That's often called "occupational mismatch" and it smuggles in a normative claim that someone always deserves a job matching their prior title, education, or salary. Labor statistics do not and should not assume that.
Also in my experience part time contractor roles are awesome. <20hr/wk = low stress, most of my big purchases like computer hardware were deductible business expenses, and the coveredca subsidy let me get a very good health plan (courtesy of all the full time guys who bleed taxes and get zero subsidies in return)
The point is, I hope you agree that normal people may find a labor market where should them lose their jobs, there's a heightened chance they will find themselves in a situation of "occupational mimatch" a lit bit stressing and not really the ideal, optimal market under their point of view.
It may be that this perception would be particularly amplified when those persons have some doubt whether they would be able, in any single month, to be able to pay both their mortgage and food with their "occupationally mismatched" new income levels.
Despite the fact that you're probably right when you say the labor statistics should not assume that those people are unemployed, I think you can now appreaciate the fact that for some people, the current labor market is not particularly reassuring no matter what numbers the Department of Labor proclaim for this particular statistics.
Also in my experience part time contractor roles are awesome. <20hr/wk = low stress, most of my big purchases like computer hardware were deductible business expenses, and the coveredca subsidy let me get a very good health plan (courtesy of all the full time guys who bleed taxes and get zero subsidies in return)