https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X is the harmonized unemployment rate for Germany and the USA, which they define as:

"Harmonised unemployment rates define the unemployed as people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally comparable than estimates based on national definitions of unemployment. This indicator is measured in numbers of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force and it is seasonally adjusted. The labour force is defined as the total number of unemployed people plus those in civilian employment." (https://data.oecd.org/unemp/harmonised-unemployment-rate-hur...)

I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports (https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemploymen...).

Besides, harmonized or not, doesn't explain the economic weakness in Germany over the past decade compared to the US.

What's the point of the economic strength of the US, if the results of that strength disproportionately go to the so-called elites and building war machines? Healthcare, homelessness, massive inequality are perennial awkward topics for an allegedly rich country like the US.

If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit.

I was speaking to relative economic strength, It's not that I think the US employment rate means much either: without government debt financing deficits, US gdp would be in contraction (like nearly other OECD economy).

>If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit.

All of this sounds like more debt, which if we learned (we haven't) anything from 2008, will not solve the problems, just exacerbate it more when it blows up (again).

Funny as I remember it 2008 was all about bailing out the banks, that is giving money to the rich, not rebuilding social structures. It seems increasing debt is always fine if it goes to the elites (via tax breaks or bailouts), while it's the bogeyman idf it actually going to help people that need it. You know that the US during the golden age of the 50s and 60s had a marginal tax rate of 90%?

I also recall 2008 about programs like cash for clunkers, nationalization of fannie mae and freddie mac (and the eventual roll out of their 3% down mortgages with no income restrictions). You know that during the US during the 50s and 60's the labor force primarily benefited one subclass of people where the rest were marginalized?

> I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports

... which is meaningless when you compare it to the official US statistics (as you did) because they count things differently. The harmonization helps make the numbers comparable in the first place.

Fair, still doesn't change the rather meaninglessness of the numbers in the first place.