English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

They lost more and were not used to doing without.

2007-08-27 18:53:14 · answer #1 · answered by Old Biddy 2 · 2 0

Suicides were higher during the great depression in the middle class because they were the ones with the most to lose. They struggled and worked hard for what they had and were on an upward movement. A lot of them had more bills and credit accounts than the poor, who simply couldn't get them and the rich who had it handed to them. They were wedged right in the middle. Very bad situation and time for the middle class. A lot of them never fully recovered from it.

2007-08-27 19:03:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I may be wrong but, the suicide rate was no higher during the depression then it was at any other time. It was used as a crutch to explain the great depression but, from the "History channel" unless they are mistaken, it wasn't any higher then anytime else.
More known people committed suicide.

2007-08-27 20:36:32 · answer #3 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 0 0

In the twenties, the economy seemed to be doing so well that middle class americans put more of their money on the line, investing in stocks that became worthless and purchasing things on credit. The lower class were in a sense better off in that what wealth they had was tangible. That's not to say they didn't suffer as well- and the dust bowl especially was devastating to the lower classes that were more dependent on the land, but there's your answer in a nutshell.

2007-08-27 19:00:32 · answer #4 · answered by mina_lumina 4 · 0 0

If the account below (see reference) is anything to go by, it is evident that the middle classes would be most psychologically derailed by the actions of the government they had elected, and the consequences of tight controls on money supply. Middle class Americans would all subscribe to a free market ideology - they would have seen this broken to pieces by government policy that seemed to favour international corporate institutions over the interests of native business and employment.

2007-08-27 22:21:40 · answer #5 · answered by CountTheDays 6 · 0 0

The middle classes had more to lose, and lost more. They were not used to adversity or being unable to provide for themselves and their families. People who entered the Great Depression already at a lower socio-economic level were better prepared to cope. That's my guess, anyway.

2007-08-27 19:07:57 · answer #6 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 0 0

Middle class investors bought stocks "on the margin" which means they didn't have the money to pay for stocks in full.
They were gambling that the return on their investment would allow them to pay up later. When stocks went belly up in the crash of 1929, they owed money they could not pay. The lower classes did not try this gamble since you did have to put up a small percentage to buy on the margin.
'Tis a simplistic answer to be sure, but hopefully it will serve your purpose.

2007-08-27 18:57:30 · answer #7 · answered by Spreedog 7 · 0 0

the poor got nothing to lose, the rich can take it, not happy but they'll survive and still be top dog. The middle class man now suddenly finds himself poor with no means. As i already said the poor were always poor, I'm already king of the ghetto, i can't wait till you all come on down, we'll have block parties everynight, drink cheap beer and play bluegrass till dawn.

2007-08-27 18:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because the lower class were used to being poor and shat upon by the upperclassmen. Many in the middle class probably couldn't handle the change.

2007-08-27 18:55:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because of buying stocks on margin. If they had a lot of money riding on their investments, when the stock market crashed they owed money on the stocks they had. They had to pay up the remainder of the margin purchase.
There was much more to lose, because, at the time, there weren't safety nets for poor people -- unemployment checks, food stamps, and they could go to jail for money owed -I think that was in then. Debtors prison.
If somebody owed alot on their stocks, they might stand to honestly lose everything, and be left on the street.

2007-08-27 19:00:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

OFcourse for the former lost their status overnight during the Great Depression

2007-08-27 18:55:00 · answer #11 · answered by chrisvoulg1 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers