Skip to main content

View Diary: Right-wing myths about merit, money and morality (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  from what I remember (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, Ian Reifowitz, JerryNA

    In the early 90s, it was 5-6%.  Then we went under that so we just decided it must be lower.  So from that perspective I am mildly skeptical of the new 3.5-4% figure.  

    It is also worth remembering how unemployment is measured.  One component of structural unemployment is people without [current] skills.  These people aren't counted in the unemployment rate generally if they've gone back for new retraining/education or given up looking.  Also, even if unemployment was 0% there would still be people without a job[or only a part-time job] that could be persuaded to take a full-time job.  In a way it would end up being asymptotic.  Once we get to 1-3%, label force participation would go up to meet labor demands so we'd never actually hit 0% as a practical matter[we are so far from 100% labor force participation that it isn't worth considering].

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site