[rory096]

>this other measure of unemployment is much higher than the standard measure shows that the economy is not healthy

No it doesn't. Aside from it being a nonsensical measure of 'health', the overall 'employment rate' is well above pre-1990 rates (as women have continued to enter the workforce).[0]

>If you deny this, then you're forced to argue that somehow the number of "disabled, stay-at-home-parents, the leisure class, those enrolled in education, and anyone else who is not working but has no desire to do so" has increased within the same demographic (25-55 males, so generally post-school),

Of course it has. Being a stay-at-home-dad was unthinkable in 1950. Post-graduate education is increasingly common, as is mid-life career switching. I can think of many reasons why we shouldn't expect a 98% labor force participation rate from that demographic in this century.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25TTUSM156S

[lavrov]

You misread my comment - I'm saying that the argument is not that the fact that this other measure of unemployment is much higher than the standard measure shows that the economy is not healthy, but that the sudden divergence over the past decade hasn't been plausibly explained by anything except an increase in disaffected working-aged males.

>Of course it has. Being a stay-at-home-dad was unthinkable in 1950. Post-graduate education is increasingly common, as is mid-life career switching. I can think of many reasons why we shouldn't expect a 98% labor force participation rate from that demographic in this century.

All of the points that you raised should not show such a sudden effect in the past < 10 years.

[rory096]

What sudden divergence?

https://i.imgur.com/WZaIpjL.png