I think it's something else. Especially when you take into account the under-employed and those who have to work part time even though they want to work full time I think it's considerably north of 5%. But to say it's 35% or 40% makes no sense at all.
Actually, Stockman’s analysis makes perfect sense IF one has comparable numbers to go by, for at least the last several decades. Ie., by Stockman’s method, maybe 20% “unemployment” is normal. Context is everything, in this case.
Maybe someone can find or create a chart...