> But to me your stance seems to be rooted in an assumption that
> full employment is always "really" just a mask for exclusionary full
> employment for some privileged group - e.g., white men.
Well no wonder you don't understand the arguments (or pretend not to). No one is making that argument, obviously.
> I can see how this
> might follow from certain strands of "theory" that "interrogate" the concept
> of "universality" (sorry for all the quotes),
Talk of flashbacks to 1993.
> The last time we approached full employment in the US was a few years in the
> late 90's. Unemployment fell from a high of 7.8% in June 1992 to a low of
> 3.8% in April 2000 (lowest since the 1960's). Who benefited most? Well, the
> percentage of whites with jobs rose 3.0 points (from 62.3 to 65.3). But the
> percentage of blacks with jobs rose 6.3 points (from 55.1% to 61.4).
Near full employment financed by a massive speculation boom. So far you've presented war and once-in-a-century bubble (besides the postwar arrangements, which I'll get to in a minute) as grounds for full employment. Not the kinds of conditions I'd consider desirable.