There are some people that have just given up on finding a job; they're able and willing to work, but because of reasons they can't find a job. Those might be on the dole, but they might also be able to survive off of a single income.

These stats should have a category "wants to work but can't find any, and is not entitled to benefits". Or "Able to work but doesn't need to because rich".

In my country if you are on a dole and the bureau of employment finds a job for you (usually not very nice job) - you have to take it or have a good reason why you can't (health for example). If you don't - you're left on your own.

Also, unemployment benefits end after 6 months no matter what.

> Also, unemployment benefits end after 6 months no matter what.

What happens after six months if you don't have family willing to support you? You're on the streets?

There are other social benefits unrelated to employement (for example for kids from poor families, etc), but in principle - yes.

Now it's not so bad, you can find a job if you really want (it might be bad, but it's there). In 90s we had 20% unemployment and almost no social benefits. It was rough.

It's almost never the case. The way welfare works is kind of...buggy.

You accept a job, do it for a couple of days, and that's it.

Quite literally, yes.

Which sounds fair, you can still apply for jobs in your sector while you're on the other job. But doing something is usually better than doing nothing, even if it's unqualified work and doesn't pay well.

Underemployment reports in the US include those people. They usually also include people working part-time "for economical reasons". But that's considered underemployment, not unemployment.