Talk:Full employment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Above both me too FTR. Lycurgus (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ideal" Unemployment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to Confusing Tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled Thread 3 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bourgeois economists 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified