I hope we’re not all supposed to get upset every time a central banker expresses discomfort with inflation. If we are, it’s going to be a long, arduous decade.

Even if you want to argue that some of the structural factors which contributed to decades of subdued price growth are likely to reassert themselves, there are now opposing structural forces with the potential to, at the least, offset the disinflationary drag from debt and demographics. If price stability is ultimately restored across the developed world, “stability” will likely be a misnomer: Inflation might average 2.5% or 3%, but outcomes could be more volatile.

With that in mind, Neel Kashkari was in the news Tuesday for suggesting it’s too early to say the genie’s back in the bottle. The Fed shouldn’t say “we’re absolutely done, we’ve solved the [inflation] problem” without additional evidence, he told Fox late Monday, in comments that unsettled markets a bit. Kashkari then showed up on Bloomberg TV. If inflation ticks back up, the Fed’s job isn’t done, he said Tuesday, adding that the FOMC has been “surprised” by economic strength in the US.

It’s worth reminding ourselves, as we ponder the ostensible end of the Fed’s tightening cycle, that core inflation is nowhere near target. Everyone knows that, but it feels like the lingering overshoot gets short shrift. When we say the Fed’s job isn’t done, we mean that literally. Inflation isn’t 2%.

Obviously, the Fed’s in a better place than they were, but market participants should expect cautious commentary from hawks (the mainstays and the born-agains like Kashkari) for the foreseeable future. If it’s an unequivocal victory declaration you’re looking for, it’s not forthcoming.

Kashkari wasn’t signaling anything about the likelihood of another rate hike from the Fed. He was, more than anything, stating the obvious, just not in so many words: There’s no guarantee that inflation in the US is, in fact, on an inevitable path back down to 2%.

“As the incoming Fedspeak has consistently emphasized, rate cuts are not on the agenda and won’t be for some time; presumably the FOMC has no intention to begin the normalization process as soon as the futures market suggests,” BMO’s Ian Lyngen and Ben Jeffery remarked. “Timing the appropriate stay at terminal will be data dependent and if we’ve learned anything from this cycle, it’s that the inflation mandate is weighted most heavily,” they added. “In its endeavor to reestablish price stability, the Fed has a greater tolerance for economic downside and inflicting damage on the labor market.”

Note that the RBA hiked rates on Tuesday. It was the second time the bank hiked after a pause.

“Inflation in Australia has passed its peak but is still too high and is proving more persistent than expected a few months ago,” the November statement read.

The RBA’s move was expected, of course, and the forward guidance made it a “dovish hike” (weighing on the currency), but from a 30,000-foot perspective, it was a reminder that even for hike-averse central banks (as the RBA was this cycle under Philip Lowe), it ain’t over till it’s over.

As one former RBA governor who now works as an economist at Westpac put it, “all of these central banks are facing similar decisions. Watching the data for signs they need to do more.”