This analytical quip is well beyond cliche. That doesn't mean it isn't worth writing about, but well... these articles don't tend to try very hard. The oil sho

This analytical quip is well beyond cliche. That doesn't mean it isn't worth writing about, but well... these articles don't tend to try very hard. The oil shock wasn't an oil shortage in the same sense. The potentially upcoming grain shortage won't be a shortage either. As long as markets are active, you can buy what you want at the price. Ending the analysis here is silly. There are, very obviously, market conditions where prices spike, plummet, etc. Meanwhile, consumers of goods both overpay and under consume relative to pre-market rates. For labour, the deeper story is the relationship between labour markets and the macroeconomy. The same reasons for "shock," "shortage" or more technical descriptions exist. Labour supply is inflexible: one worker has one person's labour to sell. They can't "ramp up" and overproduce because prices are high. There are some buffers, but these can be maxed out. Under the economic norms/theories of the last generation or two, unemployment rates of 5-6% were considered optimal. Employment buffer stock keep shortages at bay, and prices stable. It was considered an anti inflation policy, and probably has worked. TLDR, full employment is probably inflationary... at least in combination with currently conventional macroeconomic policies.