[Bartweiss]

I don't think we actually disagree?

I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.

[toomuchtodo]

HN was throttling me, preventing from me responding, but I believe you're correct and we're not disagreeing. Apologies for that!