Yea and? The government isn’t the people, they want things to look as rosy as possible, every one of them. The people’s definition for unemployment is you’d want to work but you can’t find a job. Your definition is just appealing to authority.
Nearly anyone who you ask will say you should count someone who has no income and can’t find a job as unemployed for the numbers, otherwise type ignoring problems. What if you have 10% of your population that can’t find a job and gives up to live on the streets due to loss of hope? Do you just not count them as unemployed? That’s stupid. Your rapid fire set of questions carefully worded to sound reasonable is just a way for you to avoid the crux of my argument that government numbers for unemployed are low due to the twisted definition they use.
Tell me why they shouldn’t count the hopeless as unemployed?
> Tell me why they shouldn’t count the hopeless as unemployed?
Because “Words Mean Things”. Every single country’s government that I could find - including non English speaking countries (I just looked up the definition in Japan) define unemployment the same way.
The unemployment, the homeless and the labor participation rate are all statistics that are reported by the government and one isn’t ignoring the other.
And you don’t think it is “unreasonable” to make up definitions instead of using ones that are accepted globally?
