[qutoe]And I say that the way the government tabulates it is wrong insofar as giving an accurate picture of the true unemployment rate in America.[/quote] What makes your definition "true?" What do you think you're trying to measure? Someone not looking for work tells us nothing at all about the true state of the labor market because they're not actually participating in it. Tracking discouraged, all other marginally attached and other groups is important because it gives a broader picture of the overall labor situation, but it's not more accurate.
Why? Why is someone who hasn't done anything about getting a job in over a year helpful in judging the current labor market? And do you really think it's reliable?Among other things, the '12 months' timeframe should be changed to 'infinite'.
9.1% by my math...close enough. But think about it. All you're saying is that if more people were unemployed then the unemployment rate would be higher. Which is "duh." And how are you justifying adding in people who don't want to work or who aren't available for work? And you're switching goalposts again because your half the difference is still 3.5 times the number of Discouraged workers. Do you need me to show the math?And if the participation rate today was the same as it was when Obama took over, and only half of the difference was counted, then the unemployment rate today would be 9.2/9.3%.