Convince me that "Jobs Added" is a meaningful metric

According to FRED, about 60% of Americans admit to being gainfully employed.

For all practical purposes, that is 200 million people.

Traditionally, 4% unemployment was considered "full employment" as some number of workers will be between jobs (moving to a more highly paid job, typically) or coming off of maternity leave or whatever. 4% of 200M is 8 million workers.

This is where things get murky. There are 10 million more jobs being offered than people looking for jobs. There are also about 200k (or maybe 300k)  people coming across the border looking for work.

So if "payrolls" increase by 200k then the economy is standing still.

If payrolls increased by 300k then it mean the 200k who slipped across the border got jobs AND 100k tapped out and either took a second job or decided to get off the couch and go to work. Retirees having to go back to work because their pensions no longer cover basic living expenses is hardly a rousing commendation of how the economy is being managed.

Did the economy actually "expand"? There are still 10 million more job openings than people looking for work.

The number of "jobs created" tells me nothing when there is no additional context.

Another issue lurking in the woodpile are the jobs that will evaporate when people actually start looking for work. It is conceivable that a company like Starbucks is advertising for 20 positions knowing they will be lucky to get 5 people who work out. So how many jobs would you post if you needed 5 employees? Five jobs or twenty jobs?

So, the Fed is driving interest rates partially based on the metric "number of jobs added to payroll". The metric is folded, spindled, mutilated, pounded with a meat tenderizer and sweenieized against the 200 day moving average. It is as synthetic as a slice of generic, American Process Cheese.