>That's because those things are increasingly more creatively measured to paint a nice picture. They are measured the same way they always have been >For exam

>That's because those things are increasingly more creatively measured to paint a nice picture. They are measured the same way they always have been >For example today any crap job regardless of quality/wages/precariousness etc is measured as "unemployment", whereas in the past you could have the same number of jobs but they would be much more solid (the "company man" and so on. Heck, a GM factory worker in the 50s could buy a house and raise 2 kids earning the only income in his family). Oh this talking point again. Never mind the two world wars that made it all possible >People who given up looking for work, because they can't find any, are also not counted, while still unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. You are aware that there are multiple unemployment statistics that are tracked and that discouraged workers are included in some of them? Nobody is purposefully ignoring discouraged workers they are just not relevant to the market because they aren't participating in it. >For one, because tax havens (where that money go instead of local communities, e.g. Apple's Ireland's cash stock) aren't "people". What do you think happens to money in those tax havens? Do you think they convert it all into gold coins and lock it into a scrooge mcduck style vault? It's reinvested, they purchase treasuries with it, they do research and development with it. Governments then use that money to build roads and pay employees. Those employees then go and eat out and buy cars.