"Interestingly, we can see that pretty much all "professional occupations" have a low unemployement rate; only "arts and entertainment" being fairly high."
...
That's the wrong lesson. What the stats show is that each kind of occupation has a characteristic "full employment" unemployment rate, and that the current unemployment rates for STEM occupations are worse (not just in the last 6 years, but over the last several decades), compared with their full employment levels, than the aggregate of all occupations now compared with the aggregate "full employment" unemployment rates (over the last several decades), and actors are doing slightly better, even though their raw unemployment rate is considerably higher.
Unemployment rates, and the flip-side -- employment/population ratios -- have to be examined in context, not as absolute numbers, not even as rigid proportions of unemployed to a specific sub-set "labor force", but as proportions to the reasonable optimal level... and in light of the current legal and regulatory scheme as compared with those of other times.
What's most interesting about the last several recessions is the lack of full recovery. Durations of unemployment (average and median) have been growing longer. Employment/population ratios have been falling (well, for everyone except female-type people, and though their e/p ratios have increased over the last 60 years or so, some who "work at home" would prefer to be able to land a real job while others working outside their homes would prefer to be able for their families to afford for them to "work at home".
What makes "full employment" level or target difficult to discuss is that most people's visceral reaction is that everyone who wants to be should be employed all the time. But transition times from leaving one job and landing another are non-zero. Re-tooling, brokering an employment deal, etc., all take time, and in the interim you're unemployed, regardless of how bright, creative, knowledgeable, industrious... you are. So, there's an inherent "friction"... and then there are disasters, general economic disasters and personal disasters (e.g. injuries). So, no one expects the unemployment rate to reach zero... well except for judges and CEOs considering their own personal situations, perhaps... followed by dentists, veterinarians... The vast majority of STEM professionals are a ways down the list, and actors are in the sub-basement (they tend to cheer up when their unemployment rate is ONLY 20% or so).
Since the 1950s, for instance, the federal government has several times lowered their sights on what constitutes "full employment", i.e. increased the "full employment" unemployment rates. "The United States is, as a statutory matter, committed to full employment (defined as 3% unemployment for persons 20 and older, 4% for persons aged 16 and over)..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"In the Kennedy administration, 4% unemployment was set as an 'interim' unemployment target because they did not want to defend even this [too high] level of unemployment..." --- Lester C. Thurow 1980 _The Zero-Sum Society_ pg 73
see also: Stanley Lebergott "Annual Estimates of UnEmployment in the United States, 1900-1954" _The Measurement and Behavior of Unemployment_ pg 231