[looscnnn]

A simple question are you employed? No. Does not matter the reason, just that you are able to work, but don't. Thus you are unemployed. Sure we can have what ifs, but the fact of the matter is that we need to have accurate numbers. They could even have such %s as unemployed/retired (you could claim that if win the lottery) & unemployed/not looking or something to that effect.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Somewhere along the way, a system was arrived at to compute these numbers, you may not like it, but it's the system...the day that you get to be in charge, you get to change it, meanwhile, as long as those numbers are arrived at in the same fashion, then the numbers are constant.

Meaning, that in the 1990's there were people who may have been "not counted", like today there may be people who are not counted.

Which means that we are arguing apples to apples.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The number should be strictly those people without jobs, actively seeking employement.

Your way would have us count stay-at-home Moms (or Dads), retired people, students, the idle rich, drunks, drug addicts, criminals, and the mentally disturbed.

Then we would have to further issue lenghty explanations as to who belongs in each group...

Those would be dishonest numbers.

P.S. I dare you to come tell the stay-at-home Mother of my kids (my wife) that she's unemployed.