>I am not arguing with you about these claims. I am just going on what you say to me. The combination of those claims LOGICALLY ENTAILS that unemployment, being driven by weak demand in every sector, and NOT just by weak demand for certain skills in specific sectors, MUST be driven by weak demand for labor overall, across sectors;
Does not entail this:
>in other words, every single sector does not need any more labor of any kind.
If there is weak demand for labor overall, then there will be a weak demand for labor, not zero demand. Additionally, labor does not follow normal supply and demand models, and if you're not aware of the evidence for this I'd suggest you read an economics textbook.
Your argument is similar to that of people saying that because North Dakota has low unemployment due to its energy boom, a massive energy boom would cure unemployment. But North Dakota's energy boom only has such a visible effect because of the state's small population; Pennsylvania has added a similar number of jobs and it has barely changed the unemployment rates, as the the state has a much larger overall population.
Likewise lack of skilled employees in, e.g. the technology sector does not necessarily indicate unemployment is caused by structural shifts in unemployment, unless the tech industry is looking for millions of new employees and can't find them.
Between December 2007 and October 2008 the unemployment rate doubled. It seems far more likely that the United States hasn't yet recovered from the financial crash rather than experiencing an unprecedented shift in its economy at exactly the same time.
Unemployment didn't slowly rise during the boom times, it spiked because of a financial crash and has been slowly declining since. Any claims of a structural shift require extraordinary evidence, and all you've provided are non-sequiturs.
>I am not arguing with you about these claims. I am just going on what you say to me. The combination of those claims LOGICALLY ENTAILS that unemployment, being driven by weak demand in every sector, and NOT just by weak demand for certain skills in specific sectors, MUST be driven by weak demand for labor overall, across sectors;
Does not entail this:
>in other words, every single sector does not need any more labor of any kind.
If there is weak demand for labor overall, then there will be a weak demand for labor, not zero demand. Additionally, labor does not follow normal supply and demand models, and if you're not aware of the evidence for this I'd suggest you read an economics textbook.
Your argument is similar to that of people saying that because North Dakota has low unemployment due to its energy boom, a massive energy boom would cure unemployment. But North Dakota's energy boom only has such a visible effect because of the state's small population; Pennsylvania has added a similar number of jobs and it has barely changed the unemployment rates, as the the state has a much larger overall population.
Likewise lack of skilled employees in, e.g. the technology sector does not necessarily indicate unemployment is caused by structural shifts in unemployment, unless the tech industry is looking for millions of new employees and can't find them.
Between December 2007 and October 2008 the unemployment rate doubled. It seems far more likely that the United States hasn't yet recovered from the financial crash rather than experiencing an unprecedented shift in its economy at exactly the same time.
Unemployment didn't slowly rise during the boom times, it spiked because of a financial crash and has been slowly declining since. Any claims of a structural shift require extraordinary evidence, and all you've provided are non-sequiturs.