Editing Full employment (section)

==Measurement==
For the United Kingdom, the [[OECD]] estimated the NAIRU (or structural unemployment) rate as being equal to 8.5% on average between 1988 and 1997, 5.9% between 1998 and 2007, 6.2%, 6.6%, and 6.7 in 2008, 2009, and 2010, then staying at 6.9% in 2011–2013. For the United States, they estimate it as being 5.8% on average between 1988 and 1997, 5.5% between 1998 and 2007, 5.8% in 2008, 6.0% in 2009, and then staying at 6.1% from 2010 to 2013. They also estimate the NAIRU for other countries.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/economicoutlookannextables.htm table 22. These estimates are done using the commonly-used definition of unemployment rather than using the measures based on efforts to standardize the measure of unemployment across countries.</ref> These calculations have been criticised as lacking any foundation in evidence.<ref>E McGaughey, 'Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy' (2018) [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044448 SSRN, part 2(1)]</ref>

The era after the 2007–2009 [[Great Recession]] shows the relevance of this concept, for example as seen in the United States. On the one hand, in 2013 [[Keynesian]] economists such as [[Paul Krugman]] of [[Princeton University]] see unemployment rates as too high relative to full employment and the NAIRU and thus favor increasing the aggregate demand for goods and services and thus labor in order to reduce unemployment. On the other hand, pointing to shortages of some skilled workers, some businesspeople and [[Classical economists]] suggest that the U.S. economy is already at full employment, so that any demand stimulus will lead to nothing but rising inflation rates. One example was [[Narayana Kocherlakota]], President of the Minneapolis [[Federal Reserve Bank]], who has since changed his mind.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2012/10/09/how-a-fed-inflation-hawk-changed-his-mind/|title=How a Fed inflation hawk changed his mind|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|date=9 October 2012 }}</ref>