I don't think you do the problem justice. Here are some people who fit the "no employment" metric but who we shouldn't count as "unemployed" if our goal is "anyone who wants a job, or needs a job to live without assistance, has one":
* A by-choice stay-at-home parent. There are like 10 million stay-at-home parents in the US (c.f., our entire labor force is ~125 million!)
* A contract worker/consultant, as well as employees in seasonal fields such as construction, many of whom make very decent 12-month wages but might be "unemployed" if you ask at the wrong moment.
* Anyone with a severe disability (mental or physical) which makes work difficult or impossible.
* Someone younger than retirement age (40s-50s) who has retired early by choice (e.g., no kids, dual high incomes for 20+ years, non-extravagant lifestyle; particularly relevant for this forum...)
If you counted all of these, I have no doubt our unemployment rate would at least double, if not triple. But that would be a ridiculously stupid number to even think about -- none of the above people want a job (or want a 12 month job); why should we try to organize society around forcing them to work when they don't need to and don't want to?!
I'm not claiming the current definition of "unemployed" is perfect, BTW. But IMO it's WAY better than yours...
* A by-choice stay-at-home parent. There are like 10 million stay-at-home parents in the US (c.f., our entire labor force is ~125 million!)
* A contract worker/consultant, as well as employees in seasonal fields such as construction, many of whom make very decent 12-month wages but might be "unemployed" if you ask at the wrong moment.
* Anyone with a severe disability (mental or physical) which makes work difficult or impossible.
* Someone younger than retirement age (40s-50s) who has retired early by choice (e.g., no kids, dual high incomes for 20+ years, non-extravagant lifestyle; particularly relevant for this forum...)
If you counted all of these, I have no doubt our unemployment rate would at least double, if not triple. But that would be a ridiculously stupid number to even think about -- none of the above people want a job (or want a 12 month job); why should we try to organize society around forcing them to work when they don't need to and don't want to?!
I'm not claiming the current definition of "unemployed" is perfect, BTW. But IMO it's WAY better than yours...