30% unemployment, the way it's normally defined, means 30% of your population are looking for jobs and unable to find them. Which is an unmitigated disaster.
They are not represented in unemployment numbers (Because as it turns out 'I need to earn $25/hour to be able to afford daycare for the kids, but I could never get a job like that, and I've stopped looking') does not get counted in UE stats.
Putting those people to work would not actually make any of us better off... Yet it would reduce unemployment.
The point of my post was that jobs are not created equal. 0% unemployment because everyone is working jobs that pay very little is an unmitigated economic disaster. 30% unemployment because a smaller group of people are only working productive, highly remunerative jobs is an incredible economic success.
It does, however, raise the hackles on a few people.
>They are not represented in unemployment numbers ...
Depends on the set of numbers you're looking at. DoL produces different numbers that encompass different assumptions. Normally these people are not considered unemployed, so putting them to work wouldn't change the unemployment statistics.
And I don't believe having 30% of the population carrying the other 70% is at all an economic success. That's an unstable situation that can't continue.