The answer is in the
Census Bureau link that one of your articles provided. Scroll down a little bit to page 126 to find the chart. It lists two columns of unemployment rates, "Civilian labor force" and "Non-farm employment". Guess what? The civilian labor force are very similar to the ones from the BLS I posted.
Please note that both "Farm" and "Non-farm" labor add up to "Civilian labor force", therefore "non-farm" is merely a subset of the total "civilian labor force", not exclusive of it.
Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for Heritage to use the "non-farm" numbers other than the fact that they are the higher number of the two. The difference between farm and non-farm jobs may have had some relevance 60 years ago, but it is inapplicable to today's labor force. Furthermore, there is no indication that the "non-farm" stats exclude "Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only 'three hots and a cot'". It would appear that they're literally making that part up. So in order to have any kind of comparison to today's unemployment rates, the only rate that matters is "civilian labor force".
This would all be rather academic if it weren't for the fact that Heritage is using an inflated number to make a point, which certainly diminishes their credibility as any sort of objective source. You know you'd jump all over Fox and I if we started citing Paul Krugman articles to prove our point. So why do you think The Heritage Institute is going to influence our opinion? I don't want to hear any of this crap about how, by virtue of being conservative, they're automatically more objective. They're not. They're a propaganda outlet. (And no, I'm not gonna waste my time citing all of the examples of how they manipulate data - you'll just have to accept the fact that that's my conclusion - believe what you like).
And your conclusion is wrong...
If you weren't so overzealous in wanting to prove Heritage wrong, you would have seen a rational explaination given by Heritage and confirmed in the Census Bureau data.
From the Heritage
article:
For the record, Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using widely accepted Census Bureau data (Page 6, Series D, column 10), the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time.
They didn't count Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only "three hots and a cot" as a government employee. Neither does Heritage...
...Over the years, economists and academics working in good faith calculated "alternative series" of unemployment statistics in hopes of painting a more accurate picture. All begin with census data. The alternative numbers, generally showing somewhat lower levels of unemployment, are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
From the Census Bureau
article:
...The estimates shown here, prior to 1940, were prepared on as comparable a basis as possible with the concepts used since 1940...
...Lebergott's estimates are designed to be comparable with those of the Current Population Survey...
So, what Heritage said was right; Their numbers are based on what was reported at the time where as the other numbers are taken from
"estimates" based on those numbers.
One is reporting the numbers that the original questionare and information was designed to report (Heritage) and one is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, decades later. The numbers from the
estimates are going to have a high margin of error, whereas the numbers Heritage reported are reporting what they were designed to and have a much smaller margin of error.
In short, Heritage's numbers are more accurate then the other numbers. It looks like it
isn't Heritage who is cherry picking, but, more likely, it's critics.
If you wanna try and dig through it all,
here seem to be the original reports (or at least abstracts from them) put out, by year.
As
these articles point out (and the Census Bureau article confirms), There are two sets of numbers; one is the official report for the various years released at the time, and one is based on estimates that reevaluated those numbers in 1967 to make them "more comparable" to today's standards.
It is rather clear who is being dishonest here and who isn't. Heritage is being honest in what they are reporting. There
critics are knowingly spinning what is likely cherry-picked info to smear Heritage and other conservatives, or unknowingly buying into a talking point based on misinformation aimed at smearing Heritage and other conservative groups.
Again, this chart really explains it all:
Simply proves my point (once again) that all the left has to argue with is dishonesty, deciet and smears.
I'd also be curious to know exactly what Heritage considers the "New Deal part 2" to be, unless you consider a temporary reduction in government spending in 1937 (as FDR temporarily backed off in order to get deficits under control) to be "part 2".
From
this link:
A "Second New Deal" (1935–36) included labor union support, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid farmers, including tenant farmers and migrant workers. The Supreme Court ruled several programs unconstitutional; however, most were soon replaced, with the exception of the NRA.