This is a meaningless statement. You need to cite facts, actual data, to make your case on FR. We are serious, not frivolous here. You also will be challenged on your rhetoric, such as:
-Exactly how is the unemployment rate deeply flawed?
-Exactly what is the effective means of measuring by traditional terms?
-Exactly how and why is the productivity rate misleading?
Provide your sources for accurate, unflawed, traditional, non-misleading data.
If you can't, then withdraw your rhetoric and stick with your 'feelings'.
Whether or not you agree with this, I believe the unemployment rate is virtually useless as it is enumerated today. First, it counts only those in the unemployment pool who are collecting unemployment. If a worker goes off unemployment they are not included in the unemployment rate. Second, it completely doesn't account for UNDERemployment. An example would be a manufacturing worker (say working for Maytag) who was laid off when their plant closed and who found employment at Wal-Mart for half (or less) of their previous wage. Thus, the implied "employed" percentage contains some components of workers that is living at or below the poverty rate for compensation where they were able to purchase goods and save money prior to becoming underemployed.
I would be happier if the numbers gave the complete picture. Today they don't. That portion of American workers who are employed but employed either part time or at a substantially reduced rate prior to being laid off is an important measure of how we are (or are not) growing economically in a meaningful sense.
Wikipedia has a good jumping off point on the issue of underemployment and its lack of inclusion in the US unemployment rate.
Productivity is misleading because it is reported by Corporations. So, for example, General Motors is an American Corporation which has moved some of its manufacturing to other countries to seucre cheaper labor. So (and I'm making these numbers up), perhaps prior to the move, the average GM laborer in the US made $20 an hour and produced X cars. When the manufacturing moved to a cheaper labor source, X cars are still manufactured but the laborere to produce it costs $10 an hour. Immediately the productivity number goes up while the benefit to the American worker has decreased. This explains how wages can remain flat despite the seemingly low unemployment rate and gains in productivity.
You can ask for sources, but honestly, this is just pure economics. Many think that enumerating underemployment is unnecessary. Many think that productivity is what it is (it's a straight calculation) and shows the health of a Corporation (which I think it does). Yet to use these as a measure of economic well-being doesn't go far enough to provide a true picture.