I'm in the minority, admittedly, in that I think the number of work-eligible Americans who aren't working is more important than the actual unemployment rate, since, really, they are unemployed and, unless they're quite wealthy, getting government assistance in one way or another. So saying "only 4.8% of Americans are unemployed" is akin to saying "only 4.8% of Americans get unemployment benefits." But that skews the conversation away from the fact that the other ~35% of non-workers are still getting benefits without working. To me, that's the same thing in that it's still taxpayer funds. The only difference is how they're specifically allocated. Using that little number of 4.8% totally detracts from the ENTIRETY of the population living off of benefits.
I'm fine with that as a barometer for the economy (sort of), but that's not really the only way it's used. It's also used in the context of social safety nets - probably more so - and in that sense, it's just as misleading as the 94M number when talking about how the economy is doing.
There are probably a dozen better indicators of the economy's performance on a global scale, but the unemployment rate, in terms of dollars being spent on social programs, is better used in that arena.