[acruns]

Agreed, I am a freelancer making six figures married and my wife hasn't worked since we were dating. So according to their definition my wife is unemployed, not making a "living wage" and so am I. This is a perfect example of why I pay little attention to the news. They or their editor must have known this was bs but decided to publish it anyway for the clicks.

[nradov]

Whose definition are you referring to? The official BLS unemployment statistics only include people who are actively looking for work, so they wouldn't count your wife as unemployed.

[qw3rty01]

The article's definition

[acruns]

qw3rty01 is correct, the articles definition.

[rexreed]

Exactly. What is currently touted as an Unemployment number should be renamed: "% of those who are seeking full-time employment but not currently full-time employed". Perhaps "Unfulfilled Job Seekers" might be a better term than "Unemployed".

The other measure should be "% of working age Households where household income is not at or above average living wage adjusted by region". Then that is a measure of income and poverty and not a measure of "who has a full time job"

[guerby]

When I looked at this a while ago I selected the male 25-54 years old population to remove situations like the one of your wife, schooling, and retirement.

Graphs are a bit old:

http://guerby.org/blog/index.php/2010/01/31/211-larry-summer...

[sudosysgen]

What? No, not at all. According to the definition of the article you aren't included because you aren't looking for a job.