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.
I’m not sure if you’re be deliberately dense or not
I said 25m, as that was the number being batted around during the 2012 debates between MRomney and 0failure
as for including kids and old folks... they include them in the total number of people, not the number of unemployed. they do that to decrease the resultant percentage... which makes it invalid.
do the math yourself, it’s really not that difficult. try to find the numbers that allow 25m unemployed to become 8% unemployment.
you’ll find that 25m would need to be divided by 300m to become 8% (I believe 8.1% was the actual fedgov approved number of the day back then)