[mcphage]

> They are calling them a "threat" to equity valuations.

What they're saying is that, as wages rise, corporate profit margins will decrease. That's a non-pejorative, value neutral way to describe the phenomenon.

However, when they chose to discuss it, they littered the discussion with pejorative, non-value-neutral language. Those word choices were their intentional choice, to frame rising wages as bad, and corporate profits as good.

> I'm not currently associated with that world in any way, shape or form

Nor did I say you were. What I said was that your reading comprehension skills were poor. Reading comprehension doesn't just mean being able to parse the syntax and know what the words mean. You need to be able to read a text, and see how the words chosen indicate what the writer is trying to imply in their writing.

[throwaway_srb]

Based on my experience, I think the phrasing[0] is pretty much par for the course for equity research reports, and does not indicate any sort of orientation in their value system. I can see how it can appear malicious or pejorative for people who don't write and consume these reports on a day to day basis. That being said, I think the author and you are reading too much into the particular words here.

In any event, if I haven't managed to convince you, let us agree to disagree :). Cheers.

[0] Threat, for example, is one of the components of SWOT analysis, and is used in the sense of a downside risk factor and doesn't imply anything malicious.

[qq66]

The core principle behind all equity research reports is that the value of the equity being discussed is the most important thing. That's not a problem -- the principle behind a physics paper is that the particle being discussed is the most important thing. The problem is that equity researchers drive major decisions that affect millions of lives, and is too powerful compared to say, physicists.