[hyperpape]

You should say more about why you think 6-8% unemployment is required. From September 2014 - February 2020, unemployment was below 6% without signs of significant inflationary pressure.

I'm not saying you're wrong (those periods are different from the present in a lot of ways), just that your reasoning isn't very apparent.

[lamontcg]

I didn't say that inflation would reappear at 5.99% unemployment.

They need >6% so there's a gap between here and there. Right now we're clearly at the rail and unemployment has not budged. The jobs overhang has significantly abated, but that has been a short-term reaction to the policy changes, and it can change back on just as short of a term.

[hyperpape]

> I didn't say that inflation would reappear at 5.99% unemployment.

I didn't say you did, just that you haven't said anything to motivate the 6-8% number. It's plausible sounding, but as far as what you've said so far, you might as well have drawn those numbers out of a hat.

[lamontcg]

Because it took 5 years from 2015-2020 for unemployment to fall from 6% to 3.5%, and during that period wage growth was between 3% to 4.5%, which is consistent with the Fed's desire to keep wage growth in line with their 2% inflation target adjusted for productivity gains.

The 8% number is motivated by the fact that the economy is highly nonlinear and the Fed really doesn't control how bad the next recession is going to be. It could, of course, be even worse.