The rich world needs higher real wage growth
This article really demonstrates how meaningless most economics reporting is, it's nearly as bad as markets/finance reporting.<p>Oil is $75, about average over the last decade. It has almost nothing to do with employment, wage growth or GDP except inasmuch as all major economic measures affect eachother. A year ago oil prices were low, did that mean the opposite of this article (whatever that is) was true?<p>This kind of writing leans very heavily on its metrics, euphemisms and cliches. I have a feeling the journalists would not be able to unpack any of its abstractions.<p>"<i>If slack were eliminated everywhere, pay might rise faster.</i>" _.._<i>"hawks think there is little room to boost real wages by running labour markets hotter.</i>" _.._"<i>structural changes in the economy, rather than weak demand alone, have stacked the deck against workers.</i>"<p>...If asked, would the writer be able to give a specific examples or instances for any of these? Are "labour market running hot" or "central bank tightening" references to actual things that are happening or are these just boilerplate sentences that get added to any article?<p>I really don't see how anyone is more informed of anything, even about the authors' opinions, from reading this.