Brent P wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

It's not that simple. The formula is political and for instance does not
include people who have run out of unemployment benefits but are still
seeking employment.

You continue to demonstrate your total ignorance. People who's
unemployment benefits have run out are most certainly included in the
unemployment rate. And the unemployment benefit list is not even used
as part of the data collection, period. The unemployment rate is
calculated by a random survey of households, precisely to avoid the
problem above, which you falsely claim exists. Basicly, the survey
determines who has a job and who does not, but is looking for one.

And only a nitwit would claim that the data collection and rate
calculation are "political", because the process is fair, reasonable
and has been done for decades, regardless of which party is in power.

But why worry about the "rate", at all. Since you refuse to
acknowledge that economic statistics, like national debt or budget
deficit, need to be compared to anything relevant, you should simply
be arguing absolutes. There are more unemployed today than 100
years ago, so it's very, very, bad.






It counts people who accepted jobs that pay a small
fraction of what they used to make because their unemployment ran out but
are still looking as employed. There are a bunch more if-then-elses but
you can find those on your own time.