] The number of unemployed workers (currently 8.2 million)
] and the national unemployment rate of 5.6% in February
] 2004 do not adequately convey the true labor slack in the
] economy for several reasons. One major understatement is
] that the unemployment rate does not reflect the uniquely
] large 1.2% decline in labor force participation that has
] occurred since the current recession began in early 2001.
] This decline represents a stark contrast to the past
] three business cycles, when labor force participation
] actually grew by an average of 0.4% of the working-age
] population over similar lengths of time. Consequently,
] there is what can be called a "missing labor force" of
] 2,808,000 workers who might otherwise be in the actual
] labor force but have either dropped out entirely or
] failed to enter the labor market because of the lack of
] jobs. If the unemployment rate in February 2004 took into
] account this missing labor force, the unemployment rate
] would have been 7.4%, or 1.8% greater than the official
] rate of 5.6% (see chart below).

Here is someone publishing unemployment statistics which include the data about the contraction of the total labor force.

] The number of unemployed workers (currently 8.2 million)
] and the national unemployment rate of 5.6% in February
] 2004 do not adequately convey the true labor slack in the
] economy for several reasons. One major understatement is
] that the unemployment rate does not reflect the uniquely
] large 1.2% decline in labor force participation that has
] occurred since the current recession began in early 2001.
] This decline represents a stark contrast to the past
] three business cycles, when labor force participation
] actually grew by an average of 0.4% of the working-age
] population over similar lengths of time. Consequently,
] there is what can be called a "missing labor force" of
] 2,808,000 workers who might otherwise be in the actual
] labor force but have either dropped out entirely or
] failed to enter the labor market because of the lack of
] jobs. If the unemployment rate in February 2004 took into
] account this missing labor force, the unemployment rate
] would have been 7.4%, or 1.8% greater than the official
] rate of 5.6% (see chart below).

I, thankfully, have a very specialized, and high-demand skill set, that is *not* dependent on the technology sector. But I've got a lot of very underemployed friends, and know a lot of people languishing in shitty jobs because there's nowhere to jump ship to. Ugh. This recession and "jobless recovery" blows.