Since a deficit in critical thinking skills seems to be at epidemic levels, here's a good case study from Barry Ritholtz. He received an email with a video from a woman named Wendy Bell, who points to what she claims is an epidemic of restaurant closings as proof that the U.S. economy is collapsing. His response:
If you wanted to engage in honest debate about the economy via restaurants, you would consider the following:
Openings: Nearly 53,800 restaurants opened their doors for the full 2023 year, up 10% from 2022. Or, compare that to the pre-pandemic year. In 2023, openings were up 2% versus 2019, a modest increase compared to before the lockdowns. Source: Axios
Closures: “According to the latest research, 60% of new restaurants fail within the first year, 70% in their second year and 80% close their doors within five years. The average lifespan of a restaurant is only 4.5 years.” Source: Binwise
The US National Restaurant Association recognizes a 30% failure rate as the norm in the restaurant industry. Source: Restaurant.org; See also Why Do Restaurants Fail?
Total: There are 749,000 restaurants in USA, and 1000s close every year. Even an accurate list of closures tells you little about the state of the economy. Source: Restaurant Industry Statistics
In fact the number of restaurants operating in the U.S. is increasing. It is now and always has been a tough business, but in reality right now it's relatively a boom time for restaurants. If you scroll down Barry's post you'll see comments explaining the various restaurant closures Bell talks about. Many of them actually happened under Trump, some of them aren't actually happening at all, but the rest of them are just normal churn in the industry. Restaurants close because consumer tastes change, locations are no longer as suitable, lots of restaurant owners just aren't very good at the business, owning a restaurant is just too demanding so people decide not to do it any more, chains close less profitable locations -- you name it. But people make up stories that some people want to believe.
Now I'll just make a basic point of logic relating to some other issues. I believe that juries usually get it right but sometimes get it wrong. OJ Simpson should have been convicted, for example, and so should George Zimmerman. Kyle Rittenhouse should have been convicted as well. But I make up my own mind about that question based on what I know about a case. If that isn't enough, I withhold judgment. If it's enough to satisfy me, I make a judgment, based on the facts. That seems simple enough, no?
2 comments:
The amount of bullshit and scams being perpetrated by malicious actors these days -- for profit and god knows why else -- is simply staggering.
Single cases are not facts about a general situation. This is a stupid example, but I can't come up with a better one:
Suppose you lived in a country where capital punishment was carried out by playing a single round of Russian Roulette, and you were convicted to be punished in this way. There were two other people who were sentenced to the same fate on the same day you were.
- The first person put just one bullet in his revolver and blew his brains out on his one try.
- The second person put 5 bullets in his revolver but managed to hit the empty chamber on his try.
- Based on these "facts", how many bullets would you put in your revolver when it was your turn?
Post a Comment