Lowest unemployment rate since 1969 [1] coupled with negative real wage growth [2] is an indicator that our current ideology (low taxes, limited regulation) is broken.
> an indicator that our current ideology... is broken
Read the very article you linked to:
The jobless rate ticked down to 3.8% in May, another sign of the strong economy and tight labor market. That tied the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. Since then, the only other time unemployment was this low was in April 2000. "It fell for all the right reasons. We had more people coming into the labor market. We saw employers digging deeper into the pool of unemployed," said Josh Wright, chief economist at the software firm iCIMS. The jobs report painted a picture of an economy with opportunities for almost everyone. Black unemployment fell to a record low, and the gap between black and white unemployment shrank to the narrowest ever measured. Job openings are at a record high, and businesses are hungry for workers. That has helped underrepresented Americans find jobs. The unemployment rate among African-Americans and Asian-Americans has been steadily declining. It has also dropped among low-education workers and even teenagers. Over the past year, the unemployment rate among 16- to 19-year-olds has fallen from 14.1% to 12.8%.
Not to mention you haven't established the connection to "low taxes, limited regulation" that you claim. Others could equally claim the problem is that taxes and regulation are too high. This is a classic case of "I'm going to cite bad statistics and blame X without explaining the causal connection with X or whether the alternative would be better."
You seem to have missed the "coupled" in "Lowest unemployment rate since 1969 coupled with negative real wage growth". Neither low unemployment or declining wages alone are indicators that anything is broken. The former just implies that the supply of labor is low while demand is high, the latter implies that the price of labor is shrinking.
But the combination means that there's a problem, because in a free market you would expect the opposite: in times of low unemployment, companies would need to increase wages to attract employees. That this is not happening is a blow against the justification of the current "low taxes, limited regulation" ideology (that it creates free markets), because the labor market doesn't behave like a free market.
The same article the GGP linked to explains why wages haven’t grown as quickly:
Economists believe that the unemployment rate can dip even further because there's still slack in the job market.
Productivity and inflation are lower than in previous periods of growth, and economists believe that has kept a lid on wages. The erosion of workers' bargaining power has also played a role.
Another explanation: Employers are turning to new workers — such as younger people and those just re-entering the job market — to fill positions vacated by better-paid veteran workers who are either retiring or taking new positions elsewhere.
Economists are confident that wages will keep climbing as competition for workers grows.
Dozens of companies have already announced pay hikes and more attractive benefits to lure workers. On Thursday, Costco said it would raise starting wages for US employees by $1, to a minimum of $14 an hour.
What do you find unsatisfactory about these explanations?
> But the combination means that there's a problem, because in a free market you would expect the opposite: in times of low unemployment, companies would need to increase wages to attract employees. That this is not happening is a blow against...
It sounds like you’re setting up a strawman and attacking it. See above.
> because the labor market doesn't behave like a free market.
No one believes the labor market is or behaves like a free market. Again, this is a strawman.
>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.
> 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.
>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.
> Others could equally claim the problem is that taxes and regulation are too high.
They could do so, but they'd probably somehow have to account for the fact that both taxes and regulation are substantially lower than periods of broader prosperity.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/01/news/economy/may-jobs-repor...
[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm