I’m glad to see that the article itself has a better title, but the fact that the ABC used that awful clickbait rubbish as the OG title is incredibly disappointing. They should be better.
The article itself is a really good one though, thanks for sharing. And the news it’s reporting on is great to hear, too! Hopefully they end up choosing a target on the lower end. A 3% target would be truly living up to their name and storied history as the party of labour. Knowing modern Labor though, I’d not be surprised if it’s a 4–5% target. Come on Labor, let’s move away from that neoliberal rubbish idea that people’s lives and livelihoods need to be secondary to this nebulous idea of “the economy”. Still, even a somewhat higher but concrete target is a good step in the right direction compared to the status quo.
In this case the article title was from The Conversation, but the ABC does this with their in-house articles too. The news home page is filled with really clickbaity headlines but if you actually go to an article the title is usually a lot better. It’s quite annoying when reposting stuff from the ABC because the autofill defaults to the clickbait headline instead of the more descriptive one.
In this case the article title was from The Conversation, but the ABC does this with their in-house articles too.
On the conversation website they are using the new title too. And yeah, they all seem to do the a/b title thing, and it’s pretty obnoxious.
fwiw when I said “OG title” I was not referring to “original” (or “original gangsta”), but “open graph”. The OG Title is a tag they put on the page that causes social media sites to pick up that as the “title”. It may or may not have actually been the original title of the article itself. But if it wasn’t ever the original title, then using OG Title in this way is basically their way of having it both ways: they get to claim the article itself has a title with integrity, while also ensuring all social media links are as clickbaity as possible.
A 3% target would be truly living up to their name and storied history as the party of labour. Knowing modern Labor though, I’d not be surprised if it’s a 4–5% target.
Either way, that 3-5% needs to be supported (financially and otherwise) and not treated like dirt. Especially since it’s admitting that 100% employment isn’t possible (correctly) so you can’t punish the remaining % for something that is set out in policy.
Remember, when anyone says “the economy”, you should automatically substitute “rich people’s yacht money”.
And when you hear “NAIRU”, you can substitute “race to the bottom” or “scab army”.
And when you hear “NAIRU”, you can substitute “race to the bottom” or “scab army”.
And if you hear “Nauru”, you can substitute “people we [the government] don’t care about”.
