sounds great... you’ve parroted their bs very well.
so, are you saying that the 25m people that are unemployed and made up that 8% unemployment rate are just 8% of the total work force?
if what you posted were true, then it’d have to be.
so tell me... how many people are in the workforce if 25m is 8% of them?
how many people are in the country?
explain
The 8% number is coming from the BLS. I’m not saying that number isn’t BS, because it is.
But to understand why that number is BS, you have to understand how they come up with that number.
It’s not “parroting” to cite the definitions that underlie statistics.
It’s obvious that your “28 million” unemployed number isn’t the same number that the BLS used to derive the 8% unemployment rate number.
The 28 million number, whatever its source, would have to be based on a much broader definition of “unemployed” than the one that the BLS used.
Apples and oranges.
It has been pointed out many times here (and it is clearly stated in the BLS’ definitions) that when someone gives up on looking for work, they are no longer considered to be unemployed, but are moved to a third category “not in the labor force”.
That gives a much smaller number of unemployed, hence a much lower unemployment rate number. And, of course, that paints a much rosier picture than actually exists. It makes the politicians in charge look better, so that’s why they do it.
And, since that unemployment rate number is so politically charged, it wouldn’t make sense to inflate the unemployment numbers by including children too young to work or people too old to work. That would just make the numbers look worse.
So,in spite of your claim, they just don’t do it.