OECD defines a "healthy full employment" rate to be 4-6% unemployment, so the labour pool is unhealthily low already.
The question is how many people exited the workforce, because both unemployment benefits and minimum wage offer payments that just barely allow them not to starve to death.
Normally people would be incentivized to find work, because even minimum wage would offer a significant upgrade over unemployment benefits, but since minimum wage is so abysmally low they couldn't have set unemployment benefits much lower or people would have literally starved.
The sane solution of increasing minimum wage to incentivize people to find jobs while obvious is not very popular with wealthy political donors.
If you're literally scraping the barrel, you need to import more workers, or move jobs out of state, or automate some away etc.
The neoliberal view would be 'more immigration because you could expand' ergo 'unhealthy/unoptimized state, increase people to make more GDP'.
But that's only one view.
Given a flat population, it generally actually wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for example to 'let people go' to create more slack for times of economic swings.
Very low unemployment can only be characterized as 'unhealthy' from the view of 'maximizing GDP growth' for the most part.