Another leftwing "bagdad bob"How does showing job growth demonstrate that unemployment is down? They can both go up at the same time...as they did from June to July.
Now, the number of unemployed has gone down under Obama, though still about 2 million higher than pre-recession.
Since BLS is about the only source for these kind of data, how do you know they're undercounting? You also need to define your terms...what exactly do you mean by "given up looking?"
You could mean what are called "Discouraged Workers," you could mean all marginally attached, you might be misunderstanding what "not in the labor force" means and think everyone in that category has "given up" or "faded from the labor force." I can't know what you mean until you define your terms.
And then you'd have to establish why those numbers should make any difference to the unemployment data.
Lie in quotations? Do you mean the numbers are known to be something else and are deliberately changed? Or, what I believe more likely, do you think the internationally accepted definition that's been used in the U.S. for over 70 years (with some minor changes) is wrong. And if that's the case, what definition do you propose?
92.7% of them say they don't want a job. Of those who say they do, 3.8 million haven't looked for work in over a year. Is that a reliable indicator of the current labor market? And how likely are those people to start looking for work? A further 700,000 who say they want a job have looked for work in the last year, but are not available for work.
So what significance are you attaching to the 90 million not working or looking for work?
2.6 million people in July wanted full time (35+ hours) but worked part time because they couldn't find full time work. 4.7 million wanted to work part time but had hours cut due to business conditions. How many of those were because of Obamacare?
You're making broad claims with ambiguous terms. Why is that?