Do you mean the U-3 number? The U-6 number is over 22% today (and approaches 23% with the latest data).
Yes - there are millions of "slackers" out there.
But - we can't play apples and oranges vis this Depression and the Great Depression if we want an honest comparison of unemployment.
It's like this: your average goof out there see's unemployment below 10% (well, just barely now....and these numbers are even juiced by the Labor Feds). Then, your average good watches Katie Couric report the numbers, but then reminds everyone that during the Great Depression, the numbers were 25% unemployed (some even say it was 28% in 1937 during the further Depression downturn that resulted from FDRs disastrous socialism policies). So, average goof listens to Katie, and says "Hmmm....well, we're not even half as bad off as the country was in the 1930's. Right?"
Wrong. We might even be worse off:
- Our debt is much, much worse
- Our manufacturing and industrial base is but a fraction of what it was in the 1930's
- Our entitlement class is growing by the day, yet their percentage of the tax burden has shrunk significantly in 15 years, leaving them prone to demand even further "benefits" at no cost to their class group
- Regulation is 100 times worse than it was in the 1930's, and this is a huge turn off to starting new business to get the nation out of this terrible situation
I see your point, however, we have to acknowledge (in some fashion) that we "AIN'T at" 9.8% real unemployment. It is much, much worse.
“Do you mean the U-3 number? The U-6 number is over 22% today (and approaches 23% with the latest data).”
I suppose it’s a nit, but I think you are wrong. The graph you posted shows U-6 at around 17%. It is the “SGS Alternate” number that is around 22%. Again, I suggest sticking with U-6, which is much more that U-3 but significantly less than SGS Alternate.