[moorhosj]

>Economists believe that the unemployment rate can dip even further because there's still slack in the job market.

There isn't "still" slack, the slack is growing as the laborforce participation rate is lower today than it was in 2013. How can it be in a "booming" economy that fewer people want to work and real wages are also falling? I haven't seen an economic explanation for this.

>The erosion of workers' bargaining power has also played a role.

A result of de-regulation, no?

>What do you find unsatisfactory about these explanations?

The lack of evidence that they are more than just theories, I want the data.

[throwaway37585]

> There isn't "still" slack, the slack is growing as the laborforce participation rate is lower today than it was in 2013.

The labor force participation rate is currently about 62.8%. In 2013, it was at most about 63.8%, only 1 percent higher [1].

> How can it be in a "booming" economy that fewer people want to work and real wages are also falling?

Real average hourly earnings for June 2013 were $10.31 [2]. Real average hourly earnings for June 2018 were $10.76 [3]. Real earnings increased over that period. So what are you referring to, exactly?

> I haven't seen an economic explanation for this.

This reminds me of a how a creationist says “Well, I haven't seen an explanation for this" and proceeds to dismiss an entire field.

> The lack of evidence that they are more than just theories, I want the data.

Lack of evidence about what? Be specific.

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-parti...

[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_07162013.ht...

[3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_07122018.ht...

[moorhosj]

>The labor force participation rate is currently about 62.8%. In 2013, it was at most about 63.8%, only 1 percent higher

This 1% difference works out to 1.6 million fewer people in the laborforce, that is a problem. Especially, when I keep reading about how the economy is doing great compared to other post-Recession years. If this is true, why aren't people re-joining the laboforce? If the labor market is squeezed for talent, as companies and JOLTS [1] data would have us believe, why aren't they raising wages to lure workers? The fact that they aren't is not a good sign of economic fundamentals.

>Real average hourly earnings for June 2013 were $10.31. Real average hourly earnings for June 2018 were $10.76. Real earnings increased over that period. So what are you referring to, exactly?

Correct, since 2013, real wages are up 0.7% annually. I am referring to how real wages have fallen since the tax law was enacted. This is notable because the tax cut was specifically sold on the promise it would increase worker's wages[2]. Why haven't wages risen since the tax cut when they were rising before the cut?

>This reminds me of a how a creationist says “Well, I haven't seen an explanation for this" and proceeds to dismiss an entire field.

Like someone who uses an anecdote about Costco raising wages by $1 as evidence the labor market is great while dismissing real wage contraction?

>Lack of evidence about what? Be specific.

Evidence that any of the "reasons" outlined for slow wage growth are true.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-18/trump-s-t...