Is it necessary to choose between full employment and low inequality and low poverty?

It is often claimed that continental Europe has opted for low inequality and low poverty, while the United States has opted for full employment. It is alleged that Europe therefore will pay for its determination to avoid inequality and poverty by high structural unemployment, and that the United States will pay for its choice of low structural unemployment by high inequality and poverty. Is it really necessary to make this choice? To try to answer this question, we can look at whether: There is a trade-off between low inequality and low poverty on the one hand and structural unemployment on the other, by comparing OECD countries; do some countries manage to have low inequality, low poverty and structural unemployment at the same time? Certain policies make it possible to reduce structural unemployment without increasing inequality and poverty; these may be education and training policies or certain tax policies. We find: That there is no choice between inequality and unemployment, since countries that have low inequality and low poverty also have a low unemployment rate (Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden); But that there are countries where low unemployment actually leads to significant inequality and poverty: United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Japan; That an efficient education system and high labour force skills are associated with both low unemployment and low inequality and low poverty. Education and training policies therefore make it possible to move away from the trade-off between unemployment on the one hand and inequality and poverty on the other.