It bothers me when journalists write in a way that it’s clear what they mean if you know the topic very well, but is really misleading to anyone else.

Moreover, it seems that those rock-bottom low rates reflect long-term structural issues — such as ageing demographics and falling productivity — as much as central bank interventions. This suggests they could endure for a long time.

Productivity is not falling. It’s simply that the rate of increase is declining. This is not at all the same thing as a fall in productivity. Not even close!

A fall in productivity is this: yesterday, I could produce 10 widgets with 2 workers. Today, I can produce 10 widgets with 3 workers. Tomorrow, I will only be able to produce 10 widgets with 4 workers.

What the article is talking about is this: For the past 20 years, I could produce 10 widgets with 1 fewer worker every year. However, for the past five years, I could only reduce my workers by 0.4 per year to produce the same 10 widgets.

Notice that productivity is going up, just not as quickly.

Which is exactly what is happening in the economy now.

It annoys me that almost no journalists gets this right.