Employment Gap Between Rich, Poor Widest on Record

[Igel]

14. There's isn't "a" level traditionally defined as full employment.

When I was in school, it was about twice what the article says. In the '90s, it was still more than 3.2% when we all but set record low unemployment levels for peacetime--and that was feared to be highly inflationary and *less* than a healthy "full employment". It was higher than 3.2% that under Bush II.

Some economists have argued for 3% or 2%, but a "traditional definition" seems to be mostly in the memory of the reporter. And that's just the US.

It also varies by country. The point is simple: given the variety of definitions over the last 40 years, there is no tradition. It's a pointless appeal to authority, which, in this case, is an authority that the reporter doesn't feel like revealing.