What is the REAL REAL U.S. unemployment rate

[overland]

That is a difficult question to answer. Those who give up looking for work are dropped from any statistics. There are websites out there that there are 90 to 100 million unemployed Americans. Who knows how factual that is. But from looking around at various websites, there are around 27 million unemployed working age adults. So what percentage would that make it. And on top of that, there are around 22 million underemployed Americans. Though that wouldn't be from an illegal aliens point of view. Because compared to mexico or wherever they came from, they would probably consider themselves to be overemployed. I guess for the REAL Americans, they are supposed to rethink what "underemployed" means.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You won't be able to tell, because you will never get the honest data from Gov. necessary to calculate the real percentage.

 

[overland]

You won't be able to tell, because you will never get the honest data from Gov. necessary to calculate the real percentage.

That could be true.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Those who give up looking for work are dropped from any statistics.

Well, that makes sense. It really doesn't matter that a person who doesn't want to work also doesn't have a job because those are not individuals for whom an economy must provide a paying job. The government's unemployment measures, for obvious reasons, do not aim to quantify volunteerism.

The most convincing evidence of one's desire to work (no matter why one wants to work) is either working or looking for employment. Thus, if one is willing to perform paid work and desirous a paying job, one either:

1. Goes to work.
2. Seeks work so they can then go to work.

Now, you, I and every other Tom, Dick and Harry can prattle about why a person wants to work or doesn't want to work, but that's different matter and a different metric. That metric is referred to as "discouraged workers." I'm not aware of whether or how that population is stratified, but I know the BLS tracks them. There were ~425K discouraged workers last December.

The news had an illustration of the above concepts just this week. J. Kushner will, upon becoming his father-in-law's advisor, become unemployed yet he will be volunteering to work. He will at that moment appear neither in tallies of employed people nor in tallies of unemployed people because he is not seeking paid employment. Kushner also is not counted as a discouraged worker.

unemployed working age adults

As far as I know, the BLS does not apply an age constraint to the term "unemployed." It does certainly collect age data and use it as a stratification dimension in the reporting of the quantity of unemployed indviduals.

they would probably consider themselves to be overemployed.

What people consider themselves -- employed, unemployed, overemployed, or underemployed, etc. -- is irrelevant. Methodologically, if one is going to measure, in this case count or estimate by sampling, something, one must define objective terms and then determine how many instances of the defined terms exist. In measuring employment/unemployment, the BLS do not ask people, "Are you underemployed, discouraged, employed?" The questions the BLS asks are here.

Using the information obtained from such surveys, the BLS determine which respondents meet the criteria of being employed, unemployed, underemployed, etc.

 

[pinqy]

That is a difficult question to answer. Those who give up looking for work are dropped from any statistics.

No they aren't. Those not trying to work, are not classified as unemployed, but they are still accounted for. There are approximately 95 million people age 16 and older who are not in prison or another institution (nursing home, mental institute etc) who were neither working nor looking for wok in December. Next week, the Census Bureau will send out its people for the next survey and count again.

There are websites out there that there are 90 to 100 million unemployed Americans. Who knows how factual that is.

Well, what definition of unemployed are they using and how did they reach their numbers?

But from looking around at various websites, there are around 27 million unemployed working age adults.

What is your definition of unemployed and working age and employed?

And on top of that, there are around 22 million underemployed Americans. Though that wouldn't be from an illegal aliens point of view.

Which brings up 2 points....what is "underemployed" and how do you objectively measure it? And what does that have to do with the Unemployment rate? Underemployed is still employ.

For the official numbers, the population is the adult civilian noninstitutional population (16 and older who are not in prison or another institution)....The labor force survey reference week is actually this week, so if, this week, you own a business or farm, or if you worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm or if you have a job but didn't work this week due to vacation, bad weather, illness, injury, or a strike, then you are emloyed.
If you did not work this week, but did something, anything to try and get a job since Thanksgiving (or were just temporarily laid off), and you could have started a job this week if you had been offered one, then you are Unemployed.
Employed plus unemployed is the Labor Force...people participating in the Labor Market...people who could be working.
The percent of the labor force that is unemployed is the unemployment rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics had it at between 4.2 and 4.7 percent. Gallup, using the same definitions but age 18 and up and a much smaller sample, has it at between 4.7 and 6.1 percent for January. These are the not seasonally adjusted numbers and we expect unemployment to go up in January because it almost always does. The official numbers will be adjusted down to account for that, just as they were adjusted up in October when unemployment always goes down.

 

[pinqy]

You won't be able to tell, because you will never get the honest data from Gov. necessary to calculate the real percentage.

Why not? The Census and BLS are not run by politicians, and no one in the administration knows what any of the numbers are until it's too late to change anything. So how do you think the data could be manipulated, and why do all private entities come up with roughly the same results?

 

[pinqy]

In measuring employment/unemployment, the BLS do not ask people, "Are you underemployed, discouraged, employed?" They ask things like but not limited to:

• Do you have a paying job?
  • Yes --> Are you satisfied with the wage you earn from it?
    • No --> Why are you dissatisfied with your wages?
      • What do you do?
      • How much do you earn from that job?
    • No or Yes --> Do you have a second paying job?
      • Why do you have a second paying job?
      • How much does it pay?
  • No --> Are you looking for a paying job?
    • No --> Do you want to work?
      • No --> Why aren't you looking for a job?
    • Yes --> For how long have you sought paid employment?
      • Are you registered for/receiving unemployment benefits?

You were doing so well up to that point. Your questions are nothing like the actual ones. There are no questions about job satisfaction, questions on earnings are only asked in March and are asked last. People aren't asked directly if they're looking for work, and no questions are asked about unemployment benefits at all.

The actual questions from The Labor Force Questionnaire:
(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) do ANY work for (pay/either pay or profit)?
What are all the things (you/he/she) (have/has) done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
(Do / Does) (name/you) currently want a job, either full or part time?

Using the information obtained from such surveys, the BLS determine which respondents meet the criteria of being employed, unemployed, underemployed, etc. Thus responders who, for example, have a job and who have overestimated the worth of their job will not be counted as dissatisfied. In that way, a part time teacher who thinks he should earn $220K/year for teaching part time will not count as underemployed.

There is no "underemployed" category and there is certainly no subjective judgement on "dissatisfaction"

The closest BLS gets to underemployed is asking those who worked less than 35 if they wanted to and were available to work 35 or more hours. If the reason for working less than 35 was cut hours due to slow business or other business reasons, or couldn't find full time work, then the person is "part time for economic reasons."

 

[usmbguest5318]

In measuring employment/unemployment, the BLS do not ask people, "Are you underemployed, discouraged, employed?" They ask things like but not limited to:

• Do you have a paying job?
  • Yes --> Are you satisfied with the wage you earn from it?
    • No --> Why are you dissatisfied with your wages?
      • What do you do?
      • How much do you earn from that job?
    • No or Yes --> Do you have a second paying job?
      • Why do you have a second paying job?
      • How much does it pay?
  • No --> Are you looking for a paying job?
    • No --> Do you want to work?
      • No --> Why aren't you looking for a job?
    • Yes --> For how long have you sought paid employment?
      • Are you registered for/receiving unemployment benefits?

You were doing so well up to that point. Your questions are nothing like the actual ones. There are no questions about job satisfaction, questions on earnings are only asked in March and are asked last. People aren't asked directly if they're looking for work, and no questions are asked about unemployment benefits at all.

The actual questions from The Labor Force Questionnaire:
(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) do ANY work for (pay/either pay or profit)?
What are all the things (you/he/she) (have/has) done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
(Do / Does) (name/you) currently want a job, either full or part time?

TY. I didn't know the actual questions were available. I didn't look to see if they are. TY for letting me know. I have revised my post to point interested individuals to the BLS questionnaire.

 

[Hossfly]

What is the Real Unemployment Rate?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What is your definition of unemployed and working age and employed?

I suspect that term has an inherent and unavoidable degree of ambiguity, perhaps vagueness too, that just isn't tolerable when reporting information that must and will be used by millions and for myriad purposes.

I think the BLS uses the language "marginally attached" to denote the broad category employment and employment search statuses relating to various forms of underutilization that don't meet the definition of "unemployed." There is reporting on marginally attached workers.

 

[pinqy]

What is the Real Unemployment Rate?

Ok, so even though neither part time for economic reasons nor marginally attached were ever part of anybody's unemployment rate, Mr. Williams of Shadowstats uses the U-6 as his base and claims he adds on only those people who want a job, are available to start a job, and have not looked for work in the last 12 months because they believe they would not find work to lack of jobs, lack of education, the wrong skills or discrimination (discouraged reasons) . He claims adding them in would raise the U-6 to 22.7%

Math time: The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached plus Part time for economic reasons)/(Labor Force + marginally attached) = (7,529,000 + 1,684,000 + 5,598,000)/(159,640,000 + 1,6894,000) = 14,811,000/161,324,000 = .092=9.2%

So to figure out how many to add to get Shadowstats' 22.7%.....(14,811,000 + X)/(161,324,000 + X) = .227
14,811,000 + X = .227*(1,61,324,000 + X)
14,811,000 + X = 36,621,000 + .227X
.773X = 21,810,000
X = 28,214,000

And yet.....BLS, whose numbers he is accepting as accurate, only has 3,206,000 people who want a job but have not looked for work in the last 12 months. Even assuming every single one of them is able to work and could start and stopped looking for discouraged reasons, we're still 25 million short.

 

[overland]

Those who give up looking for work are dropped from any statistics.

Well, that makes sense. It really doesn't matter that a person who doesn't want to work also doesn't have a job because those are not individuals for whom an economy must provide a paying job. The government's unemployment measures, for obvious reasons, do not aim to quantify volunteerism.

The most convincing evidence of one's desire to work (no matter why one wants to work) is either working or looking for employment. Thus, if one is willing to perform paid work and desirous a paying job, one either:

1. Goes to work.
2. Seeks work so they can then go to work.

Now, you, I and every other Tom, Dick and Harry can prattle about why a person wants to work or doesn't want to work, but that's different matter and a different metric. That metric is referred to as "discouraged workers." I'm not aware of whether or how that population is stratified, but I know the BLS tracks them. There were ~425K discouraged workers last December.

The news had an illustration of the above concepts just this week. J. Kushner will, upon becoming his father-in-law's advisor, become unemployed yet he will be volunteering to work. He will at that moment appear neither in tallies of employed people nor in tallies of unemployed people because he is not seeking paid employment. Kushner also is not counted as a discouraged worker.

unemployed working age adults

As far as I know, the BLS does not apply an age constraint to the term "unemployed." It does certainly collect age data and use it as a stratification dimension in the reporting of the quantity of unemployed indviduals.

they would probably consider themselves to be overemployed.

What people consider themselves -- employed, unemployed, overemployed, or underemployed, etc. -- is irrelevant. Methodologically, if one is going to measure, in this case count or estimate by sampling, something, one must define objective terms and then determine how many instances of the defined terms exist. In measuring employment/unemployment, the BLS do not ask people, "Are you underemployed, discouraged, employed?" The questions the BLS asks are here.

Using the information obtained from such surveys, the BLS determine which respondents meet the criteria of being employed, unemployed, underemployed, etc.

Reading what you wrote, I needed to wipe my screen down with toilet paper. Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers. Also, did you know that some people are just too poor to work! I'll bet you never thought of that one. Looking for work and going to work often REQUIRES owning a car. If you can't afford a car, then what. (And any "Mc Job" you find won't give you the ability to buy one) I can tell you what. Jumping through hoops that you and people like you can shove up their ass.

Also, how in the hell would any government agency know if you became discouraged. Face it. The government's job is in supplying BS. You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

 

[overland]

That is a difficult question to answer. Those who give up looking for work are dropped from any statistics.

No they aren't. Those not trying to work, are not classified as unemployed, but they are still accounted for. There are approximately 95 million people age 16 and older who are not in prison or another institution (nursing home, mental institute etc) who were neither working nor looking for wok in December. Next week, the Census Bureau will send out its people for the next survey and count again.

There are websites out there that there are 90 to 100 million unemployed Americans. Who knows how factual that is.

Well, what definition of unemployed are they using and how did they reach their numbers?

But from looking around at various websites, there are around 27 million unemployed working age adults.

What is your definition of unemployed and working age and employed?

And on top of that, there are around 22 million underemployed Americans. Though that wouldn't be from an illegal aliens point of view.

Which brings up 2 points....what is "underemployed" and how do you objectively measure it? And what does that have to do with the Unemployment rate? Underemployed is still employ.

For the official numbers, the population is the adult civilian noninstitutional population (16 and older who are not in prison or another institution)....The labor force survey reference week is actually this week, so if, this week, you own a business or farm, or if you worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm or if you have a job but didn't work this week due to vacation, bad weather, illness, injury, or a strike, then you are emloyed.
If you did not work this week, but did something, anything to try and get a job since Thanksgiving (or were just temporarily laid off), and you could have started a job this week if you had been offered one, then you are Unemployed.
Employed plus unemployed is the Labor Force...people participating in the Labor Market...people who could be working.
The percent of the labor force that is unemployed is the unemployment rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics had it at between 4.2 and 4.7 percent. Gallup, using the same definitions but age 18 and up and a much smaller sample, has it at between 4.7 and 6.1 percent for January. These are the not seasonally adjusted numbers and we expect unemployment to go up in January because it almost always does. The official numbers will be adjusted down to account for that, just as they were adjusted up in October when unemployment always goes down.

In employment statistics, they aren't accounted for. Next, to me a working age adult would be from 18 to retirement age. Which I think is 65. My whole point with underemployment is that even if you are employed, that isn't the end of the story. And if you can't get by on what you make, you are underemployed. I have even heard of airline pilots who were on food stamps.\

As for the governments BS employment statistics, there is only one way to get at the truth. If you are willing to go there. End food stamps and force the poor back out in the open by standing in line at soup kitchens or bread lines. Then you will be able to SEE what is really going on.

 

[DrainBamage]

You won't be able to tell, because you will never get the honest data from Gov. necessary to calculate the real percentage.

Bullshit. You get the data, it is just people who disagree with the methodology that claim it isn't honest.

BLS is quite transparent in how various measures of slack in the labor market are calculated, people who scream it is fake are usually just preferring an alternate measure instead of the U-3 that most economists and media focus on as unemployment rate.

 

[DrainBamage]

Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

Okay, what are these numbers that you have insider info to? I choose not to work, why would you count me as unemployed since I'm certainly not what BLS is trying to measure.

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers.

Sounds like a case of displacement. You stopped looking for work, so that must be the case with everyone else.

You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

The job gains you here about are net, so you already get this.

 

[pinqy]

Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

Why not include housewives? But as for the others....14 million full time students ages 16-24 are neither working nor trying to work. I don't think most of them are desperate for jobs. 24 million disabled not working or trying to work. And even not counting those also disabled, there are 26 million people age 65 and older not working or trying to work.

That's 64 million people right there....2/3s of those Not in the Labor Force, but you're claiming the real reason most of them aren't trying to work is because there are no jobs? Even though most of them say they don't want a job?

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers.

So the 90 million who say they don't want a job (or are too disabled to work) are lying?

Also, did you know that some people are just too poor to work! I'll bet you never thought of that one. Looking for work and going to work often REQUIRES owning a car. If you can't afford a car, then what. (And any "Mc Job" you find won't give you the ability to buy one) I can tell you what. Jumping through hoops that you and people like you can shove up their ass.

Yes, I am well aware of that. In December there were 1,684,000 people who had looked for work in the last year but not since Thanksgiving, who wanted a job and could have accepted if offered. 426,000 weren't looking because they believed there were no jobs, or that they lacked the education or skills for what jobs there were, or that they would face discrimination. 235,000 had family responsibilities that made them quit their job search. 247,000 stopped looking because they went back to school or enrolled in training. 148,000 stopped looking because they became sick or got hurt. And 627,000 stopped looking because they had no child care, or transportation, or a few other uncategorized.

Also, how in the hell would any government agency know if you became discouraged.

They ask. It's this nifty science called "statistics" where you don't actually have to ask every person in a population, but you can ask a sample and reach an approximation of the real number. For example, I said there were 426,000 discouraged....that's +/- 60,000 at 90% confidence.

Face it. The government's job is in supplying BS. You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

Well, the number that "found work" is actually the net change..hires - losses.
But if you want those numbers, that's easy...for non-farm payroll jobs, 4,850,000 people were hired during November. 2,553,000 people quit. 1,563,000 were laid off or fired. And 279,000 retired, died, or left the country. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

If you want to include agriculture and look at unemployment and not in the Labor Force as well, go to Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

[pinqy]

Which brings up 2 points....what is "underemployed" and how do you objectively measure it? And what does that have to do with the Unemployment rate? Underemployed is still employ.

For the official numbers, the population is the adult civilian noninstitutional population (16 and older who are not in prison or another institution)....The labor force survey reference week is actually this week, so if, this week, you own a business or farm, or if you worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm or if you have a job but didn't work this week due to vacation, bad weather, illness, injury, or a strike, then you are emloyed.
If you did not work this week, but did something, anything to try and get a job since Thanksgiving (or were just temporarily laid off), and you could have started a job this week if you had been offered one, then you are Unemployed.
Employed plus unemployed is the Labor Force...people participating in the Labor Market...people who could be working.
The percent of the labor force that is unemployed is the unemployment rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics had it at between 4.2 and 4.7 percent. Gallup, using the same definitions but age 18 and up and a much smaller sample, has it at between 4.7 and 6.1 percent for January. These are the not seasonally adjusted numbers and we expect unemployment to go up in January because it almost always does. The official numbers will be adjusted down to account for that, just as they were adjusted up in October when unemployment always goes down.

In employment statistics, they aren't accounted for.

Who is "they" and why do you think "they" aren't accounted for?

Next, to me a working age adult would be from 18 to retirement age. Which I think is 65.

Since the U.S. has no mandatory retirement, we have no reason to put an upper age limit. As of December, there were around 8.8 million people age 65 and older who were working. You don't want to count them as employed?

 

[overland]

Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

Okay, what are these numbers that you have insider info to? I choose not to work, why would you count me as unemployed since I'm certainly not what BLS is trying to measure.

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers.

Sounds like a case of displacement. You stopped looking for work, so that must be the case with everyone else.

You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

The job gains you here about are net, so you already get this.

As far as I have been able to figure, there are about 27 million unemployed Americans in the U.S. There are around 23 million who are underemployed. Which to the underemployed is UNEMPLOYED, with duties. If you don't like the figures I came up with. look them up for yourself. Just be prepared for some bullshit. Because I wouldn't believe the government if they told me the sky was blue.

Next, sounds like a case of bullshit. I stopped looking for work for two reasons. 1, there were no jobs. 2, I was too POOR to work! Next, more BS! Net gains my ass. Not everybody who looks for work does so through the employment office. Where they "might" list those who are looking for work. And if any employer is required to contact the government every time somebody comes in to apply for a job, I've never heard about it. Neither have I or anybody I've heard of been required to contact the government and say "I stopped looking for work."

Another thing about the "net gains" thing is that it paints an unrealistic picture. (Big surprise!) By showing only one side of the story. It would also be helpful to tell how many jobs were lost. It would help people confront the uncertainty of employment. Where the average worker most often has one foot in the unemployment line and the other on a banana peal.

 

[overland]

Unless somebody has money already, the numbers of people who choose not to work are so vanishingly small that they aren't even worth mentioning. That of course doesn't include housewives.

Why not include housewives? But as for the others....14 million full time students ages 16-24 are neither working nor trying to work. I don't think most of them are desperate for jobs. 24 million disabled not working or trying to work. And even not counting those also disabled, there are 26 million people age 65 and older not working or trying to work.

That's 64 million people right there....2/3s of those Not in the Labor Force, but you're claiming the real reason most of them aren't trying to work is because there are no jobs? Even though most of them say they don't want a job?

People choose not to work for one main reason. There are no jobs! I KNOW because I've been there. I was one of the discouraged workers.

So the 90 million who say they don't want a job (or are too disabled to work) are lying?

Also, did you know that some people are just too poor to work! I'll bet you never thought of that one. Looking for work and going to work often REQUIRES owning a car. If you can't afford a car, then what. (And any "Mc Job" you find won't give you the ability to buy one) I can tell you what. Jumping through hoops that you and people like you can shove up their ass.

Yes, I am well aware of that. In December there were 1,684,000 people who had looked for work in the last year but not since Thanksgiving, who wanted a job and could have accepted if offered. 426,000 weren't looking because they believed there were no jobs, or that they lacked the education or skills for what jobs there were, or that they would face discrimination. 235,000 had family responsibilities that made them quit their job search. 247,000 stopped looking because they went back to school or enrolled in training. 148,000 stopped looking because they became sick or got hurt. And 627,000 stopped looking because they had no child care, or transportation, or a few other uncategorized.

Also, how in the hell would any government agency know if you became discouraged.

They ask. It's this nifty science called "statistics" where you don't actually have to ask every person in a population, but you can ask a sample and reach an approximation of the real number. For example, I said there were 426,000 discouraged....that's +/- 60,000 at 90% confidence.

Face it. The government's job is in supplying BS. You know what would be interesting is that if along with saying how many people found work as they sometimes do on the news, they also mention how many people lost jobs during the same time period.

Well, the number that "found work" is actually the net change..hires - losses.
But if you want those numbers, that's easy...for non-farm payroll jobs, 4,850,000 people were hired during November. 2,553,000 people quit. 1,563,000 were laid off or fired. And 279,000 retired, died, or left the country. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

If you want to include agriculture and look at unemployment and not in the Labor Force as well, go to Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Why not include housewives? Because they SHOULDN'T be in the labor force. But unfortunately, many of them have to work these days.
Next, it doesn't really matter how many students there are. What matters is the number of them that find employment when they are no longer students. Next, a reason a lot of those disabled people are disabled is because of going through the meat grinder of trying to find work unsuccessfully. Next, there are many people of retirement age that do work.

Next, no. If there was work to be had that wasn't just exploitation, most of those 90 million probably would be working. For example, I was trained in things like pipe fitting, sheet metal fabrication and welding. One time I found a job opening for somebody with those skills. And they were willing to pay minimum wage! The way I looked at it was that they could stick that job up their ass. Lastly, nobody ever asked me if I was discouraged.

 

[overland]

Which brings up 2 points....what is "underemployed" and how do you objectively measure it? And what does that have to do with the Unemployment rate? Underemployed is still employ.

For the official numbers, the population is the adult civilian noninstitutional population (16 and older who are not in prison or another institution)....The labor force survey reference week is actually this week, so if, this week, you own a business or farm, or if you worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm or if you have a job but didn't work this week due to vacation, bad weather, illness, injury, or a strike, then you are emloyed.
If you did not work this week, but did something, anything to try and get a job since Thanksgiving (or were just temporarily laid off), and you could have started a job this week if you had been offered one, then you are Unemployed.
Employed plus unemployed is the Labor Force...people participating in the Labor Market...people who could be working.
The percent of the labor force that is unemployed is the unemployment rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics had it at between 4.2 and 4.7 percent. Gallup, using the same definitions but age 18 and up and a much smaller sample, has it at between 4.7 and 6.1 percent for January. These are the not seasonally adjusted numbers and we expect unemployment to go up in January because it almost always does. The official numbers will be adjusted down to account for that, just as they were adjusted up in October when unemployment always goes down.

In employment statistics, they aren't accounted for.

Who is "they" and why do you think "they" aren't accounted for?

Next, to me a working age adult would be from 18 to retirement age. Which I think is 65.

Since the U.S. has no mandatory retirement, we have no reason to put an upper age limit. As of December, there were around 8.8 million people age 65 and older who were working. You don't want to count them as employed?

You can take "they" to mean whatever you like. Next, there is an age in this country at which you can retire. Whether or not people are forced to means nothing. But I would consider those that still work to be employed. What's next. Are you going to bring up those who work for nothing through volunteerism. Are they employed or unemployed.