> If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable?
1/3 of the population "unemployed by modern standards" in 1995 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.
>>Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.
"a lot more" is doing a bunch of heavy lifting there...
I was about 30 back then, and 2 working parents was considered 'normal'. One working parent was considered 'the dream'...
edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common.
sorry - I should have clarified that gen-x kids were a 70s/80s thing, so by the 90s it was even more common.
Its late and I'm going to bed, but a quick search did turn up a bit more concrete data [0], it appears by 1988, 40+% of families were 'dual worker families'. It appears to be about 65% currently[1]. I'm guessing that would put it around 50% of families in the mid/late 1990s, so about a 15% change in ~30 years. I'd say 50+ percent counts as 'pervasive' in both cases.
edit: I guess the point I was trying to make is that both parents having to work is a pretty old trend, with the majority of families needing dual incomes going back decades - and really doesn't seem to be getting any better.
1/3 of the population "unemployed by modern standards" in 1995 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.