Low unemployment rate causes recessions?

I am very skeptical of this claim. If you want people to earn higher wages without an increase in the minimum wage you have to have a low unemployment rate. Isn't it the Fed Reserve that is causing the recessions and shifting the blame?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-rosengren/fed-says-it-whipped-u-s-unemployment-maybe-too-well-idUSKCN1LT0F0

Why don't they just claim higher wages lead to recessions? That is what they are trying to prevent, right? Every time the poor start to get some relief the FRS crashes the party with higher interest rates.

Low unemployment makes the producing classes more demanding. They refuse to work for lesser wages, so want more pay,
Because unemployment is low, the parasitical classes have to cough up, lowering their own mass profits and the profits of their share holders.

So, unemployment is used to make sure the working classes don't get too uppity.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
Low unemployment makes the producing classes more demanding. They refuse to work for lesser wages, so want more pay,
Because unemployment is low, the parasitical classes have to cough up, lowering their own mass profits and the profits of their share holders.

So, unemployment is used to make sure the working classes don't get too uppity.

The working class has to work for a living and generally don't refuse work. They will seek a better paying job if it is available and when employers can't get enough people to apply for work the employer has to offer a higher pay rate to compete with other employers. That is how wages rise without a minimum wage hike.

It is all about supply and demand......of workers. The FRS seems to have a policy of keeping demand low while the government has a policy of increasing supply by allowing foreign workers to come here (VISA lottery).
They screw the working class in the front and then the behind. Unfortunately, most of the working class are too ignorant of economics to know how they are being screwed.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The working class has to work for a living and generally don't refuse work. They will seek a better paying job if it is available and when employers can't get enough people to apply for work the employer has to offer a higher pay rate to compete with other employers. That is how wages rise without a minimum wage hike.

It is all about supply and deman ...[text shortened]... ely, most of the working class are too ignorant of economics to know how they are being screwed.

Isn't exporting jobs to relatively unregulated economies more efficient and manageable than importing workers?

Originally posted by @js357
Isn't exporting jobs to relatively unregulated economies more efficient and manageable than importing workers?

Wouldn't that depend on how well the company is established and how much the cost of retooling their production line in the foreign land will be, the timeframe to start one up and shut one down or how much inventory they would have to stockpile and warehouse while the new factory/production plant came online. Then it would also depend on how much specialist labour went into producing their product and whether the land of cheap labour has a pool of higher skilled workers from which to service their labour needs.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I am very skeptical of this claim. If you want people to earn higher wages without an increase in the minimum wage you have to have a low unemployment rate. Isn't it the Fed Reserve that is causing the recessions and shifting the blame?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-rosengren/fed-says-it-whipped-u-s-unemployment-maybe-too-well-idUSKCN1LT ...[text shortened]... ery time the poor start to get some relief the FRS crashes the party with higher interest rates.

Rosengren and the FED are more or less asking Trump and the White House to stop their expansive financial politics. That's what this is about. They already know where blame game will end up when the economy goes the other way.

The last part of the article:
"Or it may just involve an acknowledgement that in an era of low interest rates, “we should probably not rely on (monetary policy) alone, even with the best-designed framework, to take sole responsibility for economic stabilization,” Rosengren wrote. “There are practical limits.” "

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The working class has to work for a living and generally don't refuse work. They will seek a better paying job if it is available and when employers can't get enough people to apply for work the employer has to offer a higher pay rate to compete with other employers. That is how wages rise without a minimum wage hike.

It is all about supply and deman ...[text shortened]... ely, most of the working class are too ignorant of economics to know how they are being screwed.

This has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Originally posted by @js357
Isn't exporting jobs to relatively unregulated economies more efficient and manageable than importing workers?

Why would you want either one? That suppresses the wages of poor Americans.

Originally posted by @lundos
Rosengren and the FED are more or less asking Trump and the White House to stop their expansive financial politics. That's what this is about. They already know where blame game will end up when the economy goes the other way.

The last part of the article:
"Or it may just involve an acknowledgement that in an era of low interest rates, “we should probabl ...[text shortened]... ole responsibility for economic stabilization,” Rosengren wrote. “There are practical limits.” "

It might just be that the lowering of interest rates has created more bubbles waiting to burst and another recession is inevitable because of it. They would like to blame it on something else so that is what you are seeing with that article.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
This has nothing to do with what I wrote.

With all due respect, you were not very clear about what you wrote. It was mostly unintelligible. Perhaps you would like to write it again so it makes sense.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I am very skeptical of this claim. If you want people to earn higher wages without an increase in the minimum wage you have to have a low unemployment rate. Isn't it the Fed Reserve that is causing the recessions and shifting the blame?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-rosengren/fed-says-it-whipped-u-s-unemployment-maybe-too-well-idUSKCN1LT ...[text shortened]... ery time the poor start to get some relief the FRS crashes the party with higher interest rates.

It's all a balancing act isn't it? Some unemployment is
good because it keeps wages down. A workforce is a
commodity and industry wants to keep commodity prices down.

But it would be stupid to extrapolate that
and say 100% unemployment must be excellent.

I think I read years ago that 4% unemployment was optimum. That
seems excessive to me and I would imagine that the optimum rate
would also depend on the skills of the unemployed.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
It's all a balancing act isn't it? Some unemployment is
good because it keeps wages down. A workforce is a
commodity and industry wants to keep commodity prices down.

But it would be stupid to extrapolate that
and say 100% unemployment must be excellent.

I think I read years ago that 4% unemployment was optimum. That
seems excessive to me and I would imagine that the optimum rate
would also depend on the skills of the unemployed.

Some unemployment is good? Good for who?

Is 4% unemployment really 4%? Wages are not rising faster than the inflation rate right now and inflation has been outpacing wages for many years. Use an inflation calculator to adjust the minimum wage in 1968 to today. How much should minimum wage be today after the inflation adjustment?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
With all due respect, you were not very clear about what you wrote. It was mostly unintelligible. Perhaps you would like to write it again so it makes sense.

The rich need the poor to be scared of losing their jobs; to keep wages down.

If people wanted more money and could quit whenever they liked and easily find a new job, the boss will have to increase wages.

Ergo: unemployment is a tool to control the masses.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
It might just be that the lowering of interest rates has created more bubbles waiting to burst and another recession is inevitable because of it. They would like to blame it on something else so that is what you are seeing with that article.

Trump 'only' wants GDP growth and we have seen an increase in (consumer) demand in the US the last many years (on average). However, with a low unemployment rate that will give an increase in inflation, which will hurt especially the low- and middle class.

The FED have increased the interest rates to battle inflation and thereby avoid a possible recession. Trump has been furious about it, so if they reduce it now despite saying otherwise earlier this year is more politics than economics imo. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/us/politics/federal-reserve-raises-interest-rates.html

So it's not that we disagree (on the effect of interest rates), it's just that you are unaware of what the FED have done.

There's a reason why monetary politics lies with independent Central Banks in most developed countries.

Secondly, and this is quite important. When the economy is doing really well, it's time to reduce debt. So why aren't Trump's financial experts talking about reducing debt? My guess is re-election.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
The rich need the poor to be scared of losing their jobs; to keep wages down.

If people wanted more money and could quit whenever they liked and easily find a new job, the boss will have to increase wages.

Ergo: unemployment is a tool to control the masses.

If demand is higher than supply companies will hire people to meet that demand.

Wages will increase with lower unemployment numbers but so will prices, so the company might not lose anything (unless prices are really sticky).