It was a real sneaky way to make it look like the New Deal was making the economy work, but Lebergott's numbers, which exclude WPA because they're not created in the private sector and reflective of actual economic growth, showed 15% unemployment even in 1940! In 1939 it was 17.2%. More likely, the economy recovered despite the New Deal getting in the way, and that's what led to higher employment and growth, compared to the 25% in the early 1930s.
Exactly! Stimulus jobs only prop up the employment numbers artificially! Of course, those jobs will only be around for a short while, and when they're done with their gov't projects, they'll be laid off. Then the unemployment numbers will go up again. 2 economists or analysts named Lebergott and Darby looked at the employment during the New Deal. What you see is about 5+% higher unemployment with Lebergott, who didn't count WPA jobs, than Darby! Darby's numbers made the New Deal look good.
It was a real sneaky way to make it look like the New Deal was making the economy work, but Lebergott's numbers, which exclude WPA because they're not created in the private sector and reflective of actual economic growth, showed 15% unemployment even in 1940! In 1939 it was 17.2%. More likely, the economy recovered despite the New Deal getting in the way, and that's what led to higher employment and growth, compared to the 25% in the early 1930s.
whoo689 2 years ago
Exactly! Stimulus jobs only prop up the employment numbers artificially! Of course, those jobs will only be around for a short while, and when they're done with their gov't projects, they'll be laid off. Then the unemployment numbers will go up again. 2 economists or analysts named Lebergott and Darby looked at the employment during the New Deal. What you see is about 5+% higher unemployment with Lebergott, who didn't count WPA jobs, than Darby! Darby's numbers made the New Deal look good.
whoo689 2 years ago