The phrase is loaded... with academic context and usually refers to "structural" unemployment and is used in the context of the Phillips Curve, which correlates

The phrase is loaded... with academic context and usually refers to "structural" unemployment and is used in the context of the Phillips Curve, which correlates it with the inflation rate. Because of rule changes made in the Reagan and Bush Sr years and finalized during Clinton, both CPI (Inflation), and U3-U6 (different Unemployment measures) were altered so that they "look better" for the "misery index". What you can really say is that economists now believe that we are near the top of the cycle where the FED will have to raise rates to prevent inflation. If you are willing to accept higher (or accelerating) inflation, then you can have a lower unemployment rate. Of course if you have a different types of employment (manufacturing/retail), different export/import ratios (trade deficit), or credit situations (Debt vs GDP) then the structural and "Full Employment" rates (which produce rising inflation) are different. Since we live in a more global economy now even relative to the 1990s, it's harder for any one nation to change those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment