Here’s some articles that caught my eye this week:
Calorie counts don’t change most people’s dining-out habits – Washington Post
Apparently, telling people the amount of calories on menu items doesn’t change their eating habits, cheap or not. Now, I know that I personally do find it helpful, because many times I’m eating out primarily to hang out with friends and the food is not the goal. But in general, we must fight our human nature:
Experts say that for most diners, the issue is not about having information but about lacking self-control. Behavioral economists have for years zeroed in on a logical hiccup: We are unable to balance short-term gains with long-term costs. Many humans are simply really, really impatient. With eating out, the gains are immediate (yummy giant burrito!) and the costs are delayed (staggering bills for heart disease!).
Working families’ incomes have grown in recent decades. But the gains came mostly because they worked longer hours than because of wage increases, according to new research by the Brookings Institution‘s Hamilton Project. […] Among two-parent families, median earnings did rise by an inflation-adjusted 23% from 1975 to 2009. But the parents’ combined hours worked increased by 26% during the same period–accounting for most of the income gains.
The median income for two-parent families rose to $70,000 in 2009, for working 3,500 hours a year on average, compared with working about 2,800 hours in 1975 to earn $56,600 (in 2009 dollars). Hmm.
Law School Economics: Ka-Ching! and Reactions – NYT
Law schools have the power to raise prices and increase enrollments without any decrease in demand… even as the job market worsens for lawyers. Result: Law school tuition rises 4x faster than even overall college tuition costs, which are already skyrocketing. Are law schools abusing this pricing power?