There are always systemically fewer jobs than there are people that want them - deliberately so as a matter of policy.
For there to be a competitive market in jobs there should always be as least as many jobs unfilled as there are people who want to work - which represent the two tails of the market.
In the UK we currently have 3.5 million without work that want it and 1 million short of work, but only 0.6 million unfilled vacancies.
>For there to be a competitive market in jobs there should always be as least as many jobs unfilled as there are people who want to work - which represent the two tails of the market.
Why should both sides be equal? Easy counter-example: I'm sure everyone on earth would like an iphone (demand of 8 billion) but the supply is far less than that.
The purest markets we have are the financial markets and level 2 data tends to exhibit this quality.
Demand is desire plus ability to pay - which is why your iPhone example is deficient. That’s why billions go without and why people go for the alternatives.
However everybody needs a job to be able to live. There is no alternative to selling your labour hours in a modern world. Extracting from others is a fallacy of composition.
There are always systemically fewer jobs than there are people that want them - deliberately so as a matter of policy.
For there to be a competitive market in jobs there should always be as least as many jobs unfilled as there are people who want to work - which represent the two tails of the market.
In the UK we currently have 3.5 million without work that want it and 1 million short of work, but only 0.6 million unfilled vacancies.