Clifton does not argue that the measurement is not available. I think he is arguing that U3 is not the most useful figure for Americans to hear the most about,

Clifton does not argue that the measurement is not available. I think he is arguing that U3 is not the most useful figure for Americans to hear the most about, from supposedly trustworthy sources. > Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading. U3 is not referred to as the "headline rate", it's called "official unemployment". While it's unfortunate that most Americans would not inform their voting--or other decisions--by researching the alternate measurements of unemployment, it is indeed the reality. One would like to assume that when the president or a news organization cite an "official unemployment rate", they are offering us the best information about what might concern the average citizen. The number of people who have totally given up on finding a job is definitely one such piece of information. This, I think, is Clifton's main point. Anecdotally, I've been pleasantly surprised at the amount of coverage alternate measurements get in the media. I've seen several segments that highlight this. It seems to me that the meaning of the "official" definition is becoming more commonly known. I think Clifton would disagree with me here. Although, you might try explaining about U6 to a group of people who don't know about it. In several instances, I've been labeled a conspiracy theorist for doing so! Luckily, as you point out, the government does actually provide this information. I'm glad some are spreading the word!