Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
======================================
It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure. You can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone prove they changed the formula.
> Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
> The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
> ======================================
> It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure. You > can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone > prove they changed the formula.
They've tweaked it here and there, but the big one was when Reagan included the entire military as being employed, increasing both numerator and denominator by the same amount. Made unemployment look much lower.
-- -------
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
but most stupid people are conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill
> Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
> The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
> ======================================
> It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure. > You
> can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone
> prove they changed the formula.
They've tweaked it here and there, but the big one was when Reagan included
the entire military as being employed, increasing both numerator and
denominator by the same amount. Made unemployment look much lower.
Well to be fair...folks serving in the military ARE employed are they not? By the federal government. I would not expect otherwise. I never heard of what you're saying. But there would be a point where they would join the rolls of the unemployed as they left the service.
