High unemployment led to him not being able to find a job.
So I saw someone ask whether this was a valid sentence and even English people said it was. I think it has to be wrong though as the intended meaning is that the unemployment led to the fact that he couldn't find a job whereas in the above example it leads to "him" which makes no sense and is then modified by the participial phrase. So if he wanted to use the -ing form here while still making sense it would have to be:
High unemployment led to his not being able to find a job.
That is my understanding at least. But I need this cleared up as I hear similar sentences all the time which sound equally wrong to me, such as:
I appreciate you saying this
One could appreciate "you" which is what this looks like but if you go on to add saying it is likely that appreciate refers to that rather than the person so it would have to be changed to "your saying":
I appreciate your saying this
Very rarely do I hear the possessive case though so I suppose it is because it is much more convenient to use the objective case (although gerunds require possessive cases and its "grammatically wrong") compared to the possessive which can be disruptive (cases' child's etc. often multiple letters and ' in writing). Is this why I keep hearing these sentences or am I wrong entirely?