what will the new natural unemployment rate be?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

some say it could be 7%,but I was just wondering what everyone here might think?

[Bo]

Still about 5%.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Still about 5%.

why?

[Bo]

Still about 5%.

why?

Because I don't see the dymanics of the economy changing anytime soon. Sure unemployment will be high for an extended period of time, but the unemployment rate will be consistenly above the natural rate, kind of like in the 1970s and 1980s.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Still about 5%.

why?

Because I don't see the dymanics of the economy changing anytime soon. Sure unemployment will be high for an extended period of time, but the unemployment rate will be consistenly above the natural rate, kind of like in the 1970s and 1980s.

it could be possible that workers might start demanding higher wages as soon as the the unemployment rate drops to 7%.

[phk]

Around 6%, perhaps.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Too high thanks to large corporations screwing us all.

[MK]

10% is the new norm for many years.   I don't say this just to be over blowing our current  situation ,but we have a serious problem in this area. Its one of the reasons our leaders have no answers for it ( mindless jobs bills / stim bills), they know whats up.    A lot of  you compare other times when we had high unemployment, but the difference was we still had a manufacturing base and exports.  Now we pretty much have none of that, so explain to me where and what sector of our *service* economy is going to take us to less then 7% unemployment in 5 years?     Unless we have another world war ,   9 - 10% is very reasonable for the foreseeable future.   

[k-onmmunist]

5%

[opebo]

10-15% depending on your definition (the latter figure being the more realistic, less official one..what's it called, U-6 or something).  Higher unemployment is a function of the political reality, nothing more, and of course it has been trending higher for several decades based upon this.

[k-onmmunist]

10-15% depending on your definition (the latter figure being the more realistic, less official one..what's it called, U-6 or something).  Higher unemployment is a function of the political reality, nothing more, and of course it has been trending higher for several decades based upon this.

Depends how fictional you want the figures to be. The unemployment figures in Britain are nowhere near the real figure.

[opebo]

10-15% depending on your definition (the latter figure being the more realistic, less official one..what's it called, U-6 or something).  Higher unemployment is a function of the political reality, nothing more, and of course it has been trending higher for several decades based upon this.

Depends how fictional you want the figures to be. The unemployment figures in Britain are nowhere near the real figure.

I think they're much more realistic on the Continent.

[k-onmmunist]

10-15% depending on your definition (the latter figure being the more realistic, less official one..what's it called, U-6 or something).  Higher unemployment is a function of the political reality, nothing more, and of course it has been trending higher for several decades based upon this.

Depends how fictional you want the figures to be. The unemployment figures in Britain are nowhere near the real figure.

I think they're much more realistic on the Continent.

Thatcher had our unemployment figures revised heavily. So now, you're now unemployed till months after you've been laid off, and if you're unemployed for years, it's 'long term unemployment' - just an excuse to keep people off the figures.

[opebo]

Thatcher had our unemployment figures revised heavily. So now, you're now unemployed till months after you've been laid off, and if you're unemployed for years, it's 'long term unemployment' - just an excuse to keep people off the figures.

It comes as no surprise to me that the anglo-saxon countries are the most disingenuous, given that our whole culture is built on lies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Natural unemployment? How are you defining that? What base are you measuring it against?

---

Oh, and unemployment figures are a fiddle everywhere. Some of the tricks used are ingenious. People classified as 'long term unemployed' are in included in U.K unemployment figures though; the fiddles came (and come) elsewhere. The shifting of large numbers of people on IB in the 80s is the best known (though a little complicated; people have always been more likely to go on the sick during a bad labour market. There's been some interest stuff written about this happening in the 30s), but there are others. I mean, the whole ILO system of measuring it (which most countries base, at least loosely, there figures on these days) is a little bit of a con (must have been looking for work within four weeks and ready to start a new job in two).

[k-onmmunist]

Thatcher had our unemployment figures revised heavily. So now, you're now unemployed till months after you've been laid off, and if you're unemployed for years, it's 'long term unemployment' - just an excuse to keep people off the figures.

It comes as no surprise to me that the anglo-saxon countries are the most disingenuous, given that our whole culture is built on lies.

...Completely irrelevant.

[opebo]

Thatcher had our unemployment figures revised heavily. So now, you're now unemployed till months after you've been laid off, and if you're unemployed for years, it's 'long term unemployment' - just an excuse to keep people off the figures.

It comes as no surprise to me that the anglo-saxon countries are the most disingenuous, given that our whole culture is built on lies.

...Completely irrelevant.

The cause of something is always of at least some passing interest, Winn Dixie.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Natural unemployment? How are you defining that? What base are you measuring it against?

---

Oh, and unemployment figures are a fiddle everywhere. Some of the tricks used are ingenious. People classified as 'long term unemployed' are in included in U.K unemployment figures though; the fiddles came (and come) elsewhere. The shifting of large numbers of people on IB in the 80s is the best known (though a little complicated; people have always been more likely to go on the sick during a bad labour market. There's been some interest stuff written about this happening in the 30s), but there are others. I mean, the whole ILO system of measuring it (which most countries base, at least loosely, there figures on these days) is a little bit of a con (must have been looking for work within four weeks and ready to start a new job in two).

i'll put it in simple terms, but if you want to learn more about the "natural unemployment rate" than perhaps you should read up on it. The natural unemployment rate is the unemployment rate at which inflation can stay stable.

[k-onmmunist]

Thatcher had our unemployment figures revised heavily. So now, you're now unemployed till months after you've been laid off, and if you're unemployed for years, it's 'long term unemployment' - just an excuse to keep people off the figures.

It comes as no surprise to me that the anglo-saxon countries are the most disingenuous, given that our whole culture is built on lies.

...Completely irrelevant.

The cause of something is always of at least some passing interest, Winn Dixie.

...Ummm, I don't know where that came from.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

i'll put it in simple terms, but if you want to learn more about the "natural unemployment rate" than perhaps you should read up on it. The natural unemployment rate is the unemployment rate at which inflation can stay stable.

Uh, huh. How exactly are you defining unemployment? And how do you defend the brutal rape of the innocent word 'natural'?

[phk]

i'll put it in simple terms, but if you want to learn more about the "natural unemployment rate" than perhaps you should read up on it. The natural unemployment rate is the unemployment rate at which inflation can stay stable.

Uh, huh. How exactly are you defining unemployment? And how do you defend the brutal rape of the innocent word 'natural'?

You might prefer the word "structural" more. Either way natural or structural, its just a general textbook term.

What he's referring to is the Philips curve which shows a somewhat inverse relationship between employment and inflation.

Furthermore he is saying that he defines the natural or structural rate is movements along the trade-off curve (between unemployment and inflation). The minimum unemployment with respect to the given inflation level.



Any changes in the natural rate of unemployment will in itself imply a new curve, agnostic if its through cyclical, frictional, seasonal factors.

Lovely demonstration through a textbook of the US economy.



Movements to the origin are always strictly more desirable than away from it.

These are level curves in the same way an indifference curve or a PPF curve would look.