Interestingly, it comes from one of the commenters, not the Senior Lecturer:
Here I think, we get to the nub of the issue. Assuming we are intent upon taking this forward.
Let us ignore what precise figure we will accept as ‘full employment’. The number is not arbitrary, but by for example, raising the pension age, or the school leaving age it can be shifted substantially at a stroke. Also there will always inevitably be a degree of churn at any given time and that is not only inevitable, but necessary.
In terms of developing policy it is pointless to speak of ‘full employment’ without considering what we are going to accept as ’employment’ and how its ‘fullness’ might be achieved.
An extremely useful definition is to look at it the other way around. As Marx said, if we’ve got full employment, no more than frictional unemployment, then labour compensation should rise in line with productivity.
Thus, if labour compensation is rising in line with productivity we’ve full employment…..we quite obviously haven’t had in recent years, we’re about there now.