That seems like a naive reading of the employment rate. A lot of Americans have jobs that don't pay a living wage, and don't have benefits. Many people do gig w

That seems like a naive reading of the employment rate. A lot of Americans have jobs that don't pay a living wage, and don't have benefits. Many people do gig work to make ends meet. A person who used to have a good-paying manufacturing job but now works as a Walmart greeter with no benefits counts as employed, but with some significant qualitative differences because the manufacturing job went to Mexico or China. People with expensive degrees working as baristas count as employed, but they probably don't think of their situation as "full employment" as fake AI companies outsource jobs to India. The global labor market enables labor arbitrage. A person in India or Vietnam gets an offshored job and goes from 0 to 2. A person in Detroit loses their good job and gets hired at Burger King, going from 8 to 4. The savings goes into the pockets of people like Jeff Bezos. My point was to distinguish between global trends and broadly true -- at scale -- claims about innovation and technology improving employment conditions and local effects caused by job displacement. Those happen together. It does little good to laid-off programmers in California to learn that their sacrifice means thousands of Indian programmers now have jobs.