I don't think he's saying it would. I think he's saying that a hiring-employment gap means wages should rise. That brings in more employees, while pricing out

I don't think he's saying it would. I think he's saying that a hiring-employment gap means wages should rise. That brings in more employees, while pricing out some marginal job postings. What we have right now is moderate unemployment, static wages, and an industry insisting they can't find employees. If we accept the article's premise that it's not about irreducible skill shortages (i.e. skills are available, or on-job training is an option) then something is badly wrong with that gap. There's a known pattern where an industry yells about how they can't find employees until some external force solves the problem for them: usually rising unemployment or government-funded training initiatives and subsidies. This is especially rewarding if people get educated/trained into your industry specifically, and therefore can't easily change careers and get value from their labor. Basically you keep wages low and beat your breast until someone hands you a captive labor force. So one possible explanation for this 'gap' is that employers are keeping wages sticky in the hope that someone else will come and save them from raising wages.