Jobs: unemployment EVER been zero, other than wartime?

[sam11111]

Thank you!
--Sam

PS Why didn't FDR use the WPA to bring it to Zero in the 30's?

[Fumesucker]

1. This is wartime right now.. n/t

[sam11111]

2. good point FS. I was thinking of WW2 nt

Nt

[Fumesucker]

3. Unemployment never went to zero even during WWII..

There are always people changing jobs, companies close, new companies open.

Is there some point to your question? For some reason it has a rather rhetorical feel to it.

[sam11111]

4. could be zero if there is a surplus of jobs (WPA) and the jobchangers spend an hour picking from a

List... Or pick before quitting the old job

[Fumesucker]

5. Every single one?

In a nation of 140 million there's always someone going to be between jobs.

[sam11111]

6. frictional unemployment is a myth to get public acceptance of a Job Shortage

Why wd anyone be jobless if there is a surplus of jobs?

Assuming we are using a measure of those who WANT a job and are not out sick.

Frictional is a harmful myth.

[Fumesucker]

7. So everyone's skill set and abilities matches the available jobs in their location always?

Plenty of people who are capable of and wish to do productive work have issues that make them unable to do many jobs.

[sam11111]

8. Sam doesnt want to branch off into PE theory.. just seeking the facts asked for in my OP

Too early for pol econ theory! LOL

[Fumesucker]

9. Your question is nonsense..

It's statistically impossible for the unemployment rate to go to *zero*.

[rainy]

10. Capitalism can't function at anything near 100%

That would give workers way too much power because they wound be hard to replace. Unemployment has to be at least 4 or 5%. Capitalism was designed to always have a surplus of workers. That is part of it's make up.

[HereSince1628]

11. That's really not the issue...the issue isn't simply a percent of unemployment

The target for unemployment has always been a moving target across my life I've seen nationally pronounced targets for policy between 4% and 7%.

The actual economic damage caused by any unemployment level depends upon how the loss of concomitant consumer spending/confidence, brought about directly and indirectly by unemployment, affects the national economy. Depending upon the degree to which a nation relies on it's own consumer spending for it's GDP, the loss of domestic consumer spending (and unemployment that contributes to it) will create different levels of economic crisis.

The US trade imbalances (resulting from poorly managed internationalist trade policies) have made the US much more dependent upon domestic consumer spending and more sensitive to domestic unemployment than the country was in the 1960's when 4% unemployment was considered the best that could be achieved.

Not surprisingly the job loss suffered after 2008 and the refusal of government to address idle domestic production capacity, has the national consumer spending and thereby the national economy stuck in a deep depression.

[Gman]

12. Zero eemployment is not possible

The figure for normal unemployment has varied. IIRC, 6% was considered normal until the Clinton years when UE dropped to around 4%. It has t been close to that since.

[sam11111]

14. "normal" levels of job shortage are in the view of corporate MSM

As to two re's above on economic pain... I say the personal pain of the jobless is a better concern.

Sweden kept under two % and usu one % for the 30 years of its Golden Age.. Till RW lied its way into power.

ZERO is possible if one uses WPA to create a surplus.

I invite you two to step outside the box of corporate schooling. I had Samuelsons text too but am
Not limited by it.

[Gman]

17. Absolutely wrong. The MSM has nothing to do with what is considered normal

they report what the economists that know what they're talking about are saying.

I suggest you invest in taking both college level macro and micro economics classes. And no, a WPA plan will not bring UE to 0% unless you're talking about doing it in the tradition of Mao or maybe post-US evacuation Vietnam. They got to 0% UE real fast.

[kenny blankenship]

13. Now that's REALLY lowering the bar...

I guess we can expect more of this as the fail train lurches towards Nov. 2012.

[FrodosPet]

15. WPA Historical Documents

http://www.gjenvick.com/WPA-WorksProgressAdministration/index.html

The WPA was what some people would call a "workfare" program. The WPA itself paid wages, but individual "local" governments and institutions paid for the materials. Projects had to be community-oriented (parks, schools, roads, bridges, etc). And, if there was no project, no resources for a project, there was no job.

WPA workers had to be able bodied - no ADA back then. They did not provide health coverage, although there was a crude version of worker's comp. ANd only one member of the family could be working - no two income households on WPA.

The average pay in 1939 was about $52.50 a month, which, adjusted for inflation, is $831.69 a month ( http://www.aier.org/research/worksheets-and-tools/cost-of-living-calculator ). There was no overtime allowed. In large Northern cities the wages ran from $55 a month for unskilled work to $94 for professional and technical work, while in Northern rural districts the range was from $40 to $60. In the South the range in large cities was from $40 to $79, in rural districts from $26 to $48.

The WPA helped get people through some desperate economic times, but it never offered, nor ever meant to offer, a full-time replacement for private sector employment.

[sam11111]

18. excellent info (frodo lives!). but i add that

Another important project was large apt buildings - Public Housing.


and that a misimpression could be left by your last line above - I say OK it was not FDR's intent to fully fill the void of Private Sector's massive flop....

but the last line may sound to many to imply that it would be horribly wrong to ever think of replacing the current activities of the Private Sector with action by the government.

I say that gov. action is desirable since

the Pr.Sector has NEVER (AFAIK) given us zero unemployment and

the PrS wants a globe of dollar a day workers with one billionaire. Not so, with co-ops and gov jobs, and the WPA forever.

The PrS has brought nothing but poverty to our people.

It was the unions that fought bitter strikes and the unions that pulled back enough wagemoney to create a middle class. The PrS wants only mass poverty in the cities.
And one billionaire, after several of them go thru family mergers.

The PrS owners are parasites.
The supply side is the
middle class.

(and lower class: for brevity I just say "middle")

[Sheepshank]

16. I remember here in this town 3% unemployment during Clinton

EVERY SINGLE retailer was begging fo employees. McDonalds was offering $12/hr for drive up helpers.

It was an amazing thing to see..people being able to negotiate for entry level jobs. And whomever it was that said that Capitlism doesn't like high employment levels is very correct. It doesn't play well into screwing the employees into working for a non-livable wage.

[JVS]

19. 1.2% in 1944 was the lowest.

[sam11111]

20. thank you JVS! finally an answer! PS would like to mull over any graph of that

Wondering if data, even if only eduguesses

Go back to 1776?