I genuinely don't get it.
If a person knew that a project they were working on would be over after a certain number of years, and if other projects didn't come up they would be out of work, and if they couldn't get a job anywhere else is that lost income a "phony" fall in income just because it was already on its way out for other reasons?
It's problematic enough when people define austerity to mean an actual decline in spending, rather than a decline relative to trend (dueling counterfactuals, once again - it always boils down to dueling counterfactuals). Are we now going to adopt the standard that it's only austerity if it is active and politicians really really didn't want to do it?
Buck v. Bell: Live from The Roasterie
16 minutes ago