nah. I think even those people ought to be considered unemployed. to borrow Jordan's formulation about who counts as a liberal. Jordan had written this:
"what should be done with those who either can not or will not be what some people call "productive members of society" ... if the answer involves compassion, then you're a Liberal."
If your answer is to render a negative moral judgment on someone who refuses to be a productive members of society, then you're.... not using a marxist analysis.
to assume that they could otherwise be productive and that their decision to refuse shitty work is somehow a individual failing, an error in thinking, is to assume that all these people who make these errors are people who could otherwise be employed.
but we know, as marxists, there's no such thing as full employment.
that's why, ahem, some marxists (and others) have *clears throat* actually looked at the prison population to ask: what would the rate of unemployment be if these people weren't in jail? does it matter if they are in for 6 months or 10 years? No. If you're a Marxist, you aren't assuming that there'd be enough jobs to employ these folks anyway.
Similarly, I reviewed a book here recently. The author said that the drugs people take for mental illness were causing higher rates of disability than older treatments did. He worried that we had all these people who weren't productive members of society b/c of the drugs. What to do what to do! I complained, as did Jordan, that the guy was silly to think that there'd even be enough jobs for these folks to move into the labor market anyway.
so, then we have to look at how the system divides workers, pitting them against one another, with normative judgments as to who counts as legitimately unemployed and who doesn't.
people who are mentally ill, too depressed to work, in jail, alcoholics, addicts, slackers, stay at home parents, etc. are taking on roles that a capitalist society offers as alternatives to employment. some are deemed acceptable, others not.
shag