Full Employment

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From the thread  Re: Keynes and competition
Paul Davidson wrote:

> That is correct for the unemployed can always be employed or self
> employed -- if money grows on trees (is reproducible) -- then as
> long as the marginal utility of harvesting money from the money tree
> exceeds the worker's marginal disutility of reaching up to harvest
> the tree, then workers will  be employed or self employed util the
> marginal utility of harvesting the last dollar equals the marginal
> disutility of reaching up-- And this equality is the definition of
> full employment.


If you hold that money does not grow on trees, why do you advance this as a
definition of full employment?

You need to supply another definition of full employment (where there
is no unemployment),  which is not dependent on money trees.

May I suggest:
Full employment is where all people looking for a paying job have a paying job.

Notice this is completely consistent with my earlier
claim about the conventional definition of the labour supply
being the number of people offering their labour for hire.

I am repeating myself because I am trying to make the point that despite
what economists have written specifically about full employment and
the labour supply,
Keynes'  equilibrium analysis LOGICALLY IMPLIES the definition of
full employment
I mention above.

Harry Veeder