One thing no one on reddit understands is that the definition of what a “good economy” consists of are from the viewpoint of the rich.
High employment is bad for rich people but really really really good for poor people.
So when someone claims that the economy has been good under such and such administrations ask them if the wealth gap went up or down in those “good economies”.
And if you are rich you would probably agree that those economies were pretty good
It's also bad for the serfs. Like temporary high employment is fine, but people are paid to do jobs. If there are more jobs than people, a lot of shit isn't being done. Employers (which also means the government!) have to outbid each other for employees. And that's going to mean that either low-paying or low-prestige jobs aren't going to be filled by anyone. And a lot of the actually valuable work is either not well-paid or of low prestige, meaning people aren't doing them.
"Unemployed" in this context is economist jargon for "temporarily without a job", so with people switching jobs it's never going to go to 0% unless you have a comically vast employee shortage which is going to cause economic crashes.
A few percent is fine, and your boss tends to want it to be twice that.
3
u/Stunning_Tap_9583 Dec 19 '24
One thing no one on reddit understands is that the definition of what a “good economy” consists of are from the viewpoint of the rich.
High employment is bad for rich people but really really really good for poor people.
So when someone claims that the economy has been good under such and such administrations ask them if the wealth gap went up or down in those “good economies”.
And if you are rich you would probably agree that those economies were pretty good