I need to start writing posts in the title :)
If I read you right, I don't think many arrive at the full-employment conclusion through some assumed coincidence of tendency and what we value. From what I can tell, it's a lot harder to contrive cases (theoretically speaking) in which, in the long-run, you don't get full-employment.
I think a lot of individuals don't value employment when the gap between their former wages and the wages they can now earn is so large. Employers don't value employment as much as the lower vulnerability of having fewer workers. I don't think individuals value housing as much as their housing expenses suggest. I think the ability to fool individual companies into hiring by artificially increasing demand is pretty low and also ignores sticky hiring. In other words I don't think it's easy to force optimism.
All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.
Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate and adjunct professor in the Economics Department at American University. He has a master's degree in public policy from George Washington University.