad. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen numbers from reading many articles on the topic over time. Doing a brief dig around google for hard numbers brings this up as a good discussion of great depression data:
The comparisons in that article aren't exactly apt since things got worse (especially for those at the tail ends of the age brackets) from there. According to the NYT (they are citing BLS data; I really should track down the original source but this is an internet forum, so, ehhh, effort), the proportion of the population outside the labor force (unemployed + unemployed but not counted technically because they gave up looking) was 37% in 2010, which is outright worse than 20-24 age group numbers than 1940 (see original source); which was a worse time period overall (haven't bothered to source that 1940 was worse overall than 2010; it was, do the research yourself though if you want to double check):
Vietnam was the big mobilizer for the Boomer generation and it was a global mobilization; not just in the USA.
But, it was much more than just Vietnam. There was a unified revolt against the post-war settlement and the social straightjacket of the 1950s which heralded important social reforms such as equal rights, an expansion of educational opportunity and important civil reforms.
In many senses, the Boomers remade the world that they wanted to live in through their own efforts.
It would appear to many Millenials that is novel concept.
With all the whiners about how bad it's been the past four years, it makes me wonder if they would have even had the strength and courage to endure, as the Depression-era population did.
I know Millenials who are as courageous and hard working as the Greatest Generation. There are some truly great young people out there.
Sadly, there are also the whiners. I think the whiners would crumble.
I've read a lot that tells me too many people have NO idea of just how incredibly hard and bleak the Depression was. For those that are whining now about how hard things are.... I just can't imagine them coping with what people in the 30's were up against.
DewDrop, I won't argue with you on that one. There are some really fine young people who don't complain. They realize this is just a hand that's been dealt to them and they roll up their sleeves to meet the challenges before them. People like the OP who started this thread are in a group of the constant whiners and complainers, blaming the generation before them for their troubles. It's tiring and it's pointless. Reading many of their complaints makes me want to just say, "Call the waaaaaaaaambulance!"
I've seen numbers from reading many articles on the topic over time. Doing a brief dig around google for hard numbers brings this up as a good discussion of great depression data:
The comparisons in that article aren't exactly apt since things got worse (especially for those at the tail ends of the age brackets) from there. According to the NYT (they are citing BLS data; I really should track down the original source but this is an internet forum, so, ehhh, effort), the proportion of the population outside the labor force (unemployed + unemployed but not counted technically because they gave up looking) was 37% in 2010, which is outright worse than 20-24 age group numbers than 1940 (see original source); which was a worse time period overall (haven't bothered to source that 1940 was worse overall than 2010; it was, do the research yourself though if you want to double check):
The first link opens fine. Just wish it was newer than 2009. We're three years past that information. As for the second link, I couldn't get it to open.
Since the BLS doesn't go back any earlier than 1945, it's hard to get numbers. As I stated many pages back ... if you want to know the info, talk to someone who lived it (some are still alive and their minds are good). Internet information is tricky. Some of it is accurate, some not. I got lucky. I had people around me who lived it so it's a little easier to see the similarities and differences. Although fascinating to look at history, I'm pretty much done with this thread. The OP accomplished what he wanted. Got people talking about it and it was a good discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
