> Oh no, it's retarded, like the socialist that thinks unemployment is low because everyone's working multiple jobs.  The meaningfulness of unemployment rate wholly depends on the definitions used for "employed" and "not employed". I personally would exclude such working poor as walmart employees, because ultimately they are still living at the taxpayers' expense, at least partially. It's great for walmart, because they spend a lot less on wages, but very bad for the country because it's mooching off resources better spent on something else, not to speak of the fact that such workers cannot properly participate in the economy as consumers.