I think you owe it to yourself to look up how the US defines a job. Most jobs created since 2008 are trmp jobs not actuallu structurally solid jobs so sure there is less unemployment but the employment there is is way more fragile.
The actual criticism is the US not counting people not actively looking for a job as unemployed, thus dismissing those who have given up/gone back to school/retired early/found their calling as a stay-at-home dad.
Still: if you believe today's troubles are in any way comparable to the 20s, you owe it to yourself to read up on that period. Check for "starvation" in the index.
U-3 includes discouraged workers and is back to 1997 levels. U-6 includes discouraged workers and even workers unwillingly working part time when they want full. Even that more expansive definition is back at levels from the 90s.
People who criticize what is and is not counted and don't specify which unemployment number are uninformed.
Federal nutritional programs weren't available until 1932. Social Security Act passed in 1935. It's these programs that eliminated the starvation headlines in the US.
I agree it's not comparable -- many billions more people are negatively affected by the Great Recession simply because world population has grown so much since 1929.
We are talking jobs not the consequence of not having jobs. Point is there are a lot more who have jobs which arent actually jobs on any way comparable to back then.
