The point of my extreme example was simply to show that unemployment and job growth—while inversely correlated in practice—are not definitionally tied to one another. If we want to discuss unemployment, let's discuss unemployment—not job growth figures.
But perhaps we should get back to the actual issue—whether "more employment" is to be preferred to "less employment." For the reasons I've given, the answer to that question is no. Let's look at the actual problem, rather than at data that is loosely related to it. I'm not denying that there is human suffering—I'm simply suggesting that we look at actual measures of it.
Missing the forest for the trees comes to mind. While you use "lofty logic" to quibble about semantics, your point is completely moot.
Do you have proof that the need for employment is shrinking?
If the unemployment rate does not improve to where it was prior to the recession, then it is a jobless recovery. Jobless recovery is not defined by the absolute number of jobs created or not created.. it is defined by a general increase in unemployment among those who wish or, most likely, need to be employed, in order to make ends meet.
Opebo and I took your semantic quibbling to mean that you believed that fewer jobs isn't a bad thing because you believe people don't really need jobs.
If you believe that, then I'd have a hard time listening to anything you have to say, "logical" or not.
