I'm not sure if this is factored into your unemployment numbers, but in the USA its very common for all adults to need to work in order to make ends meet.
Whereas in a stronger economy with employment laws protecting employees it'd be much more possible for a family to live comfortably off a single income, making for a lot more "unemployed" adults.
>> live comfortably off a single income, making for a lot more "unemployed" adults.
Unemployment stats explicitly only count those looking for work, so this actually misrepresents the other way; it doesn't include those people who have given up but given a choice would be working.
I don't think it's that clear cut. Another interpretation is that someone could afford to be "looking for work" for longer while supported by their partner's income. People would be able to afford to shop around for a better job, which would leave more people in the "looking for work" pool for when a good opportunity comes around. They would be less desperate to accept the first offer they get.
We shouldn't rush to judgement of what this policy represents or misrepresents based on just-so stories informed by a different society.
I think the point the GP was trying to make was that when you see official unemployment numbers from the US government, those numbers are derived from the number of people actively seeking unemployment benefits (which includes job training, job placement, and payments). Those numbers don't include anyone who doesn't officially apply for benefits, which would naturally exclude all sorts of people who are not employed.
Because Germany has "make-work" policies; if you want a job, you can get one repaving roads, cleaning up trash, or otherwise maintaining public infrastructure. My American uncle sneered at this "work for the boys" attitude, but as a lifelong US resident, I can't help but envy that solution.
