I think that fudging the numbers to bolster your pet theory is not an acceptable way of looking at this data.
He wasn't fudging anything, his phrasing was
> ~18% of their working age people *do not have jobs*
Which is a correct interpretation of participation rate. His theory on the causes may be off, but his numbers weren't
alt Hacker News
He wasn't fudging anything, his phrasing was
> ~18% of their working age people *do not have jobs*
Which is a correct interpretation of participation rate. His theory on the causes may be off, but his numbers weren't