I read what is in my signature in the print edition of the New York Times I believe in 2011. I can't bring it up in the search at their site. Both the 55% and "great depression" were in the article, probably the same paragraph.
What is your source for 30%? The links that come up in a Google search start higher than that and go up into 40%+.
The reason for my sig is the striking number of Americans who are entirely unaware and truly believe that there are only a fraction of that number who are unemployed.
It's easier to find out that the Pentagon created the Islamic State to help overthrow governments in the mid-east unfriendly to Israel's dreams of expansion than it is to find out what the true number of unemployed in the USA is. You can even find generals testifying in congress on youtube to this. Try finding video of a congressional hearing talking about the true number of unemployed in the USA, not just recently either, I'll take videos three decades old. You won't find any.
I don't think there is a more unwelcome subject for discussion than the true unemployment in the USA.
Fair enough. If that's what was reported by the New York Times, it was incorrect.
As for the 30%, that comes from BLS employment data. It's not a measure that the BLS reports, but you can calculate it from some of the BLS' more detailed data. I keep spreadsheets with a lot of that more detailed data, over time, so that I can fairly easily calculate different measures, make comparisons, look at trends, etcetera. The 40% you're referring to is probably for all unemployed (among the civilian noninstitutional population) from 16 up as a portion of all people (among the civilian nonistitutional population) 16 and up. That's about where that measure is right now - down a couple percent from 5 or so years ago, up a few percent from where it was 20 years ago, and down a few percent from where it was throughout most of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. That's including people over 65. The 30% I referred to is responsive to what you referred to - Americans from 18-65.
The reason that measure of unemployment (i.e. counting all those not working, regardless of whether they want work or are looking for work) isn't mentioned as often is because it isn't as useful when it comes to assessing cyclical economic conditions. It doesn't tell us as much about how well the economy is functioning when it comes to creating jobs. It doesn't tell us much about how difficult or easy it is for people, in general, to find work. And that's a big part of the point in tracking unemployment.
That kind of measure is, of course, affected by cyclical economic issues - by, e.g., recessions and economic booms. But it's also greatly affected by demographics and evolving lifestyle choices. A huge number of people have always been unemployed, most of them because they don't need or want (paid) work. They are married and taking care of children or retired or whatever. So looking at that rate over time you'd be comparing 44% at one time to 40% at another. That doesn't tell you much about the availability of work for those who want it. The size of the portion of the population that doesn't want or need work drowns out the much smaller portion that wants work but can't find it.
So traditional methods of measuring unemployment only look at those who want and are looking for work. During ordinary economic cycles, such a method works pretty well as an indication of employment conditions. It allows you to compare 5% at one time to 10% at another, and understand that the difference is mostly due to changes in the availability of work - not, e.g., changing demographics. In some more extreme economic conditions, that measure doesn't reflect reality as well because, as we've alluded to, significant numbers of people give up on looking for work and thus aren't counted in the measure. For that reason and others, the BLS, e.g., reports broader measures of unemployment which take into account those people. The headline unemployment number reflects the traditional way of measuring unemployment. But a number of other unemployment (and underemployment) numbers get reported by the BLS along side it. They're available, along with extensive underlying detail which results in them, to all who are interested.
I would note though that, at this point, the number of so-called discouraged workers (i.e. those who want work and are available for work but who didn't look for work - with a quite liberal consideration of what constitutes looking for work - during the previous 4 weeks for job market related reasons) is back down around normal levels. Including them only raises the unemployment rate by about a half a percent. Even counting all so-called marginally attached to the labor force persons (i.e. those similar to discouraged workers but also including people who didn't looked for work in the previous 4 weeks for more personal reasons, e.g. illness, family responsibilities, transportation issues) only raises the unemployment rate about 1%.
One last note: The kind of number you're looking for... 40% or whatever... counting everyone that isn't working regardless of the reason... may not be mentioned all that often by various sources or in various discussions around the internet. But even that very broad measure gets, in effect, reported by the BLS every month. The BLS actually reports the inverse - the portion of people employed. But from that it's apparent what the portion of people not employed is. It's actually one of the things that the BLS typically highlights at the beginning of its monthly Employment Reports.
.
