If the conclusions are clearly wrong or look suspicious it's high time to verify input data and methodology. In this case unemployment rate should be called active job seeking during past month rate.
There was a conspiracy to de-fang capitalism after the financial crisis.
Central banks printed a tsunami of reserves to prop-up the banks, and reduced interest rates to allow debtors to survive. The well-funded banks did not foreclose on those companies who struggled despite zero rates. Companies did not lay off workers, but fixed or reduced wages, under the threat of redundancy. Workers kept their jobs in under-productive industries, but were stressed and frightened about the pressures of competition from foreign labor and technology. Many stopped looking for work and dropped out of the unemployment statistics. There was no Schumpeterian creative destruction.
The economy stabilized, but the regime of easy money and depressed wages persisted. Savers bailed-out debtors. Workers bailed out companies, whose high profits provided record returns to capital, not to workers in the form of higher wages. Low oil prices helped to reduce inflation and prevent an inflationary shock. The printed money was corralled by the elites, fuelling huge inflation in assets, and funding stock buybacks, to artificially boost share prices, EPS and the options and bonuses tied to them.
There is unemployment for those who have dropped out of the workforce.
There is inflation for assets owned by the elites closest to the trough of printed money (Cantillon Effect), and services that do not face international competition (healthcare, education).
I think there could be a simple explanation. There is no "booming jobs". It's an illusion. Employers just decide that they don't mind to advertise some jobs, in hopes that a cheap labor will come and they'll "optimize" their process. In fact, if nobody will come, employers will go just fine, but just in case somebody will, they keep doors open. This keeping the door open costs comparatively little, especially given the alternatives (when everybody else does the same). So, we do see some wage increases, above inflation, but only when it's really, positively critical - which in fact in many cases today is not. So - no real need, no wage increases.
Except that's not how unemployment is measured. It's measured by people seeking work, not by job openings. [0] If you really think it's an illusion, a better argument would be that people are dropping out of the workforce, i.e. no longer seeking jobs.
