I agree the unemployment number is messed up but for different reasons. His logic doesn't track for me.
Babies who were just born aren't entering the job force. As disturbing as it is to contemplate we have no idea how many of those babies will and won't make it to working age.
Putting that creepy thought aside you'd still want to look at population growth from 1993 (assuming 18 as the age people enter the job market though often times that's not even true because of higher education delay).
In that case you're looking at an average population growth of 229,299 per month in 1993 to his death rate of 216,000. Add the 120,000 jobs on top of that and you actually get a net gain.
Of course that doesn't count part time workers, discouraged workers, and all the other factors that really do make the unemployment rate bull. I'm just saying his logic isn't consistent.
I'd say that's putting it nicely. His argument is so specious, I would hesitate to call it an argument. I've seldom read anything on employment where the errors in logic jump quite so far off the page.
Babies who were just born aren't entering the job force. As disturbing as it is to contemplate we have no idea how many of those babies will and won't make it to working age.
Putting that creepy thought aside you'd still want to look at population growth from 1993 (assuming 18 as the age people enter the job market though often times that's not even true because of higher education delay).
In that case you're looking at an average population growth of 229,299 per month in 1993 to his death rate of 216,000. Add the 120,000 jobs on top of that and you actually get a net gain.
Of course that doesn't count part time workers, discouraged workers, and all the other factors that really do make the unemployment rate bull. I'm just saying his logic isn't consistent.