Talk:Natural rate of unemployment

message: The mechanisms by which Capitalism exploits unemployment was clearly outlined by Karl Marx 101 years earlier in Das Kapital, in his critique of what Engels had coined the "Reserve Army of Labor."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
"Relative surplus-population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply of labour works" the Wikipedia post then explains "The availability of labour influences wage rates and the larger the unemployed workforce grows, the more this forces down wage rates; conversely, if there are plenty jobs available and unemployment is low, this tends to raise the average level of wages—in that case workers are able to change jobs rapidly to get better pay
or as Marx put it more eloquently: "Capitalism requires a reserve army of the unemployed to function."
While one can argue that they had different feelings and prescriptions, the observation is identical. All these men had to do to "co-invent" this was to be recommended the same book at a dinner party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.136.105 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neither Philips nor Friedman 'discovered' this phenomenon. 

message: I think there was a need to add the original text from the 1968 article. This might not be in the best place: possibly there should be a seperate section or subsection: please feel free to alter if it improves the overall readability of the article. Byronmercury (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedman and the Natural Rate

message: need to expand the critics section. Also, perhaps a new section on methods of estimation and perhaps estimates of natural rate?Byronmercury (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: critics and empirics

message: Sometimes there is confusion about whether there should be a hyphen or not. To the best of my knowledge, there is none in a sentence like "This is a Phillips curve;" i.e., where the terms takes the form of a noun. However, when the term is used as an adjective, the hyphen should be there; as in "This is a Phillips-curve correlation". I am not a native English speaker, but beieve me, an economics journal editor once gave me that advice.--HJensen, talk 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That is a fascinating distinction! However now I'm wracking my brain trying to recall how many times I've made that error through the years. Thank you for teaching me something!--Palabrazo 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome. And I still constantly make the confusion myself. Good thing the hyphen is silent so you don't notice in oral presentations! :-)--HJensen, talk 11:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Phillips curve" or "Phillips-curve"?

message: Where is definition from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.125.199 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friedman and Phelps. See Footnote 1, 4 and 5. --HJensen, talk 21:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources 

message: Is it? NAIRU. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the same as NAIRU?

message: I don't think it is original research to point out in the lead that the economic term "full employment" does not mean "zero unemployment".  Equally, it is not a published proposition where it would be easy to choose the best source to reference.  If the lead is to be easily understood by someone who does not already know the history of the term, it is important to get to the crux of the matter from the very beginning.  If a politician uses the term 'full employment', they OUGHT to be clear that it means: "that number of unemployed, which is broadly in line with the 'natural' rate that presently rules.  Severe cyclical unemployment may be addressed by Demand-side measures, but the 'natural' rate of unemployment in an economy can ONLY be addressed by Supply-side interventions. Supply-side interventions are HARD, so it is important to be clear that (according to mainstream economic theory) there is absolutely NO macroeconomic demand-side policy tool that can address a high 'natural' rate of unemployment. Perhaps that is why some governments have redefined <unemployment> in order to bring about a statistical reduction in the number of folk who are labelled as unemployed. 82.32.5.128 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The economic term "full employment" does not mean "zero unemployment"