As per Caldazar’s explanation, a full time worker without a full time job doesn’t have to be working multiple jobs; it could be someone working in a job without benefits.
This statistic would cease being useless if accompanied by the U.S. population increase percent during the same interval. I Pit OP for not including that statistic.
Could I Google or guess that number myself? Sure! But with Nobel Prize-winning economists(*) in no short supply, the suggestion that I should spend my time pivoting off a remark by a Reaganite hack :eek: is laughable — it even made me sputter coffee on my laptop screen again. 
- To save a surrejoinder:
Trump certainly realigned his position. When he was running for President, he claimed that the Department of Labor figures were fake and that the “real” unemployment figure was as high as 42%. Now that he’s President, he accepts that the Department of Labor figures are correct and he brags about how low unemployment is.
Technically, there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. The prize that is given is often referred to as such, but it’s not.
[sees growing tent cities and thousands killing themselves with drugs and bankrupting themselves or dying from healthcare expenses] The economy is very good because this arbitrary list of giant corporations are making a lot of money.
Here’s a handy chart of unemployment rates. You can select any combination of U-1 through U-6. The numbers ten years ago, compared to now, are similar, but slightly higher. All of them. U-3 is the “official unemployment rate” and it was 4.7% in November 2007, compared to 4.1% in November 2017. U-6, which includes the underemployed, is at 8.0% for November 2017 and 8.4% for November 2007. Of course, with population growth, you’d expect the same number of jobs to result in a higher unemployment rate. But that’s balanced out by the expanding gig economy (people who work independently aren’t counted in the number of full-time jobs), and senior citizens increasing as a percentage of the population.