Edward Archer, a "Computational Physiologist currently serving as Chief Science Officer for EnduringFX," energetically argues "No." I agree. And I'd add that this is one of several reasons economics tends to outperform other social sciences: we don't pay much--or even any--attention to what people say about why they do what they do.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
For a small but probably growing number of California’s government workers, the worst-case scenario is here: The failure to adequately fund public pensions is leading to devastating reductions in their promised retirement benefits. If the pension problem were a cloud of carbon monoxide, there would be no more need to wait for a canary to keel over.
What are Liberals going to say when governments across the country start reneging on one of their most sacred promises? In California, don't tell me, I know: it will be the fault, no doubt, of Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan. I mean what about the rest of the country?
Sounds good to me.
In February, Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright said the firm expects wages to rise at least 4% in 2017. Wendy’s has three options to offset the rising costs.
First, they could cut margins, but with an 8% margin, that’s unlikely. The second option is to raise prices. Given how price-sensitive consumers are these days, that too is a non-starter. Finally, the firm could reduce the amount of labor they use… and that’s exactly what they did. Wendy’s eliminated 31 hours of labor per location, per week.
"By every measure, the United States has been sinking into economic mediocrity over the last decade, because of excessive regulation."
Editorial in the Sacramento Bee.
With all the unknowns – and the certainty of higher pension payments – being frugal is the only responsible course for Sacramento and cities and counties across California.
I wish them lots of luck with that.
John Tamny makes short work of yet another version of the "limits to growth" fallacy.
That would be us, the U.S.
On a real per capita basis (i.e., after adjusting for inflation and population growth), the net worth of the average person living in the U.S. has reached a new all-time high of $286K, up from $62K in 1950. This measure of wealth has been rising, on average, about 2.3% per year since records were first kept beginning in 1951. By this metric, life in the U.S. has been getting better and better for generations.
"Medicare and Social Security already account for roughly two-fifths of all federal outlays, and they will account for a growing share of the federal budget over the coming decade. Medicare, Social Security, and net interest payments on the debt will account for roughly 55 percent of federal outlays by 2027, an increase over their already significant share of 45 percent last year."
Hey, Federal Trade Commission: when you blocked the Staples-Office Depot merger years ago, did you anticipate a time when they'd both be getting their lunch eaten by Amazon?