>>24505616
Two things, first is that "unemployment", in the modern sense, is highly unrepresentative of what the true unemployment situation is, since total labor force participation has been declining for some time, and those who completely drop out are simply not counted, when potentially they could be activated into employment. Taking this into account, "full employment" is farther off than one might at first conclude.

Second, as I alluded to earlier, there are longer range time horizons that should be taken into account. Certain, so-called "redistributive policies" could end up increasing both productivity and demand if it takes the form of providing education to a young person who might not otherwise receive it, leading to a lifetime of increased productivity and demand for that person's life.

I suspect you are looking to strengthen the contours of my position vis-a-vis inflation, which is a constant concern, especially in a tight labor market situation. To address this concern, we must consider what factors are currently driving inflation. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, approximately one third of all inflation for the years 2020 - 2022 was due to an expansion in corporate profits. This suggests that a significant portion of modern inflation is a result of monopolistic price gouging. Thus, to curtail redistributive spending in deference to inflation concerns would be injudicious, it would essentially be rewarding sectors of the economy who are leveraging disproportionate power to tilt the entire economy towards their own benefit and against that of the citizenry.

In short, we must be cautious of inflation, but we must be equally cautious of the wrong actors being blamed for it.