It’s not lying, exactly. I would guess it begins as poetic license or hyperbolic exaggeration to make the point, but, because this is the SDMB, someone will almost inevitably point out the literal interpretation’s unlikeliness or impossibility.
At that point, of course, she should simply choose to admit the literal exaggeration.
But for whatever reason, she chooses to double down instead. I remember several years ago an off-handed claim from her about looking for work and finding no jobs in the help wanted section.
Another poster responded that they both lived in the same area and the paper had plenty of job listings. At that point, had she simply said, “I meant suitable jobs, or jobs I could realistically do,” the issue would have ended.
No, she doubled down: the print edition she saw had no jobs. None.