< Back to Washington Unemployment

Emma Garcia

Washington ESD - is it desirable to pursue a goal of zero unemployment? Economic theory vs reality

Been thinking about this while dealing with my own claim process with Washington ESD... economists always talk about 'natural unemployment rate' being around 4-5%, but is zero unemployment actually something we should want? I mean, everyone having jobs sounds great in theory, but what about people transitioning between careers, new grads looking for their first job, or folks who need time off for family reasons? Plus wouldn't zero unemployment create massive wage inflation if employers had to compete for literally every worker? Just curious what people think - seems like there might be good reasons why some unemployment is actually healthy for the economy. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Ava Kim

•

Zero unemployment would actually be terrible for economic flexibility. You need what economists call 'frictional unemployment' - people moving between jobs, entering the workforce, etc. It's actually a sign of a healthy, dynamic economy when people can afford to be selective about employment.

0 coins

That makes sense. I guess if literally everyone HAD to work immediately, people would be stuck in bad jobs with no leverage to find better ones.

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

Exactly! Plus seasonal workers, students, people caring for family members - there are legitimate reasons people aren't working at any given time.

0 coins

idk sounds like economist jargon to me. if everyone who wants a job has one, how is that bad?? seems like we're making excuses for a broken system

0 coins

Ava Kim

•

It's not about making excuses - it's about understanding how labor markets actually function. Even in the best economies, you'll have 3-4% unemployment from people transitioning.

0 coins

ok but why can't we just make the transition faster? like better job matching or something

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

The real issue is that zero unemployment would create massive wage pressure. If every single person was employed, employers would have to bid against each other for any worker, which sounds good but would probably trigger hyperinflation. Basic supply and demand.

0 coins

Aria Park

•

Wait wouldn't higher wages be good for workers though? I don't understand why that's automatically bad.

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

Higher wages are great, but if everyone's wages go up 20% overnight, prices go up 20% too and you're back where you started, just with bigger numbers.

0 coins

Emma Garcia

•

That's a really good point about inflation I hadn't considered. So it's kind of a balancing act?

0 coins

Honestly dealing with Washington ESD these past few months has made me think about this stuff differently. Like, I WANT to work, but I also needed time to find the right fit after my layoff. If there was pressure to take literally any job immediately, I might be stuck somewhere terrible right now instead of finding something that actually uses my skills.

0 coins

Noah Ali

•

this!! unemployment benefits exist for a reason - to give people time to find good matches instead of just grabbing whatever

0 coins

Ava Kim

•

Exactly - that's the 'frictional unemployment' economists talk about. It serves a real purpose in helping people find jobs that match their skills.

0 coins

From a policy perspective, targeting zero unemployment would probably require massive government intervention that could distort market signals. You'd need job guarantees, which means the government deciding what work needs to be done rather than market forces.

0 coins

maybe that's not such a bad thing? government could focus on useful stuff like infrastructure instead of whatever makes the most profit

0 coins

That's actually been tried in various forms - results have been mixed at best. Central planning has a pretty poor track record for efficiency.

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

Plus government job programs tend to become permanent even when they're not needed anymore. Creates its own bureaucratic momentum.

0 coins

Aria Park

•

What about technological unemployment though? Like if AI and automation eliminate jobs faster than new ones are created, wouldn't we WANT some unemployment rather than forcing people into pointless busywork?

0 coins

Ava Kim

•

That's a fascinating point. We might need to rethink the whole concept of full employment as technology advances.

0 coins

Emma Garcia

•

Yeah, that's something I wonder about too. Maybe the goal should be meaningful employment for those who want it, not just any employment.

0 coins

Noah Ali

•

tbh I think this is kinda theoretical when people are struggling to get through to Washington ESD just to file their claims. like maybe worry about zero unemployment when the system actually works for people who need it

0 coins

lol fair point. hard to think about ideal unemployment rates when you can't even get your claim processed

0 coins

Emma Garcia

•

True, though I think understanding the theory helps explain why unemployment systems exist in the first place.

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

Another angle - zero unemployment would eliminate workers' bargaining power in a weird way. Right now if your job sucks, you can quit and look for something better. With zero unemployment, there literally wouldn't be other jobs available, so you'd be trapped.

0 coins

That's counterintuitive but makes sense. You need some slack in the system for mobility to work.

0 coins

Aria Park

•

So having some unemployment actually protects worker rights? That's wild to think about.

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

Yeah, it's one of those cases where the obvious answer (everyone working = good) isn't actually optimal when you think it through.

0 coins

I remember learning about this in economics class - they called it the 'natural rate of unemployment' or NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment). Basically the lowest unemployment can go without triggering runaway inflation. Usually around 4-5% in developed economies.

0 coins

Ava Kim

•

Yes! NAIRU is exactly what I was getting at earlier. It's not that we want unemployment, it's that some level is inevitable and even necessary for economic stability.

0 coins

ok but who decides what the 'natural' rate is? sounds convenient for people who benefit from having desperate workers around

0 coins

It's not really decided, it's observed from historical data about when inflation starts accelerating. But you're right to be skeptical of any 'natural' economic claims.

0 coins

What about countries that have gotten really close to zero unemployment? Has anyone actually tried this and seen what happens?

0 coins

Japan got close in the late 1980s - unemployment hit like 2.1%. Led to massive asset bubbles and economic distortions that took decades to unwind.

0 coins

Ava Kim

•

Some Eastern European countries under communism claimed zero unemployment, but that was mostly through hiding unemployment in make-work programs. Not really the same thing.

0 coins

So the real-world examples seem to support the theory that it's not sustainable?

0 coins

Emma Garcia

•

I'm starting to think the better goal might be 'zero involuntary long-term unemployment' rather than just zero unemployment. Like, if someone wants to work and has been looking for months, that's the real problem to solve.

0 coins

Layla Mendes

•

That's actually a much more nuanced and realistic policy goal. Focus on the people who are really struggling rather than chasing an arbitrary number.

0 coins

Aria Park

•

Yeah, someone choosing to take a few months off between jobs is totally different from someone who can't find work at all.

0 coins

Ava Kim

•

Exactly - distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary unemployment is crucial for good policy making.

0 coins

Olivia Harris

•

This whole conversation makes me think about Universal Basic Income differently. Like if we had UBI, maybe people could afford to be more selective about work without suffering, which could actually improve job matching and reduce the pressure to accept terrible jobs.

0 coins

UBI is interesting because it could potentially reduce involuntary unemployment while still maintaining the flexibility benefits of having some people out of work at any given time.

0 coins

yeah I could see that working better than just trying to force everyone into jobs

0 coins

Emma Garcia

•

That's an interesting connection I hadn't thought of. UBI as a way to make unemployment less painful rather than eliminating it entirely.

0 coins

Chloe Harris

•

This discussion is fascinating and really eye-opening! As someone who's been through the Washington ESD system recently, I never thought about unemployment from this macro perspective before. The point about needing some "slack" in the labor market for people to have bargaining power really resonates - when I was job hunting, having that buffer time (even though it was stressful) did let me be more selective and ultimately find a better fit. It's wild to think that zero unemployment could actually trap workers in bad situations. Makes me appreciate that unemployment benefits, despite all the bureaucratic headaches, serve a real economic function beyond just helping individuals.

0 coins

Washington Unemployment AI

Expert Assistant
Secure

Powered by Claimyr AI

T
I
+
20,087 users helped today