Walls and Anchors Need Nerfing.

Building a single mex is also not your entire economy, when people say to macro better they mean to work on resource intake, spending and production etc, they are reffering to either the entirety of it or larger parts of it, not one individual unit or one building.

In starcraft macroing better doesn't mean to make one more unit, it means to make a lot more units.
Maybe they point out they are floating resources, in which case better macroing would be to build more production facilities and to remember to use them more frequently.

A player who is good at macro is characterized by rapidly increasing resource intake, keeping resources low throughout the game by keeping up with unit production and expanding.

I have never heard anyone in regards to starcraft at least use the term macro when indicating a single unit or building.

Macro is not just eco efficiency. It's all about seeing the big picture. Not trying to exploit certain broken engine mechanics for an asymmetric advantage, but to outsmart the enemy by predicting his strategy and tactics and reacting forehand, as well as making best use of the command system to express your intention with a minimum amount of commands issued.

Switching the endless construction queue to the right unit type is pure macro. Creating pathways for your units to go for weak sides of the enemy base is macro. Streamlining your eco for zero wasted metal is macro.

Abusing engine flaws to push one units capabilities to the limit is pure micro. Trying to surf the energy economy is pure micro.

Also don't mistake the terms "macromanagment" and "macro". First one refers to stating an intention rather than a issuing a command which would result in a specific, immediate action.
The second one is often used synonymous to scripting. Which is the same IF you know how to code so you can express your intentions in a formal form, but if you can't, it isn't.

Btw.: Still waiting for someone to write himself an auto-dodge-and-micro-wall-spam client micro bot. Which would then make the process of writing and using this bot macromanagment, by definition.

Macromanagement is setting the goal, micro is reaching the goal. A player who is good at micro is good at rapidly expanding. A player who is good at macro aims to do that on purpose. Build efficiency is an entirely separate matter depending on whether or not you are actively controlling it.

Like I've said countless times now, if you want to split micro up into 'micro' and 'macro' to differentiate between combat and base and troop management, be my guest, just don't presume to correct people who know and use the correct terminology. This game is 99% pure micro. Macro, true genuine macro is hardly even involved.

Don't know where you have "Macromanagement is setting the goal, micro is reaching the goal." from, but macro is about things done on a large scale, while micro is about the detail work happening everywhere within that large scale.

Macro very much is about reaching goals, not just setting them.

Macro is setting and understanding goals, but they can only be reached by micro. (cicro and/or picro if you prefer, combat & passive micro, i.e. non-combat micro). That's literally what macromanagment is all about, setting goals for the people who work under you and watching without doing. Unless your units are capable of doing these things by themselves then you need to micromanage to help fulfill any goal.

Your example of perfect area builds are one of very few examples which don't require micro after the initial setting of the goal.

Well taking what you said there, even something like building a single mex is macro then, you decide to invest metal into a mex and it will then gather metal untill the game is over or it gets destroyed, while automaticly supplying you with the income. Once a mex is made, no micromanaging is needed for it to complete its goal.

Much like an employer can decide to hire an employee, set him to do a task and then receive the benefits of him completing that task.

Or telling a factory to produce units, as once you have given it the goal of producing 100 tanks, it continues on automaticly spending the necessary metal and energy required to make it while pushing the tanks out to make space for making new ones.

Once again we are back to differing degrees of micro. Macro goal, micro how you achieve it.

A thousand cheeseburger do not equal a cow.

A CEO of a toy factory that employ another worker on the toy production line or add another production line to his factory is macromanaging, that is one of the simplest examples of macromanagement there is.

Changing CEO with the player leaves an accurate translation of that example into one applicable to an RTS game.

The goal of increasing workforce or expanding production is macro, directly controlling those new processes is not. I'm done with this now.

You are of course free to be done with it, but the facts remain that macro is not confined to never controlling anything, the only requirement is that what is being controlled is of a large scale.

Managing someone is controlling them to lesser or greater extents, a micromanager closely monitor each employees work, a macromanager manages what the micromanager is doing, but he is still doing the exact same thing as the micromanager, only difference is his covers a larger scale.

macromanaging, to manage the managers, those are the definitions and the facts, regardless if you choose to ignore them.