Let's take a step back. I didn't (intend to) take issue with any part of jessriedel's post. Clearly I misspoke in my reply and people were confused. My inten

Let's take a step back. I didn't (intend to) take issue with any part of jessriedel's post. Clearly I misspoke in my reply and people were confused. My intent was to concede his point: I was not providing evidence about what unemployment looks like. I provided nothing more than my own opinion. We all agree on that. And I'm truly not interested in trying to solve political problems on the internet, so I invited him to sate his own curiosity as to what unemployment looks like. You're either interested in the issue and thus need to do your own research or you're not. If I'd used Google to scare up a link or two, that should not be sufficient for any critical and skeptical thinker. Feel free to disagree with my characterization of unemployment all you like. I invite you to. But please note that you only disagree with me, because I didn't provide any more evidence than Greenspun did. And then hopefully you'll take a moment to wonder why you're complaining about my lack of evidence, but not Greenspun's.