I agree that there is no "true" measure, just different measures.
That said, the standard unemployment measure the author is objecting to is just as (more really) disingenuous in practice. It also stacks confusion. "Unemployment" used as a primary barometer for the labour economy.
People (including journalists, politicians... high stakes stuff) assume that unemployment captures most unemployment. They don't consider that most unemployed 58 year olds are not counted because they "retired," stopped seeking work or receive a disability benefit. When/if these become substantial, the measure means very little.
Every time a journalist note record high/low unemployment of X%, it's probably just as deceptive or (more likely) misleading. The measure itself means something different in 2020 than it did in 1980, or in a different country/region.
At least the "true" appendage makes clear that there are differing and divergent ways to measure unemployment, and that these cn result in huge differences.
That said, the standard unemployment measure the author is objecting to is just as (more really) disingenuous in practice. It also stacks confusion. "Unemployment" used as a primary barometer for the labour economy.
People (including journalists, politicians... high stakes stuff) assume that unemployment captures most unemployment. They don't consider that most unemployed 58 year olds are not counted because they "retired," stopped seeking work or receive a disability benefit. When/if these become substantial, the measure means very little.
Every time a journalist note record high/low unemployment of X%, it's probably just as deceptive or (more likely) misleading. The measure itself means something different in 2020 than it did in 1980, or in a different country/region.
At least the "true" appendage makes clear that there are differing and divergent ways to measure unemployment, and that these cn result in huge differences.