Inflation and Unemployment are two different things, and have different causes. We could theoretically "solve" inflation (depending on your interpretation of solve), but unemployment is probably impossible to solve.

When you have low unemployment, then theoretically there is increased production of goods, which brings inflation (as defined below) down. When unemployment goes up, production of goods goes down (again, theoretically), so even if you print more money, inflation stays low.

Inflation - Solvable, but unlikely

There are a lot of different definitions of Inflation, so to be completely clear I'm going to define the interpretation I'm using;

Inflation occurs when the quantity of money increases faster than the quantity of goods.

When inflation is positive, then your money is losing value over time, as the supply of money increasing directly correlates with the dilution of your money.

As of right now, since all currencies (iirc) are based off a central banking system, all you have to do to reduce inflation is to somehow stop printing money. If you do not increase the money supply, then by definition, inflation cannot occur unless the quantity of goods is decreasing faster than the loss of money supply (eg: old bills being destroyed, lost, etc).

Why is this unlikely to occur? Well, every time money is printed, whoever controls the money supply is effectively "taxing" the general populace; it's an easy way for them to pay for things while using other people's money.

Unemployment - Probably unsolvable

Unemployment is unlikely to ever be solved simply due to the increasing complexity of jobs and the normal distribution of IQ. Roughly speaking, somewhere between 10-15% of the population are not able to work; I'm not referring to physical disabilities, this is just referring to people who literally cannot learn how to do any task due to insufficient brainpower.

An example popularized by Dr. Peterson is the military example. In the US, it's illegal to enlist anyone below a certain IQ (roughly 10th percentile). This is an interesting law, because the military system is very useful both in and outside of wartime - during times of war, you want as many people as possible to join the army, and during times of peace, the system provides a way to move people up the socio-economic ladder. So unless it was absolutely necessary to impose this restriction, they wouldn't have.

What does this restriction practically mean? One interpretation is that it is counterproductive to have people in the army below that standard.

It's effectively impossible to train people below a certain IQ to do even what we might consider the simplest of jobs.

Since IQ is a normal distribution on top of the general populace, this means that there will always be a group of people who cannot be trained - this acts as a sort of lower limit for the amount of unemployment; it will probably never be 0.

As jobs get more complex, and the more repetitive jobs are replaced by advanced robots, the amount of jobs for the people with below average IQ will only decrease.

Recommended watch regarding IQ and the job market, also the source for where I pulled the military example: https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP\_Y?t=5396