Talk:Full employment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Ideal" Unemployment[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)