Well we have the baby boomers retiring, kind of a budge in the curve. That might account for some of the distortion. The number I recall was 280K new jobs needed to keep unemployment rate stable but that was prior to the baby boomers retiring in mass.
Except that the mass retirement of baby boomers should be opening up scads of jobs. It would be even better than 1:1 replacement since you’d be replacing experienced, top of wage scale workers with less-skilled workers, so you could afford to hire more than one replacement.