This is not an argument against economics, but against specific ideas in economics holding true: "Falling unemployment no longer drives up wages. Printing mone

This is not an argument against economics, but against specific ideas in economics holding true: "Falling unemployment no longer drives up wages. Printing money does not cause inflation." This is not fair. A) Wages are the last thing to rise and tend only to do so when unemployment is low. We're just now reaching that level. B) Inflation doesn't well account for surpluses: we're getting a lot of bang for our buck in digital services, something that's super hard for the BLS to measure. 'Consumer Surpluses' are like 'profits' to the consumer that are not really measured at all - the only place we do this is when the BLS measures the 'quality' of a basket of goods to figure out inflation: i.e. if the Tomato is getting nicer, redder, juicier, then part of the increased cost of said tomato goes to value, the rest to inflation. This is hard enough to do already, but nary impossible with new services coming online. Case and point: Fortnite. It's free. I've played quite a number of hours of that last year and never spent a dime. Apex is a big game, not free. This is a new trend. The surpluses there are vast. Games have a measurable effect on time spent on other things as well. In a nutshell: consumers lives are improving in ways not always appreciated. C) "Printing money does not cause inflation" - generally, it absolutely does! It just depends where you measure said inflation: stocks, housing - massive inflation. We just don't put that into our version of inflation. But there's inflation for sure! Consider point 1 and 2 together: if stocks are doing well, and CEO's are getting their rewards for strong returns, why are they incented to innovate, pay more etc? Screw that - in a game of 'stocks going up because free money' - the strategy is to 'do nothing' - just keep operating as per, and avoid risk. 'Push the button, collect reward'. Risk changes the nature of the operating environment, and who wants that if there's steady 'returns'? D) The Fed is not 'printing money' really, it's not quite fair to say that in the sense usually implied: a government (or anyone else) 'printing money' to pay for stuff has an entirely different implication. I'll state the article misses the most important things: 1) Printing money almost assuredly does cause inflation, even now. 2) All things equal wages will rise as unemployment lowers. It's just that 'all things are not equal'. Take a look at real surpluses. Take a look at debt-leveraging in homes. Take a look at bifurction of employment from 'tech workers' to 'powerless gig economy' people. Take a look at levels of migrants, their relative skill and their relative market power for wages (they have little power, and there are enough that it absolutely moves the needle). 'Economics' can be used to measure and address all of those things, you just have to start looking at the data, and if not, start measuring things we didn't before. My bet is the answers are not actually that far off, and probably not very surprising if we could see 'all the data' otherwise ignored or unmeasured.