one of the biggest things they teach in bourgeois economics is that "actually 100% employment is BAD! because it means people can't quit their jobs if they want to and the supply of labor in the labor market will be too low!" I see it dropped casually like it's just a matter-of-fact by people, especially "influencers" who aren't even bourgeois or economists because it's repeated so often. I hate this myth so fucking much for so many reasons, but it's obviously functioning as an ideological justification for the reserve army of labor whether the people repeating it realize that or not (they usually don't even know what the reserve army of labor is). People quit their jobs because their wages are too low, instead of getting organized, because getting organized is harder than quitting and begging another porky for a job. Then when they're begging porky for another job, which can take literally months, they are getting application after application rejected for no good reason, and finally they get desperate and accept a job that is as bad or even worse than their previous job. Most people desire stable employment and a living wage and only quit their job because their wage is shit. So saying or implying that having an unemployment rate of 5-10% is "good" because "people can quit their jobs due to high mobility in the labor market!" functions to justify this state of affairs.
Porky has always opposed 100% unemployment. Pic and vid related.
Have some devil's advocacy: What if 100% employment is bad not because people want to change jobs, but because people need to change jobs. A stablehand may enjoy stable (hah) employment caring for horses, but once the car factory opens and people stop using horses for day-to-day transportation it's necessary that the number of stablehands falls and, consequently, that the number of something else (say, car mechanics) increases. (barring unusual assumptions like "we'll keep these people around all day doing nothing of social necessity, when we need more labor we'll just import it.")
If you centrally plan this you get the resentment that you're forcibly reassigning the stablehand, who wants to keep his regular job. If you do it with market forces, you get the immiseration of unemployment. If you go the socdem route, you cushion the blow with welfare but you're still ultimately delivering the stablehands an ultimatum that their days of horse-care are over. This is very bad for the stablehand, but good for society as a whole. Social Desirability Bias means economists are likely to put it in warm language (people want better jobs!) rather than say something nasty like "economic progress requires compelling labor to move from old industries to new ones, since unlike capital it can't just be dragged there by the profit motive"