couple of things: one, the employment rate has been redefined by our government to the point of uselessness, who gets counted and who doesn't is a sham, and does not account for the underemployed (the 'classic case' of the engineering degree holder working at a deli or wherever) two, 'good for business' is absolutely not necessarily good for society and the sooner we get out of the mindset that business and 'the economy' are the primary indicators of what's good for people the better off everyone will be - except oligarchs I guess
There is a certain degree of unemployment that indirectly makes businesses benefit from it. That rate has to be big enough to keep up social pressure and therefore reduce payment expectations and wages. That rate has to be at a level so that when you need new employees you quickly find a suitable one from that mass of people. On the negative side is that a higher level of unemployment reduces the ability of consumers and the market to spend money on goods and services. That also increases the speed at which money flows through the economy because more people have to spend most or all of their little money for the basics like food and house and such. That pushes inflation which harms businesses. Unemployment also has a cultural and political side which can affect businesses heavily too. So that must have been a short sighted study I guess?
Not necessarily. Correlation is not necessarily causation, meaning that just because they're correlated doesn't mean that lowering the employment rate would necessarily increase financial and economical performance. For example, one underlying factor could be responsible for both of those trends, or financial and economical performance could cause low employment. And I have no idea why the two things are negatively correlated.
Retrospring uses Markdown for formatting
*italic text* for italic text
**bold text** for bold text
[link](https://example.com) for link
