Talk:Full employment

"Ideal" Unemployment
As stated in the footnote and the entry below, I have adhered to consensus macro economics in the recomposition although necessarily there are connections to Marxist thought. It deserves mention however, although it practically constitutes original or at least novel interdisciplinary research to do so, that wrt to the notion of the mathematically optimal level of employment it is equivalent to utopian scientific socialism. Nonetheless it is conceptually sound and probably occupies the rightful place of "Ideal" unemployment, i.e. for a given level of technical capability there is clearly an optimal scheduling of the available labor, for moral as well as pragmatic reasons. It is probably immediately intuitively obvious to most readers that this ideal allocation is nowhere near having been effected by markets and other existing mechanisms so that relative to this ideal they are a) grossly inefficient and b) wholly without means for adapting the one to the other or c) making circulation make sense at the global macroeconomic level generally at all. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add also, that from a common-sense point of view, and by definition, relative to the total available supply of human resources, the imagination is literally beggared to say that society cannot define/assign at least an equal demand. It will be more or less immediately evident to most that the possibilities of such demand are only practically limited by the quality of the supply and the mode in which the society produces goods and services in response to such demand. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 18 Harvest, 4706 公元 Wed 09:56:33 EDT


 * Above both me too FTR. Lycurgus (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Confusing Tag
Preserving all of the prior content, rewrote lede, structured and effected overall clarification and linkage with current wiki context. There don't appear to be relevant macroeconomic or econ term template(s) or would have added one. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled Thread 2
That about Australia - you should be aware that commitments were actually made to a number of things at the same time, and only one was full employment. There didn't appear to be any conflict among the objectives at the time, but since then things like protecting the currency have worked out as higher priorities in practice. PML. 10:14, Jul 29, 2003 203.202.5.75


 * The White Paper, Full Employment in Australia, was tabled in the House of Representatives in 1945 by itself, not so much as economic policy but as social policy. It wasn't totally altruistic however - Prime Minister John Curtin, Treasurer & Post-War Reconstruction Minister Chifley and Manpower Minister Dedman were also trying to pacify the trade union movement which was fearful of a tidal wave of returned servicemen "taking our jobs" and driving down wages (as happened after 1918). Nonetheless, it was a very successful full employment policy that lasted three decades, and is worthy of mention in this article. The international OPEC crisis and recurrent inflationary episodes in the 1970s re-focussed governments on "Fighting Inflation First", as Malcolm Fraser put it. An excellent rundown on the history of unemployment in Australia can be found in Work For All by John Langmore MP, published around 1993. --Humehwy 20:37, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

the current version of this article says that "The 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment." Are you sure that Keynes did so? wasn't it William Beveridge? Jim 17:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Untitled Thread 3
The mid part of this article reads like "Blah Blah Blah" to me. Wouldn't a definition of full employment be something like "Anyone who wants a job, has a job"? I know in places like Alberta, Canada, the number of job vacantcies exceeds the number of avaliable workers, while there are still people on welfare and homeless without jobs. I've read that 3% unemployment = my definition of "Anyone who wants a job, has a job." 206.116.184.155 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By not taking vacancies into account, the analysis that the mentioned economists provided is very poor. The natural rate of unemployment is rather when unemployment and vacancies are in balance, i.e. neither employers nor workers have the power to change conditions in their favour because of one-sided rationing. In a simplified model: if U=V then wage inflation is zero. How high the percentage of unemployment is in that situation depends on how well the market clears. This is not fixed, but can be influenced by labour market policies. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

bourgeois economists
I'm pretty sure someone can do better than use the expression "bourgeois" economists in the first paragraph? Cretog8 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Non-Marxian" would be the equivalent but more awkward usage. The explanatory footnote re the basis of conventional (i.e. ones that presume the capitalist mode of production and are therefore bourgeois and Non-Marxian) macroeconomics is what you reverted. You may be unaware of the fact but much of mathematical economics presumes for example, Marxian value theory so it is an objective base against which a particular means of production which has become ubiquitous is contrasted. Lycurgus (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note A NYT editorial in re the current turmoil in the paradigmatic basis of the dismal pseudo science. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Mandelman's comment on this article
Dr. Mandelman has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The diagram of macroeconomic circulation is not suitable to illustrate this concept. It should be removed.

The analysis requires to highlight alternative measures of "labor market slack". In particular, the wiki entry should mention that federal reserve officials closely follow the "U6" measure which also includes *discouraged and marginally attached workers* as well as those forced to work part time for pure economic reasons. To put an example. The official unemployment rate (U3) may be at "full employment" levels, but inflationary pressures will remain subdued if there is an "army" of workers that are part-timers and happy work more hours at a given level of nominal wages. A non technical summary like the one below (quickly found with google) maybe useful in this section: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Mandelman has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Francesco Zanetti & Federico S. Mandelman, 2013. "Flexible prices, labor market frictions and the response of employment to technology shocks," Economics Series Working Papers 683, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full employment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416005807/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/7/unemployment%20dickens/07_unemployment_dickens.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/7/unemployment%20dickens/07_unemployment_dickens.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)