The government is pursuing 'maximum employment' for the first time. Here's how it differs from 'full employment' and the risks it brings. https://www.businessinsider.com/wha...mentlabor-market-federal-reserve-risks-2021-6 The Fed is targeting "maximum" employment over "full" employment in a major shift for the US economy. The new goal aims to bring forth a more equitable rebound, particularly for minorities and low-income households. This focus tests how many Americans can be hired before an inflationary spiral is set off. Maximum employment. Full employment. They may seem to be similar phrases, but they are dramatically different, in ways that could shape the US economy long after the pandemic ends. After decades of adhering to an agreed-upon employment threshold called full employment, the Federal Reserve is trying a new playbook. In August, the central bank replaced this goal with "maximum employment" as part of a new policy framework. Whereas the previous target sought to minimize deviations when employment was too high or low, the Fed now aims to "eliminate shortfalls of employment from its maximum level," Governor Lael Brainard said in February. Put another way, the central bank will push for a labor market that doesn't just feature low unemployment, but also inclusivity and healthy wage growth. The new mandate sounds encouraging. But to achieve it, the Fed is entering uncharted territory. How much unemployment can you have with low inflation? The previous threshold for low employment rested on a concept known as the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), which represents a level of unemployment at which inflation doesn't spiral out of control. Though the true rate is unknown, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it stood at roughly 4.5% in 2020. NAIRU served as a loose guide for the Fed as the US recovered from the Great Recession , but it didn't quite work. The labor market's recovery from the financial crisis was, and remains, the longest of any recovery since World War II. Since the start of the coronavirus recession, Fed officials made it clear they weren't going to use the same strategy. The Fed's new framework seeks inflation that averages 2% over time. That opens the door to periods of stronger inflation. Prematurely retracting monetary support can leave underserved communities hurting and set the US back for years, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said following the FOMC's March meeting. By allowing for a brief period of elevated inflation, the central bank believes it can power a faster and more equitable labor market recovery. "There was a time when there was a tight connection between unemployment and inflation. That time is long gone," Powell said. "We had low unemployment in 2018 and 2019 and the beginning of '20 without having troubling inflation at all." The maximum-employment experiment is uncharted territory Despite Powell's repeated messaging that stronger inflation will prove largely "transitory," some economists slammed him for risking a dangerous inflationary spiral. Letting inflation run above 2%, they say, can spark a cycle of soaring prices that would cripple the still-recovering economy. Keeping rates near zero into 2023 "seems to me at the edge of absurd," Larry Summers, a former Treasury Secretary who has criticized the fiscal and monetary response to the pandemic, said at a May event hosted by CoinDesk. "We used to have a Fed that reassured people that it would prevent inflation," Summers said. "Now we have a Fed that reassures people that it won't worry about inflation until it's staggeringly self-evident." Higher inflation also tends to give way to higher wages, but rising pay might not benefit the economy as some hope. Fed analysis of how stimulus checks were spent suggests most additional income would mostly go toward paying debts and boosting savings, with only a fraction going toward spending. Even the target for maximum employment isn't entirely clear, as an unusually large number of Americans likely stopped working for good during the pandemic. A "significant" number of retirees skews estimates of the labor force's size, Powell said in a Wednesday press conference. This effect "should wear off in a few years" as retirees are replaced with new workers, he added. Maximum participation will likely cloudy until then, whenever that is. The unusually large jump in retirements through the pandemic could still give way to a stronger labor market, as was seen in the years before the health crisis, Randal Quarles, vice chairman for supervision, said in late May. Still, with uncertainties abound, the Fed may need to issue "additional public communications" about its progress targets and broader goal of maximum employment, he added. That means maximum employment, while a worthy goal in many ways, carries more than inflation risks. It could be a cloudy and uncertain destination even for top policymakers.
Well, safe to say anything the government tries to do the opposite will happen I can pursue making 100 billion dollars in a day, it doesn’t mean anything though
So the government (it's actually the Fed, but let's play) is trying to raise inflation, so it's "safe to say" inflation will fall.
I don’t think a loser such as yourself should even think about attempting to start a conversation about inflation. You have 0 understanding of economics. Zero. Same loser that thinks raising the minimum wage on useless $1/hour at best jobs wont cause price increases
Voters Prioritize Creating Jobs Over Inflation and the National Debt Our polling demonstrates that voters across party lines are rejecting the GOP’s narrative, and are enthusiastic about creating jobs and stimulating our economy. June 19, 2021 Lew Blank "While the U.S. made significant progress mitigating the health impacts of the coronavirus — new cases are down about 95 percent from their peak this January — we have far more work to do to recover from the pandemic’s economic impacts. "There are currently about 7.6 million fewer jobs than there were at the beginning of the pandemic — losses which have been most severe in low-wage industries and sectors that disproportionately employ people of color. While high-wage industries have experienced 2 percent job loss, low-wage industries have seen job losses of 8 percent. "President Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plans are urgently needed to create millions of jobs across the country and help countless families make ends meet. But the GOP has insisted that this legislation is too ambitious, arguing that we need to invest less into our economy and create fewer jobs because of inflation and the national debt. This is despite the Federal Reserve’s consistent assertion that the recent bump in inflation is transitory and should not stand in the way of efforts to boost employment. "In a June survey of 1,187 national likely voters, we tested whether voters care more about growing the economy and creating jobs or concerns over inflation and the national debt. Specifically, we presented respondents with a list of 15 issues, and asked them to select the three that they consider to be the most important problems facing the country. We find that voters care most about creating jobs and growing our economy, and place inflation and the national debt lower on their priority lists. "Among likely voters overall, 25 percent listed the economy in general and 17 percent listed unemployment and jobs as top priorities. The national debt and inflation were considered notably less important, with 13 percent and 9 percent prioritization, respectively. "Broken down by party, Democratic voters view unemployment and jobs (17 percent prioritization) as far more important than inflation (5 percent) and the national debt (4 percent). Independents share this prioritization, with 15 percent considering unemployment and jobs to be a top priority, compared with 14 percent prioritization of the national debt and 6 percent prioritization of inflation. Republicans listed the debt (24 percent) as a higher priority than unemployment and jobs (18 percent), with inflation as a lower priority (17 percent). "In a separate June survey, we also asked voters whether they find jobs and wages or maintaining low prices to be more important. We find that voters — including majorities of Independents and Republicans — strongly prioritize investing in our economy over concerns about inflation and price hikes. This includes a 30-point margin of Democrats, a 34-point margin of Independents, and a 10-point margin of Republicans. "Senate Republicans have been launching an onslaught against President Biden’s jobs package, and are actively arguing that we should create fewer jobs and allow our economy to grow significantly less because of inflation and the national debt. This argument — that we should voluntarily leave millions of families without a job, cool down our economy, and stymie wage growth that American workers desperately need — is a cruel policy choice, and our polling shows that Republicans can’t get away with it if voters are following what’s happening. "Our polling demonstrates that voters across party lines are rejecting the GOP’s narrative, and are enthusiastic about creating jobs and stimulating our economy. Democrats should feel highly confident supporting the American Jobs and Families Plans and the job and wage growth they’ll provide — and senators claiming that we can’t make these investments because of inflation and the national debt may pay the price at the polls. Lew Blank (@LewBlank) is a senior writer at Data for Progress. Survey Methodology: From June 4 to 6, 2021, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,187 likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points. From June 9 to 11, 2021, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,227 likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
You can bet your last buck that anytime the government engages in word salad the average American is about to get fucked.
I don't know if you consider yourself an average American, but let's look at something concrete, like Obamacare. Thousands of pages of "code" comprise the program, it almost has to be word salad. How has it hurt you, personally?