It probably does show up, but a huge number of small business are basically just the owner and some independent contractors (or just people they pay cash under the table to occasionally). Often the owners aren't even employees, and if they are, in some states they don't qualify for certain benefits by virtue of having been the owner.

Not necessarily.

In the UK unemployment stats haven't moved, despite huge numbers of job losses, because for someone to be classified as unemployed they must be looking for work. But there's no work to find so people aren't looking. That's why technical unemployment often acts in odd ways: a booming economy may not see unemployment fall for a while because people who became economically inactive restart a job search, so get added to the ranks of the unemployed.

The problem in this case isn't unemployment, and using unemployment to track it would be misleading. If small businesses die off, that means there will be less job openings for people to be hired into in the future. The US economy is already fragile. I'm not sure how it will cope with the kind of structural (long-term) unemployment that will result when too many businesses fold.

Per the article:

> While the businesses are small individually, the collective impact of their failures could be substantial. Firms with fewer than 500 employees account for about 44% of U.S. economic activity, according to a U.S. Small Business Administration report, and they employ almost half of all American workers.

It's appalling that all the focus in politics is on big companies and giving them handouts.