The reason you're getting pushback about your original assertion is because it isn't actually true.
>Unemployment has changed, it used to mean people that want to work but can't find jobs.
It still means that.
>If you lose a full time job and work two part time jobs you're considered fully employed, even though you lost benefits and have to work crazy hours.
This is how full employment has been measured for a long time, so it's not an example of government changing measures to make things look better than they are.
>If you think administrations don't fudge the numbers to make themselves look more successful I don't know where you've been
This is not evidence. It's just a non sequitur.
>Statistics are easy to mess with, and administrations favor the models that make them look better.
Replacing the first conjecture with this one helps nothing. Again, where is the evidence for this statement? Is it a hunch that we're just meant to go along with?
>Places like WV have seen mass unemployment for decades, but the numbers look better because people have gone on checks or government assistance and given up, thus aren't counted.
This is how unemployment has been measured for more than half a century. It is not something that the government has changed to make things look better than they are.
>It's easier to believe a fairy tale told by the government, and only be critical of it when the opposing party is in office, when supposedly nothing has changed.
There is, again, zero evidence in this statement. It is looking more and more like the original assertion, "They've literally been changing the measurements of economic indicators to make things seem better than they are," was made up.