Talk:Great Depression in the United States

This article is a candidate to be a U.S. Collaboration of the Month

Vote or comment on the nomination here!

Article Created

To improve the Great Depression article and give it more of a worldwide view, some material from that article is being spun off into seperate articles, such as this one. Teryx 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why there is no separate article, or at least a more comprehensive section about the bank crisis; closest thing seems to be this: “ During the financial crisis of 1933 culminating in the banking holiday of March 1933….”

It’s difficult to follow the train of events in the separate articles, unclear why it was done in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Families

this website needs needs more things about the families im the american depression because some school kids need this information like me it is really helpful even if you dont think so it will help alot if someone updates this page amd put something on it like how the families felt and what they did to survive--217.42.173.168 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also it would be good to add how there was too much credit available for people and how there were no banking regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.467.3 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The families during the great depression, were loosing their homes left and right. when people went into forclosure they were forced onto the streets with noplace to go. families were forced into tents, under interstates, and into tent cities. people had no way to support their families and many people died over the years the great depression went on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.27.199 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seminal works

Out of the resources, the list off in-print sources (physical(books)) in the article, which are the seminal works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generallimptoes (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Under Attack?

It appears to me that this page is under attack, with quite a number of parts being removed for no reason I can see. If you have a valid reason for removing large parts of this article, please say so here so we can decide if it is valid, otherwise we will just keep reverting this to fix it. Fanra 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Dates

October 29, 1929 was a Tuesday, not a Monday

Fixed this as someone changed it to a Monday. Easy to run any number of web page scripts that figure out day of the week for any date to show it was a Tuesday. Fanra 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The End of the Depression

While something as large and complicated as the Great Depression doesn't have a single clear end, I feel that the article should either address this lack of clarity, or become self consistent. While the current duration is listed as 1929-1933, the top picture of the Migrant Mother was taken in 1936. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it ended in 1939. We need to get our numbers straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.142.113.85 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Dust Bowl

There should be a section giving a brief overview to the Dust Bowl with a link to that article. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjtcook (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 May 2007 Cjtcook 07:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Cjtcook (UTC).

Surely should. Done. MrZaius^talk 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Inserted brief ref following mention of agriculture as dust-bowl conditions persisted in the agricultural heartland.... --Pawyilee (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

References?

In the References section is listed about 42 books. They aren't cited where what part of the book is for what part of the article. Frankly, for 42 books worth of stuff, this article isn't very long. Can someone confirm that all those books were actually used in this article or did someone just cut and paste that list from somewhere? Fanra 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think someone listed books on the subject, rather than books used to write the article. According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, such lists should be under Further reading or Bibliography, not Reference. Fanra 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"The formation of the New Deal coalition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was another notable accomplishment, in that he managed to unite the nation in a seemingly wise plan, only to have it fail due to his lack of economic knowledge." Is there a reference for the latter half of the sentence? Otherwise it seems to be just opinion in isolation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.239 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I used all gthe books. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reporting broken link. Apparently, the link for the "Robert Lewis Depression / War" isn't found at the library of congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.92.129 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References 1 and 2 read:

"^ Radio was a growth industry, but far smaller than the automobile and electric power industries that were growth engines before 1929.

^ a b Lester Chandler (1970)."

Neither of these fit the criteria for references. Who is Lester Chandler? Reference 1 is a sentence, not a reference. This article is disgusting and I am going to delete the following sentences that use these two sentences:

"The usual explanations include numerous factors, especially high consumer debt, ill-regulated markets that permitted overoptimistic loans by banks and investors, the lack of high-growth new industries,[1] and growing wealth inequality, all interacting to create a downward economic spiral of reduced spending, falling confidence, and lowered production.[2]" —Preceding Fatrb38 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Effects

This article is linked from the more general Great_Depression Under "Effects" yet the article does not contain a subtitle of Effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.196.64 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

CAUSES section too long

Given that the Causes section already links to the causes of the Great Depression page, it probably does not need to discuss each explanation in such detail. -Gomm 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)

It doesn't need to provide it in great detail, but for people using this website looking for a detailed article on the Causes of the Great Depression, it is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.212.112 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Depression was a sudden collapse."
This contradicts the statement of the first sentence in the article "Great Depression", where it says "The great depression was not a total sudden collapse at all". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Political and Social Effects

Capitalism and democracy seemed to have failed. There was real danger that the US and the world would turn to something like fascism or communism. Right? I'm not sure: that's what I'm looking for, and I didn't find it in this article. There should be something linking together the Bonus Army, Father Coughlin, Huey Long, and so on, either a section in this article or another article linked from here. I shouldn't have had to use Google to find the article on the Bonus Army. If I hadn't known there was a big protest called the something-or-other Army, I wouldn't have been able to find it at all. --dsws (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd Picture

What does a "Man Sleeping" in a fish market have to do with the great depression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.106.64 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stupid!

Someone has compleatly destoyed this page. Please restore it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.174.195 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Tuesday - the cause of th Great Depression?

"The collapse of the US stock market in 1929 that led to a worldwide economic depression caused the Great Depression in the United States."

- 0 - I've hear differing opinions on the actual impact of the stock market crash, but surely it didn't cause the Great Depression. In any case, a statement like this requires citation. - 0 - Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The cause of the great depression needs to be changed, because it was not just because of black tuesday. before the stock market crash, the economy was already going down hill. the reason for that was the end of world war I- there were less jobs, production decreased and agriculture competition increased. and that was in the beginning of the 1920s. although right after WWI ended, the economy did experience a mini-boom, because of consumerism and optimism. it decreased rapidly once other countries got back on their feet, and many became jobless. There should definitely be at least a statement saying this within the article. Mikela1292 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted some vandalism

I forgot to give a description but I am sure anyone who sees the history would be able to tell why I edited them... anyway since this is my first time reverting vandalism I figured that I should probably leave a note in the discussion page. Sykko (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Further reading/citation cleanup request

When the Great_Depression_in_the_United_States#Further_reading /* Further reading */ section grows to the point where it is considerably longer than any single section in the article, and nearly as long as the article itself, something is badly amiss. Anyone feel expert enough to weed out the chaffe here, or should we just cross the Rubicon and axe the section, hoping that the more deserving works will appear as real citations? MrZaius^talk 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Attack

Page appears under heavy attack. I attempted to revert some vandalism but it didn't seem to take. Please someone with knowledge of the page help keep this page solid. I fear this page will be attacked due to the ongoing sitution and comparisons to the great depresion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.149.88.147 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted two vandalism edits. Somehow these things often look like they sprung from the advanced literary minds of school kids. I often wonder if waves of vandalism like this are linked to teachers in schools giving kids assignments to e.g. research the Great Depression. Ah well, such is the price of education :) BrianDuff (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... Looking at the history, the page has been royally vandalized multiple times today. The vandals' changes are interleaved with regular changes to such an extent that I'm a bit wary about reverting stuff. I'll take a look at trying to get this back to its original state without losing other changes... BrianDuff (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, think it's back to normal now... BrianDuff (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A link was destroyed and replaced with vandalism. I reverted it to the immediately previous edit. Perhaps this page should be made semi-protected? --75.48.1.141 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New Deal

I'm trying to get the usage of a reference on economist opinion on the New Deal corrected to match the research. Please stop changing this back as it really does not have any validity in proving the size of the difference, just that there is one. There are other references on this if you look for them.Oneeyedguide (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whaples survey is accepted and it's original research to challenge it here

The Whaples survey--by a respected scholar in a major journal has often been cited by scholars in economics and history. Dozens of cites show up in http://scholar.google.com/ for example. No scholar has attacked its methodology or suggested it paints a false picture. To evaluate and reject its methodology here is original research and is not allowed. Rjensen (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's still a question of appropriateness of placement and NPOV. Whaples 14 year old survey about New Deal effectiveness was moved from the New Deal section to an introductory paragraph before the New Deal itself is even introduced and linked; then as written it takes the negative POV when the numbers clearly skew positive (74% of historians and over half of economists surveyed rejected the idea and many of the agrees were with provisos). I haven't edited any of this but I felt it was worth discussing. 66.91.211.111 (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the Whaples survey is, I think, the most recent available scholarship. Historical scholarship has a very long "half life" so to speak. It's highly relevant in 2009 -- I have recently seen any number of op-ed pieces and TV commentary regarding the "lessons" of the 1930s, and what they suggest for policy in 2009. Rjensen (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm not saying we shouldn't use the survey, if I thought so I would have made an edit. I am saying it's current placement -- assessing the legacy of the New Deal before the New Deal is even introduced -- is awkward at best. The previous placement (in the New Deal section) made more sense, maybe that's just me. 66.91.211.111 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to what the problem was with the use of the Whaples survey. The survey was designed to show that there was no consensus on the New Deal (and other issues)and it does this. However, it was not designed to show the exact number of economists and historians who agreed or disagreed on each issue. This would have required either a survey of all economists and economic historians or a sub-survey that was projectable to these entire populations, which is probably impractical. Using the Whaples percentage numbers is misleading and is not neutral. The current reference tries to be neutral with what the survey states. However, I agree with the above comments that the positioning of the survey mention is not neutral as it tries to raise questions on the New Deal before the New Deal is defined. I am not about to try to move it, just correct it to match the research. Here is the revelavant detail on the survey methodology: “Note: In each table below, E = economist, H = historian. Pr = Confidence level with which one can reject the equality of the distribution of the two groups' answers, using the Likelihood Ratio Chi-square statistic, followed by the confidence level with which one can reject the equality of the percent who disagrees with the proposition, using a pooled variance t-test.” If someone can show that the survey is valid as a projectable sample then please change it back.Oneeyedguide (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several points of disagreement. 1) where should the survey go? (I'm neutral). 2) is the survey valid? ("valid" is the term, not "projectable" which has no meaning) It has been accepted by scholars and journal editors and that makes for Wikipedia-validity. To my knowledge (and I looked), no scholar has rejected the survey as unsatisfactory. That is, no scholar rejects the proposition that Whaples did a reasonably good job of sampling all the scholars working in the two fields (historians and economists). 3) the "liklihood probabilities" consideres whether all historians are the same as all economists. these are technical issues that are not especially relevant to the New Deal. The stats indicate historians and economists do not fully agree here, but do greatly overlap. Keep in mind that this is historiography we are dealing with, not biology. 4) is there a consensus shown by the survey. Yes: when you get a mere 6% of historians agreeing with a statement then you have a consensus against it. (Compare that to all the other survey questions on historical issues and the 6% stands out). The economists are indeed more split but most reject the statement and that is important. 5) is the data too old to be useful? Not for historical research. 6) is the topic itself important? Yes indeed, the usefulness of New Deal measures in curing depression is a very hot topic in Washington today! Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edit looks like a reasonable and accurate way of presenting the Whaples data within the intent of the survey. Thank you for the effort and the followup explanations. On projectable: Not sure why this does not have meaning in the academic world but in the real world it means that the survey results are representative of the opinions of the complete population that the survey is a subset of. This survey was not designed to be projectable in this sense which is why I was trying to remove the % numbers. Your summary does a very good job of explaining what the survey was designed to do: show that there were significant differences in the opinions of economic historians and economists on the New Deal with a direction indication of what these differences were.Oneeyedguide (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--I think we're pretty well agreed. I just made some small changes to drop duplication. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this sentence is actually getting worse. It is very misleading to only mention that 6% of historians "agree" with the statement. In fact, an additional 20% agreed "with provisos." Citing the 6% figure gives the inaccurate impression of near-unanimity. (From the discussion above, it's also a bit thin to say that "most" economists "reject the statement" when 51% disagree. This is almost the very definition of evenly split.)70.246.27.247 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this is still not a correct reference because, based on the above response, it still gives the impression that the percentages mentioned are representative of the opinions of all economists and historians. I am an expert on surveys and research and this in not a NPOV use of this survey. The survey only proves that a non-representative sample of economists had a statistically different opinion on this question than did historians. The percentages are not projectable to show the opinions of the general population of economists and historians, only that we can expect opinions on this statement to differ, with fewer economists disagreeing with it than historians. I think we need to remove the percentages completely to get to NPOV.One Eyed Guide (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oneeyedguide is engaged in original rsearch when he claims his expert knowledge trumps the acceptance of the Whaples articles by scholars--as shown by 1) publicaion in a major scholarly journal; 2) citation bo other scholars; 3) replication of methodology in other surveys; 4) absence of criticism in scholarly journals. Wiki rules are that Oneeyedguide must publish his criticism in a scholarly journal before we can acknowledge it. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not trying to do original research just make sure an existing research survey is properly cited. This survey is being used to support a possibly non-neutral POV and projects it to all economists which is improper. Here is the survey author, Whaples, on whether this survey is representative of all economist's views, from the Appendix on page 152:

"The population that was sent questionnaires is probably representative of EHA (Economic History Association) members. It is hoped that those who returned the survey are also representative. I know of no reason that they are not. Busier economic historians may be less likely to return the questionnaires, but I do not believe that their responses would differ systematically from those obtained. However, it is plausible that the respondents may not be representative of economic historians who are not EHA members."

If Whaples states it is plausible that the respondents "may not be representative of economic historians who are not EHA members" then we probably should not use the survey at all. If you want to edit the reference to add this disclaimer, please go ahead.

Also, during the edits you abbreviated the "as a whole, government policies of the New Deal" to just "New Deal" while I note Whaples was always careful to use the full question, possibly to minimize variations in how the "New Deal" is interpreted. I didn't think this was an important change when you made it but it should probably be added back as it could explain the agreement of economists, who may be more into the individual government actions than historians are.

Enjoying the discussion.One Eyed Guide (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no response yet to the above. Well, I’m going to remove the Whaples reference tomorrow, February 19, unless someone wants to suggest an edit that makes it easy-to-understand to the non-economist using Wikipedia. The Whaples survey is excellent peer-reviewed research which unfortunately gives a view of what happened during the Great Depression that is only understandable to historians and economists. It should be removed because it gives an improper impression about the elements of the New Deal. As an economist, I’m actually in agreement, with provisos, with the statement that “as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression” because this could include tax increases to balance the budget and monetary tightening that caused the Recession of 1937. However, this monetary tightening and budget balancing are not considered part of the “New Deal” by most economists and historians as they are contrary to the more or less Keynesian type of thinking prevalent during the time. There were significant discussions between Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Chairman, Marriner S. Eccles which defined the New Deal thinking as excluding tax increases and monetary tightening until full employment was approached. As a research designer, it appears that this question was deliberately designed to give a negative answer from economists who were intimately aware of the details of the New Deal period by using “as a whole, government policies of the New Deal” instead of just “New Deal”. There are issues with the “New Deal” that are clearly negative but they should be handled separately and clearly.

Anyone want to attempt a “fair and balanced” edit? Or should I remove it? No answer means it’s removed tomorrow. One Eyed Guide (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no response so I am going to remove the reference to Whaples. If you want to do an edit that puts it back in please recognize the following areas of concern:

1. Place it after the concept of the New Deal has been introduced.

2. Recognize that, according to Whaples, the author, it probably accurately represents the opinions of Economic History Association members (EHA) but "it is plausible that the respondents may not be representative of economic historians who are not EHA members."

I'm not good enough of an editor to achieve number 2 without being confusing so I'm taking it out.

Please don't just revert my deletion as this will clearly not be NPOV.One Eyed Guide (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the removal of major relevant infotrmation fully cited to a major journal is not allowed by Wiki rules. There is no evidence whatever--and no expert has claimed--that it in any way distorts scholarly opinion. The Whaples data is as good quality as most of the historical data used by economic historians before the late 1930s. Rjensen (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reverting my replacement of "G*d d**n" with "Gross Domestic" makes me wonder whether you have read anything I have placed here. I'll do a separate fix on this so it doesn't get caught in your next undo.

Whaples is a secondary reference to the fact that there is debate on the New Deal. This is still in the article and is a better reference:

"The New Deal was, and still is, controversial and widely debated. Parker, ed. Reflections on the Great Depression (2002) "

By not commenting in the discussion area when I asked for comments you have broken Wikipedia’s rules. Reverting my changes without comment places you in danger of losing your rights to edit.

The proper action was a defense of leaving them unchanged when I asked for comments or editing it to match the articles limitations which are well documented above. Also, you are continuing to place this reference before the New Deal is even introduced which is clearly improper literary structure as well as non-NPOV.::::

I'm going to give you the opportunity to edit this to fix the obviously non-NPOV aspects. If you don't respond and simply do another undo, I will ask for disciplinary action against you.

Sorry it got to this point but you need to obey the rules and not claim that others are not following them.One Eyed Guide (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made an edit that correctly cites the Whaples survey. I think it is too long and that the Whaples survey should not be used at all as it is skewed non-NPOV but this edit is technically correct. I've placed it in the New Deal section to maintain a neutral POV.One Eyed Guide (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Recession of 1937

Can anyone explain what this sentance from this section is trying to say? It doesn't seem to make any sense:

They argued the New Deal had been very hostile to business expansion in 1935–37, had encouraged massive strikes which fiscal stimulus required to end the downturn of the Depression was, and it led, at the time, to fears that as soon as America demobilized, it would return to Depression conditions and industrial output would fall to its pre-war levels.

RFabian (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole section looks incomplete as if someone broomed parts they did not like. This results in the above and other sentences not making sense. Perhaps there is an earlier version that has the rest of the explanation.Oneeyedguide (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it seems clear that the section was skewed NPOV - conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.175.125 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a very conservative POV. Using Gary Dean Best's Pride Prejudice and Politics as fact about issues of the Great Depression on an encyclopedia is unbelievable. Presenting it as one theory is fine. His anti-Roosevelt, anti-New Deal stance isn't the standard of balanced historical inquiry. Really a shame we can't provide a more balanced analysis, There are several economic papers on the issue, I'll look to see what's out there. 71.53.78.218 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am working at correcting the main article on the Recession of 1937 so if you are interested in contributing please go there. After this article matches the historical record I am going to come back and fix this one. I have reviewed a lot of the literature and there should be no problem in getting this to NPOV, even including published conservative views.Oneeyedguide (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural effects?

Hello, one could argue that the 1930s "Golden Age" of Hollywood was a result of the Depression as studios cranked out stars and pictures esp. lavish as "escapist" entertainment...should this be addressed in the article? PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

who wrote this

I am doing a research paper for school and using this as a source. Who can I give credit to for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.230.17 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CITEWIKI. Agathman (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Great Depression

I deleted to section comparing today's recession to the depression. Its a small point and many other recessions have been compared to the depression it doesn't make sense to have it on this page. If anything it should be on a page about the current recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.101.169 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Less Regulation and mal Distribution of Wealth?

Did anyone even bother to look at the statistics for the 20s? The economy grew rapidly, wages and standards of living went up greatly. In 1927, the Federal Reserve expanded credit access, creating a bubble and rapidly drew back the money scaring speculators who pulled there investments. A stock Market Crash and a run on the banks were the start but it all comes back to monetary policy. Whenever there is a massive expansion in the money supply a bubble is formed, it pops, and the economy goes into recession or depression. The regulation and interventionist policies of Hoover made the depression worse, and FDR prolonged it with his New Deal policies. It wasn't until after the war ended and the production switched from manufacturing war machines to consumer goods did our economy recover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.206.178 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

well that's one theory--but it happened in Europe too at the same time, without a Federal Reserve. The assertion that "Federal Reserve expanded credit access, creating a bubble" needs a RS--it's not what Milton Friedman says. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It happened around the world in many developed nations. One question I would have for this is why did this occur? Perhaps the USD was the standard reserve currency after nations like the U.K. changed from commodity (gold) backed to fiat currency? I'm not sure if that is accurate, but it's a thought on it (maybe more research for me later when I haven't had a 14 hour travel day) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.57.178 (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

High unemployment did not follow the stock market crash

[2] Unemployment peaked about where it is now, started going down, and then against the advice of thousands of economists Hoover passed massive tariffs and the super-high unemployment rates followed. [3] (anyone have monthly data for greater resolution?). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Recovery section needed.

There isn't enough information for the recovery yet we have many for the cause.--Ericg33 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So add it. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I try to revert some vandalism

Unfortunately I don´t have info for edit and revert vandalism. Now the article has two major alterations who deserve be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.148.69.213 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Paragraph:Global comparison of severity

shouldn't this go to Great Depression?--Oursana (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

it would be duplication there. it's here because the comparisons are important to Americans at the time and in the history books since. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Depression in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205005617/http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/lessons/Ruben%20Cano_Why%20did%20the%20Great%20Depression%20happen?_lesson_template_mps.doc to http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/lessons/Ruben%20Cano_Why%20did%20the%20Great%20Depression%20happen%3F_lesson_template_mps.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Unemployment rates in two articles seem self-contradictory

Under "Economic policies" in FDR article, the graph ("Unemployment rate in the US 1910–1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929–1939) highlighted") shows a maximum unemployment rate of about 21%. Yet the text says that the rate was 25% when FDR took office, falling to 14.3% by 1937. 25% is greater than 21%, so the article seems self-contradictory. * The "Great Depression" article includes the same graph. This time, the text (under "Roosevelt's New Deal") says the unemployment rate fell from 25% to 9% in the 1933-1937 period. Again, the 25% rate seems self-contradictory, since the graph maxes out at 21%. In addition, the graph does not go below 15% until 1940, so the 9% rate in 1937 also seems self-contradictory. * Could someone with some expertise in unemployment rates take a look at this? I have no idea what the correct numbers are, but the articles seem self-contradictory. Or maybe I'm missing something. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's a confusion among scholars--should people with paying jobs on relief agencies (FERA, CWA, WPA, CCC) be counted as "unemployed" (this gives a much higher rate) -- or since they work every day and get a $ paycheck every week they can be counted as employed. Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It is reasonable that there is a confusion among scholars. However, the self-contradictions remain, without any compensating explanation in the article. In addition, as previously pointed out, the two articles contradict each other - 14.3% vs 9% rate in 1937 - and that is almost certainly not confusion among scholars. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Depression in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928064254/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Steindl.GD.Recovery to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Steindl.GD.Recovery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527001429/http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade30.html to http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade30.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Depression-stock-market-crash-1929.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Discussion of Unemployment Rates

The numbers are based on Lebergott's estimates. These have two major problems and then a third interpretive problem when compared to modern unemployment numbers.

1) [this section doesn't apply here as this article, unlike the others, has the more correct, Darby adjusted Lebergott figures. The rest stands however] They exclude people directly employed in WPA and other New Deal programs. This is an issue Michael Darby covered over four decades ago an in article entitled ""Three-and-a-Half Million U.S. Employees Have Been Mislaid: Or, an Explanation of Unemployment, 1934-1941".

Now for certain purposes it may make sense to include WPA and other direct employment along with unemployed workers (notably, in estimating a reserve army of labor that is avalaible to be hired by private employers) but it is not the current methodological practice and it misleads lay readers in the understanding of the 1930s economic experience. At the very least, both numbers should be published side by side so that readers can get a more accurate sense of what was going on, as Professor Mathy (2018) does in this recent paper on long term unemployed during the 1930s.

2) Even the Lebergott estimates as adjusted by Darby are misleading because they are not monthly series like we have today and are based on a number of estimation strategies that leads to "spurious volatility" and incorrect estimates, or at least, estimates that are at variance with modern methodologies. Professor Christina Romer (1986)showed this in a lot of detail. To quote her at length.

"If the labor force were also procyclical in the 1900-1930 period,  then it is clear that Lebergott's labor force numbers are too high in recessions and too low in booms. This implies that the unemployment rate calculated as a residual is artificially high in recessions and artificially low in booms. Thus the historical unemployment rate is, by construction, more volatile than the truth [...] 

"To estimate annual employment, Lebergott uses more complicated procedures. He estimates it as the sum of several component series on employment in various sectors and among various classes of workers. To form these component series he begins with basic data on employment in each sector in whatever base years are available. He then interpolates each employment series using some annual variable he believes to be related to employment in that sector. The most common interpolating variables are measures of output, fragments of employment data, and indexes of labor demand"

She goes onto explain the problems with this procedure. Meanwhile, we do have a number of estimates, the best of which is the National Industrial Conference Board monthly data as Mathy (2018) points out. These estimates continued after the war and thus we can compare them to official statistics and see how they are reasonably close. These numbers broadly conform to Lebergott's estimation strategy but, as Romer predicts, the unemployment rate is much lower than his estimates. In addition, we get to see month to month patterns we don't in Lebergott's data that qualitatively change our narrative from the era.

3) The final issue is that this number, as low as it is, is still an overestimate of unemployment when we compare it to modern headline unemployment. Today's measure, U3, doesn't include "discouraged workers" i.e. workers who desire employment but have given up searching. Meanwhile, the methodology used for the 1930s number, previous to the the search concept of unemployment developed by the WPA in the late 1930s which is used today, does capture what we now consider discouraged workers on the idea that all able bodied males are supposed to be working. Thus the appropriate comparison for the unemployment rate is U5, not U3. When compared to U5, a different narrative emerges. For example, in June 2016 U5 was 6 percent while in June 2017, U5 was 5.4 percent. This suggests the economy, while not at full employment, was recovered from the great depression in 1937 before the recession of 1937-1938. The article should be updated to reflect the best avalaible data on the 1930s economic performance and the true meaning of the "Roosevelt Recession". See e.g. Card 2011.

References

• Card, David. "Origins of the unemployment rate: the lasting legacy of measurement without theory." American Economic Review 101.3 (2011): 552-57.
• Darby, Michael R. "Three-and-a-half million US employees have been mislaid: or, an explanation of unemployment, 1934-1941." Journal of Political Economy 84.1 (1976): 1-16.
• Romer, Christina. "Spurious volatility in historical unemployment data." Journal of Political Economy 94.1 (1986): 1-37.
• Mathy, Gabriel P. "Hysteresis and persistent long-term unemployment: the American Beveridge Curve of the Great Depression and World War II." Cliometrica 12.1 (2018): 127-152. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Tankus (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this needs revision. In the section titled "Effect On Urban Life/American Government Response/Politics During The Great Depression" it is stated "The most widely accepted estimates of unemployment rates for the Great Depression are those by Stanley Lebergott" which is misleading. It also does not state the reasons for the differences in the estimates. Thedoopster (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The government's policy was to create real jobs and it did so...so the people who took them were actually working at real jobs for real money. That makes them "employed." Rjensen (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Historical Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2023 and 24 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZMB9 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ZMB9 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FluffyTeaPancakes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FluffyTeaPancakes (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Home as an Idea and a Place

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 15 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EMILLS31 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Alex Winetrout, Apeoples7.

— Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Race-based POV under "Homelessness"

The Homelessness section says:

"Although the African American community was one of the hardest hit during the Great Depression, their struggle during this time often went unnoticed. Homeless African Americans were practically invisible during this time as the effects of Jim Crow and segregation were in full force."

Saying "unnoticed" and "invisible" in this context can only mean that African Americans' own point of view on the matter should still now be regarded as insignificant. Their own homelessness certainly wasn't invisible or unnoticed to them.

What the two sentences from the article are really saying is that African Americans' struggle went unnoticed by most white people, and that the segregation of the time either made it less likely that white people would find out about it, or provided them with an excuse to ignore it (I guess it might have to be some of both).

It's difficult for me to imagine being obviously aware that my neighbors exist and obviously aware that unemployment and homelessness are extremely high everywhere, yet thinking my neighbors won't mind it or won't be affected. (Unless my neighbors are very wealthy, which was not true in this case.) But I've never lived under racial segregation, so I don't know how different I would be if I'd been taught that my neighbors aren't neighbors or don't matter. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)