...Does this analysis take unemployment into account?...
Given the way those numbers are formulated, what difference would that make? Our (USA) unemployment counting method broke a long time ago. We don't count long term unemployed. Not counting long term unemployed used to work within reason when that number was small. Now we have long term unemployment sky high.
Allow me an analogy: well, you have been sick for a year now, and you don't even go see a doctor since you ran out of money. A whole year without seeing a doctor, it shows you are no longer interested in participating in society as a health adult, so you are not counted as sick. Those who merely listen to lazy news would go "Geeze, look at how healthy we are! We sure have fewer and fewer sick people..."
Info are in many sources except main-line news (they are too lazy and just repeat stories from each other). Choosing at random: "Business Insider", only 47% of working age adult have full time jobs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/real-employment-rate-47-percent-2011-1Even BLS' (Bureau of Labor Statistics) number of "worker participation rate" is 30 year low. 88 million working age adults not working. (Sorry, not participating). That number is bigger than the whole population of many smaller EU countries. I think only France, Germany, Britain, and Poland has population that size. Given BLS' allergy to real bad news, that number has odd to be bigger.
The
downward pressure on wage is huge. If you still hold a position, you may not feel it yet but impact always spread as more businesses close. I have an EE buddy who has been out for 5+ year now. With India and China in the pipe line, we (USA) has to move up the value chain somehow or we are toasted. But, we first have to survive the next few years.