https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS?location...
This is basically the best in the world.
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2...
Not sure what rate OP is citing, but it's not the one I'd use to draw OP's conclusion. You don't wanna YOLO understanding how employment rates are calculated.
You're way better off YOLO'ing reading the documentation about how they are calculated than listening to the myriad pundits deliberately trying to mislead people and drive conspiracy theories.
This is all documented on the websites of the various statistical agencies, and you can just read their docs.
Similar to how as police systems fail, people stop reporting things assuming nothing meaningful will happen anyways. And then there's less reports of crime, so magically "crime is down" -- high fives to the police system... (/s)
> ~18% of their working age people *do not have jobs*
Which is a correct interpretation of participation rate. His theory on the causes may be off, but his numbers weren't
In general, either is fine by me as long we are consistent: they are both proxies for percentage of people needing work and should correlate to a large extent.