[ek_hornbeck]

The real problem is that the number, originally designed for limited purposes, has come to assume totemic status. Focusing so single-mindedly on this one employment figure has made it impossible to have a cogent discussion of labor in the U.S. and to design meaningful responses to our varied economic problems.

An even bigger problem is that the official unemployment rate is a big underestimate. Everyone acknowledges that it doesn't count those who have given up looking for jobs, but it also fails to account for the vast number of underemployed: skilled workers and even professionals who are stuck in dead-end, near minimum wage (and often part-time) jobs in retail or elsewhere in the unskilled service sector. A "recovery" where people with skills work at Wal-Mart isn't much of a recovery.

[RipSawyer]

“A “recovery” where people with skills work at Wal-Mart isn’t much of a recovery.”

A recovery where people with skills can’t get hired at Wal-Mart is even less of one.

[khelus]

TRe: he real problem is that the number, originally designed for limited purposes, has come to assume totemic status. Focusing so single-mindedly on this one employment figure has made it impossible to have a cogent discussion of labor in the U.S. and to design meaningful responses to our varied economic problems.

An even bigger problem is that the official unemployment rate is a big underestimate. Everyone acknowledges that it doesn't count those who have given up looking for jobs, but it also fails to account for the vast number of underemployed: skilled workers and even professionals who are stuck in dead-end, near minimum wage (and often part-time) jobs in retail or elsewhere in the unskilled service sector. A "recovery" where people with skills work at Wal-Mart isn't much of a recovery.

Appplause