What is the REAL REAL U.S. unemployment rate

[DrainBamage]

If you don't like the figures I came up with. look them up for yourself. Just be prepared for some bullshit. Because I wouldn't believe the government if they told me the sky was blue.

Well that sounds like a great idea, disregard the real data because someone on a message board with a chip on his shoulder says it's BS, and take his figures as gospel. No thanks.

1, there were no jobs. 2, I was too POOR to work!

If you were looking for excuses instead of looking for work then you're not unemployed.

Next, more BS! Net gains my ass. Not everybody who looks for work does so through the employment office. Where they "might" list those who are looking for work. And if any employer is required to contact the government every time somebody comes in to apply for a job, I've never heard about it. Neither have I or anybody I've heard of been required to contact the government and say "I stopped looking for work."

This demonstrates that you have no idea how the number of jobs is calculated by BLS, which is a good example of reasons we roll our eyes at your amateur hour employment number calculations.

Another thing about the "net gains" thing is that it paints an unrealistic picture. (Big surprise!) By showing only one side of the story.

Math fail, "net" by it's very nature shows both sides of the story.

 

[DrainBamage]

For example, I was trained in things like pipe fitting, sheet metal fabrication and welding.

Yeah I kind of guessed your training wasn't in statistics.

Lastly, nobody ever asked me if I was discouraged.

You do understand that Census doesn't actually ask everyone in the United States if they are discouraged every month right? They ask questions to a random group of people that is sufficiently large to project onto the US population. You not being asked does not provide evidence that they don't actually do it.

 

[DrainBamage]

Next, there is an age in this country at which you can retire.

No, there isn't. Can you point me to the legislation that states at what age someone can retire?

But I would consider those that still work to be employed.

Age isn't relevant in whether someone is considered to be in the workforce.

 

[pinqy]

Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

Why not include housewives? But as for the others....14 million full time students ages 16-24 are neither working nor trying to work. I don't think most of them are desperate for jobs. 24 million disabled not working or trying to work. And even not counting those also disabled, there are 26 million people age 65 and older not working or trying to work.

That's 64 million people right there....2/3s of those Not in the Labor Force, but you're claiming the real reason most of them aren't trying to work is because there are no jobs? Even though most of them say they don't want a job?

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers.

So the 90 million who say they don't want a job (or are too disabled to work) are lying?

Also, did you know that some people are just too poor to work! I'll bet you never thought of that one. Looking for work and going to work often REQUIRES owning a car. If you can't afford a car, then what. (And any "Mc Job" you find won't give you the ability to buy one) I can tell you what. Jumping through hoops that you and people like you can shove up their ass.

Yes, I am well aware of that. In December there were 1,684,000 people who had looked for work in the last year but not since Thanksgiving, who wanted a job and could have accepted if offered. 426,000 weren't looking because they believed there were no jobs, or that they lacked the education or skills for what jobs there were, or that they would face discrimination. 235,000 had family responsibilities that made them quit their job search. 247,000 stopped looking because they went back to school or enrolled in training. 148,000 stopped looking because they became sick or got hurt. And 627,000 stopped looking because they had no child care, or transportation, or a few other uncategorized.

Also, how in the hell would any government agency know if you became discouraged.

They ask. It's this nifty science called "statistics" where you don't actually have to ask every person in a population, but you can ask a sample and reach an approximation of the real number. For example, I said there were 426,000 discouraged....that's +/- 60,000 at 90% confidence.

Face it. The government's job is in supplying BS. You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

Well, the number that "found work" is actually the net change..hires - losses.
But if you want those numbers, that's easy...for non-farm payroll jobs, 4,850,000 people were hired during November. 2,553,000 people quit. 1,563,000 were laid off or fired. And 279,000 retired, died, or left the country. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

If you want to include agriculture and look at unemployment and not in the Labor Force as well, go to Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Why not include housewives? Because they SHOULDN'T be in the labor force. But unfortunately, many of them have to work these days.

Shouldn't? But the question was about those who choose not to work. That would include housewives.

Next, it doesn't really matter how many students there are. What matters is the number of them that find employment when they are no longer students.

I was talking about the students that choose not to work...that are neither working nor trying to work. For all the labor force statistics, work takes precedence. It doesn't matter if you are a student or consider yourself retired etc, if you're looking for work, you're unemployed, if you're working, you're employed.

Next, a reason a lot of those disabled people are disabled is because of going through the meat grinder of trying to find work unsuccessfully.

That doesn't make any sense.

Next, there are many people of retirement age that do work.

Exactly....which is why we don't talk about "retirement age' and don't have an upper age limit.

Next, no. If there was work to be had that wasn't just exploitation, most of those 90 million probably would be working.

Including the housewives that you don't think should be working? And no, it doesn't matter how many jobs there are..if you're not looking for work, you won't get hired. So before any of those 90 million would work, they would first change categories.

 

[overland]

If you don't like the figures I came up with. look them up for yourself. Just be prepared for some bullshit. Because I wouldn't believe the government if they told me the sky was blue.

Well that sounds like a great idea, disregard the real data because someone on a message board with a chip on his shoulder says it's BS, and take his figures as gospel. No thanks.

1, there were no jobs. 2, I was too POOR to work!

If you were looking for excuses instead of looking for work then you're not unemployed.

Next, more BS! Net gains my ass. Not everybody who looks for work does so through the employment office. Where they "might" list those who are looking for work. And if any employer is required to contact the government every time somebody comes in to apply for a job, I've never heard about it. Neither have I or anybody I've heard of been required to contact the government and say "I stopped looking for work."

This demonstrates that you have no idea how the number of jobs is calculated by BLS, which is a good example of reasons we roll our eyes at your amateur hour employment number calculations.

Another thing about the "net gains" thing is that it paints an unrealistic picture. (Big surprise!) By showing only one side of the story.

Math fail, "net" by it's very nature shows both sides of the story.

I'm not disregarding anything. I'm just taking it with a grain of salt. The government has told so many lies, what makes you think employment statistics wouldn't be one of them. From looking around on the internet for myself, as close as I could figure, there are about 27 million unemployed Americans of working age. And there are about 23 million who are underemployed. You can believe it, or not.

Next, anybody who isn't employed for whatever reason is unemployed. Also, are you going to call the people who were unemployed during the great depression as just coming up with excuses? Next, Oh! The BLS "calculates" the numbers. It must be true! Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Next, now and then they show on the news how many jobs were created in some particular month or quarter. Like it or not, they have NEVER mentioned how many jobs were lost in that same time frame. At least as far as I can remember. Another thing they hardly ever talk about is the number of jobs created vs the number of those entering the workforce. And even if they did, it probably wouldn't include illegal scab scum invaders. (mexicans)

 

[overland]

For example, I was trained in things like pipe fitting, sheet metal fabrication and welding.

Yeah I kind of guessed your training wasn't in statistics.

Lastly, nobody ever asked me if I was discouraged.

You do understand that Census doesn't actually ask everyone in the United States if they are discouraged every month right? They ask questions to a random group of people that is sufficiently large to project onto the US population. You not being asked does not provide evidence that they don't actually do it.

A random group of what people. I have often seen poll results on some matter on TV. Usually I think to myself, "Who and the fuck are the people they're asking!"

 

[overland]

Next, there is an age in this country at which you can retire.

No, there isn't. Can you point me to the legislation that states at what age someone can retire?

But I would consider those that still work to be employed.

Age isn't relevant in whether someone is considered to be in the workforce.

Everyplace that I ever heard of has a retirement age. It doesn't always mean that you HAVE to retire. But you can. The last I remember retirement age being was 65.

 

[overland]

Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

Why not include housewives? But as for the others....14 million full time students ages 16-24 are neither working nor trying to work. I don't think most of them are desperate for jobs. 24 million disabled not working or trying to work. And even not counting those also disabled, there are 26 million people age 65 and older not working or trying to work.

That's 64 million people right there....2/3s of those Not in the Labor Force, but you're claiming the real reason most of them aren't trying to work is because there are no jobs? Even though most of them say they don't want a job?

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers.

So the 90 million who say they don't want a job (or are too disabled to work) are lying?

Also, did you know that some people are just too poor to work! I'll bet you never thought of that one. Looking for work and going to work often REQUIRES owning a car. If you can't afford a car, then what. (And any "Mc Job" you find won't give you the ability to buy one) I can tell you what. Jumping through hoops that you and people like you can shove up their ass.

Yes, I am well aware of that. In December there were 1,684,000 people who had looked for work in the last year but not since Thanksgiving, who wanted a job and could have accepted if offered. 426,000 weren't looking because they believed there were no jobs, or that they lacked the education or skills for what jobs there were, or that they would face discrimination. 235,000 had family responsibilities that made them quit their job search. 247,000 stopped looking because they went back to school or enrolled in training. 148,000 stopped looking because they became sick or got hurt. And 627,000 stopped looking because they had no child care, or transportation, or a few other uncategorized.

Also, how in the hell would any government agency know if you became discouraged.

They ask. It's this nifty science called "statistics" where you don't actually have to ask every person in a population, but you can ask a sample and reach an approximation of the real number. For example, I said there were 426,000 discouraged....that's +/- 60,000 at 90% confidence.

Face it. The government's job is in supplying BS. You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

Well, the number that "found work" is actually the net change..hires - losses.
But if you want those numbers, that's easy...for non-farm payroll jobs, 4,850,000 people were hired during November. 2,553,000 people quit. 1,563,000 were laid off or fired. And 279,000 retired, died, or left the country. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

If you want to include agriculture and look at unemployment and not in the Labor Force as well, go to Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Why not include housewives? Because they SHOULDN'T be in the labor force. But unfortunately, many of them have to work these days.

Shouldn't? But the question was about those who choose not to work. That would include housewives.

Next, it doesn't really matter how many students there are. What matters is the number of them that find employment when they are no longer students.

I was talking about the students that choose not to work...that are neither working nor trying to work. For all the labor force statistics, work takes precedence. It doesn't matter if you are a student or consider yourself retired etc, if you're looking for work, you're unemployed, if you're working, you're employed.

Next, a reason a lot of those disabled people are disabled is because of going through the meat grinder of trying to find work unsuccessfully.

That doesn't make any sense.

Next, there are many people of retirement age that do work.

Exactly....which is why we don't talk about "retirement age' and don't have an upper age limit.

Next, no. If there was work to be had that wasn't just exploitation, most of those 90 million probably would be working.

Including the housewives that you don't think should be working? And no, it doesn't matter how many jobs there are..if you're not looking for work, you won't get hired. So before any of those 90 million would work, they would first change categories.

No it doesn't. Workers are those who are EXPECTED to work. Housewives generally (if they can afford not to do so) are not expected to work. They are expected to stay home and take care of their family. Which some would call a job in itself.

Next, there are a certain number of students. They are generally refreshed every four years. But that aside, students are employed. If you call working being employed. And they are working at getting an education. However you want to classify students, they shouldn't be included in unemployment statistics.

Next, what I said does make sense. Suppose your being unable to find a job caused you to suffer from depression, become insane in a way that isn't as benefit to those in power or causes you to have panic attacks. These things could cause you to become disabled. So that disability can squarely be placed on the doorstep of unemployment.

Next, how many jobs there are is the most important thing. The problem is that when there are more workers than jobs, companies or whoever are free to exploit the shit out of their employees. Like Andrew Carnegie. Who believed that the long hours and poor working conditions he exposed his workers to was simply survival of the fittest. Those workers were easily replaceable. Or what about coal miners who were paid in company script. And if they needed picks, shovels or whatever, they had to pay for them with their company script.

On the other hand (Not that it has happened very often) things are much better when there are more jobs than there are employees. Because then, employees will actually get a fair deal.

 

[pinqy]

No it doesn't. Workers are those who are EXPECTED to work. Housewives generally (if they can afford not to do so) are not expected to work. They are expected to stay home and take care of their family. Which some would call a job in itself.

So do you object to the government classifications? If a woman is working for pay or in a family run business farm, she is employed. If she's looking for work and available, she is unemployed. If she is neither working nor looking for work, she is Not in the Labor Force. Any objections? If so, how would you classify them?

Next, there are a certain number of students. They are generally refreshed every four years. But that aside, students are employed. If you call working being employed. And they are working at getting an education. However you want to classify students, they shouldn't be included in unemployment statistics.

If students are working at a job, part time or full time, they are classified as employed. If they are available and looking for work, they are unemployed. If neither, they are Not in the Labor Force. If so, how would you classify them?

Next, what I said does make sense. Suppose your being unable to find a job caused you to suffer from depression, become insane in a way that isn't as benefit to those in power or causes you to have panic attacks. These things could cause you to become disabled. So that disability can squarely be placed on the doorstep of unemployment.

And how do you measure that and why would we want to?

I think I'm just not getting how you would classify the population and calculate unemployment.

 

[overland]

No it doesn't. Workers are those who are EXPECTED to work. Housewives generally (if they can afford not to do so) are not expected to work. They are expected to stay home and take care of their family. Which some would call a job in itself.

So do you object to the government classifications? If a woman is working for pay or in a family run business farm, she is employed. If she's looking for work and available, she is unemployed. If she is neither working nor looking for work, she is Not in the Labor Force. Any objections? If so, how would you classify them?

Next, there are a certain number of students. They are generally refreshed every four years. But that aside, students are employed. If you call working being employed. And they are working at getting an education. However you want to classify students, they shouldn't be included in unemployment statistics.

If students are working at a job, part time or full time, they are classified as employed. If they are available and looking for work, they are unemployed. If neither, they are Not in the Labor Force. If so, how would you classify them?

Next, what I said does make sense. Suppose your being unable to find a job caused you to suffer from depression, become insane in a way that isn't as benefit to those in power or causes you to have panic attacks. These things could cause you to become disabled. So that disability can squarely be placed on the doorstep of unemployment.

And how do you measure that and why would we want to?

I think I'm just not getting how you would classify the population and calculate unemployment.

One of the main points of my thread isn't how I would calculate-classify the unemployed. But how the government does. Ultimately, the government works for the president. Every presidential administration wants to paint as rosy of a picture as possible of their administration. To that end, you HAVE to take the governments employment statistics with a "grain of salt."

 

[DrainBamage]

Everyplace that I ever heard of has a retirement age. It doesn't always mean that you HAVE to retire. But you can. The last I remember retirement age being was 65.

Your limited world experience and recollection do not make a reality.

You and I are both free to retire whenever we want. There are pension systems that have requirements, usually a combination of age and service, but people with pensions are the small minority and qualifying for a pension (and this receiving benefits) is neither a requirement to retire nor some magic wand waved saying one is financially able to retire.

The United States has no retirement age. I worked for quite a few companies in my career and not one had a retirement age listed in the employee handbook.

 

[DrainBamage]

No it doesn't. Workers are those who are EXPECTED to work. Housewives generally (if they can afford not to do so) are not expected to work. They are expected to stay home and take care of their family. Which some would call a job in itself.

Your expectations about bread winners and housewives isn't relevant since we don't classify labor force by expectations. If you have a job or are actively looking for one you are a worker. There is far too much gray area and social dynamics involved in preconceptions about household roles for it to be any use as a measure of employment.

Next, there are a certain number of students. They are generally refreshed every four years. But that aside, students are employed. If you call working being employed. And they are working at getting an education. However you want to classify students, they shouldn't be included in unemployment statistics.

Well then a bum is working on finishing his bottle of sweet wine, and a elementary school student is working on getting an education, and a toddler is working on learning to talk and walk. The verb "to work" as applied to employed/unemployed applies to jobs, not having a long-term purpose or goal.

Next, what I said does make sense. Suppose your being unable to find a job caused you to suffer from depression, become insane in a way that isn't as benefit to those in power or causes you to have panic attacks. These things could cause you to become disabled. So that disability can squarely be placed on the doorstep of unemployment.

Many people suffer depression who are employed, and many are unemployed who don't suffer from depression. Depression and other mental illnesses are a lot more complex than laying the blame of a single life event as the only trigger.

Next, how many jobs there are is the most important thing.

Agreed, which is why statistics on net job gains are interesting. If a given month has 300k net more jobs, and the workforce has grown by only 150k, it is a positive sign for the employment picture because the jobs/employees ratio has tilted more favorably. Looking at just jobs lost, or jobs gained, isn't as meaningful as the delta.

 

[DrainBamage]

One of the main points of my thread isn't how I would calculate-classify the unemployed. But how the government does. Ultimately, the government works for the president. Every presidential administration wants to paint as rosy of a picture as possible of their administration. To that end, you HAVE to take the governments employment statistics with a "grain of salt."

This makes no sense logically.

1. The unemployment rate goes up, and it goes down. When it went from 4 and change to 10 under Bush, are you thinking Bush decided to instruct them to make him look bad? He just woke up one day and said hey I control this statistic but I want my administration to look bad now. Doesn't make sense... if a president could really control the unemployment rate it would never reflect negatively on his administration and his party.

2. There would need to be thousands in a conspiracy to cook the books without anyone saying a word. Do you really believe that many people can keep a secret, even after they retired? I don't. If you do then you have a lot more faith in the government than I do.

Government works for the people, and we don't have a dictatorship rather a legislative and judicial branch as a balance with executive.

 

[pinqy]

[ One of the main points of my thread isn't how I would calculate-classify the unemployed. But how the government does.

How do you separate the two? How can you disagree with the government classification w

Ultimately, the government works for the president. Every presidential administration wants to paint as rosy of a picture as possible of their administration.

But government employees...the worker bees at Census, BLS, etc...are not part of the administration. I know people at BLS who have been there since the Reagan administration. They don't change how they do things from one administration to the next, and they certainly don't care about painting a rosy picture for whoever is in office at that moment. No one in the administration, including the Secretary of Labor, has any access to the pre-publication data, and cannot directly influence it. All changes to methodology take years.

 

[overland]

Everyplace that I ever heard of has a retirement age. It doesn't always mean that you HAVE to retire. But you can. The last I remember retirement age being was 65.

Your limited world experience and recollection do not make a reality.

You and I are both free to retire whenever we want. There are pension systems that have requirements, usually a combination of age and service, but people with pensions are the small minority and qualifying for a pension (and this receiving benefits) is neither a requirement to retire nor some magic wand waved saying one is financially able to retire.

The United States has no retirement age. I worked for quite a few companies in my career and not one had a retirement age listed in the employee handbook.

Boy. are you full of crap. The retirement age at least used to be 65. But you can retire at 62. Does that mean that you would just receive three years less of your overall benefits? No. It means you would lose 80% of your benefits! The scum sucking slave drivers. And now the retirement age is 66. Which is supposed to "slowly" rise to 67. Give it time and those fuckfaces will probably work you until you're in the grave. Which with falling live expectancy rates here in the U.S., mercifully shouldn't take as long.

 

[overland]

No it doesn't. Workers are those who are EXPECTED to work. Housewives generally (if they can afford not to do so) are not expected to work. They are expected to stay home and take care of their family. Which some would call a job in itself.

Your expectations about bread winners and housewives isn't relevant since we don't classify labor force by expectations. If you have a job or are actively looking for one you are a worker. There is far too much gray area and social dynamics involved in preconceptions about household roles for it to be any use as a measure of employment.

Next, there are a certain number of students. They are generally refreshed every four years. But that aside, students are employed. If you call working being employed. And they are working at getting an education. However you want to classify students, they shouldn't be included in unemployment statistics.

Well then a bum is working on finishing his bottle of sweet wine, and a elementary school student is working on getting an education, and a toddler is working on learning to talk and walk. The verb "to work" as applied to employed/unemployed applies to jobs, not having a long-term purpose or goal.

Next, what I said does make sense. Suppose your being unable to find a job caused you to suffer from depression, become insane in a way that isn't as benefit to those in power or causes you to have panic attacks. These things could cause you to become disabled. So that disability can squarely be placed on the doorstep of unemployment.

Many people suffer depression who are employed, and many are unemployed who don't suffer from depression. Depression and other mental illnesses are a lot more complex than laying the blame of a single life event as the only trigger.

Next, how many jobs there are is the most important thing.

Agreed, which is why statistics on net job gains are interesting. If a given month has 300k net more jobs, and the workforce has grown by only 150k, it is a positive sign for the employment picture because the jobs/employees ratio has tilted more favorably. Looking at just jobs lost, or jobs gained, isn't as meaningful as the delta.

First, there is a difference between studying to get a higher education and drinking a bottle of wine. Next, I have never heard any statistics that talk about who is more likely to suffer from any mental disorder. The employed or unemployed. But I do know that if you are wealthy, you are more likely to be dishonest. Because any consequences for being dishonest are basically nonexistent compared to the consequences to the poor. So to that degree, the wealthier you are, the more insane you are. Also, chronic unemployment or underemployment is a FAR cry from a "single life event." In fact, it IS their life!

Lastly, I highly doubt if the number of jobs created has ever exceeded the number of people entering the workforce during the same time period.

 

[overland]

One of the main points of my thread isn't how I would calculate-classify the unemployed. But how the government does. Ultimately, the government works for the president. Every presidential administration wants to paint as rosy of a picture as possible of their administration. To that end, you HAVE to take the governments employment statistics with a "grain of salt."

This makes no sense logically.

1. The unemployment rate goes up, and it goes down. When it went from 4 and change to 10 under Bush, are you thinking Bush decided to instruct them to make him look bad? He just woke up one day and said hey I control this statistic but I want my administration to look bad now. Doesn't make sense... if a president could really control the unemployment rate it would never reflect negatively on his administration and his party.

2. There would need to be thousands in a conspiracy to cook the books without anyone saying a word. Do you really believe that many people can keep a secret, even after they retired? I don't. If you do then you have a lot more faith in the government than I do.

Government works for the people, and we don't have a dictatorship rather a legislative and judicial branch as a balance with executive.

First, I wouldn't know what employment statistics were during the Busch administration. Or when they were revealed, who revealed them and who challenged them. But the president is basically a dictator. He is the one who says who runs whatever agency. Therefore, they kiss his ass. Also, I remember during the Clinton administration that they claimed to have balanced the budget. Which was a load of crap.

 

[overland]

[ One of the main points of my thread isn't how I would calculate-classify the unemployed. But how the government does.

How do you separate the two? How can you disagree with the government classification w

Ultimately, the government works for the president. Every presidential administration wants to paint as rosy of a picture as possible of their administration.

But government employees...the worker bees at Census, BLS, etc...are not part of the administration. I know people at BLS who have been there since the Reagan administration. They don't change how they do things from one administration to the next, and they certainly don't care about painting a rosy picture for whoever is in office at that moment. No one in the administration, including the Secretary of Labor, has any access to the pre-publication data, and cannot directly influence it. All changes to methodology take years.

First, I only separated them by this -. Next, there is a chain of command in any government agency. Who hears what and when is decided by the person who runs the agency. They may not be able to change the data, (or maybe they can) but they can change how it is presented. They can also probably make a bad thing seem like something that isn't so bad.

 

[DrainBamage]

Boy. are you full of crap. The retirement age at least used to be 65. But you can retire at 62. Does that mean that you would just receive three years less of your overall benefits? No. It means you would lose 80% of your benefits! The scum sucking slave drivers. And now the retirement age is 66. Which is supposed to "slowly" rise to 67.

I believe you're talking about social security benefits. The act of claiming social security isn't retirement, millions work after claiming social security and millions retire before claiming social security. I've stopped working and never intend to work again, but am not old enough to claim social security benefits. I'm retired. We had a neighbor who claimed when she was 62, but she still worked full time as an admin to make ends meet. Not retied.

Social security is not retirement, it is a benefit with certain age conditions that must be met to take advantage of.

 

[DrainBamage]

First, there is a difference between studying to get a higher education and drinking a bottle of wine.

And working on a college degree is a lot different than getting paid to do a job, so as long as we can discount comparisons because they are different we'll go ahead and toss out your claim that students should be considered employed because they are working on a college degree.

But I do know that if you are wealthy, you are more likely to be dishonest.

You don't know this, you're assuming this just like various other assumptions you've made that demonstrably wrong. You have an interesting habit of assuming anything that pops into your head is unassailable fact, that isn't the case and the ignorant are often the least qualified to understand how little they know.

Lastly, I highly doubt if the number of jobs created has ever exceeded the number of people entering the workforce during the same time period.

What you doubt isn't relevant, the actual data is and it says you are incorrect.