> The numbers are equatable, even if they don't measure what you would prefer they measure. I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that the number as measured ex

> The numbers are equatable, even if they don't measure what you would prefer they measure. I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that the number as measured excludes many things that are relevant to the discussion. And, therefore, using that number as the basis of an argument is flawed. > But if you'd like to supply alternate unemployment data, I'm sure many readers would appreciate it. As it is, your post is hypothetical. Just because someone can point out a problem does not mean that they are capable of providing a solution. This is the equivalent of labeling a ticket as invalid because someone can't tell you what line of code to change. I pointed out a problem in an argument; it is not my duty to then fix the argument. > And anyway, unemployment has been measured the same way for decades. If the question is whether we stand on a societal precipice right now, then criticizing how unemployment is measured is not relevant. Of course it has shortcomings. But it has had the same shortcomings for a long time, so the shortcomings themselves are not proof that we stand on a precipice now. Again, I did not claim any of that. Specifically, I did not claim that we are on a precipice. I did claim that using the official unemployment calculation is not necessarily sufficient for claiming that we are not on a precipice. Which is what the person I responded to did claim.