Retirement luck, Hassett hassles the Fed, and boneless chicken in ... court?

Summary

The Indicator from Planet Money – Episode Summary

Episode: Retirement luck, Hassett hassles the Fed, and boneless chicken in ... court?
Date: February 20, 2026
Hosts: Waylon Wong, Darian Woods, Adrienne Ma
Theme:
A lively roundtable exploring three unique and topical economic indicators: how retirement outcomes depend on luck, a controversy over who bears the cost of tariffs, and a lighthearted legal battle over the “truth” behind boneless chicken wings.

---

1. The Blind Luck of Retirement

Key Discussion Points:

• Indicator: 2.9
  • You could be 2.9 times richer if you happen to retire in the “right” year.
  • Based on research by Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, who simulated 80 years of stock market data and modeled the retirement outcomes for people who all started investing at 22 and retired at 68.
  • Wealth outcomes depend heavily on the market’s performance right before you retire.

Memorable Quotes:

• “As in, you could be 2.9 times richer just because you started saving and retired on a lucky year.” (C, 01:42)
• “The best cohort of investors retired in the year 2000... The worst cohort... retired in 2009.” (C, 02:50–03:02)
• “It just goes to show how much of a gambler retirement is.” (D, 03:20)

Insights & Takeaways:

• Even with identical strategies, luck (market timing) can create large disparities in retirement savings.
• Flexibility with retirement age and keeping a cash reserve can help buffer against bad timing.
• Social Security provides some insurance against these random swings in luck.

Timestamps:

• Market luck in retirement (01:39–04:00)

---

2. Tariff Burden and Fed Research Feud

Key Discussion Points:

• Indicator: 94%
  • According to recent New York Federal Reserve research, 94% of the tariff costs fell on US businesses and consumers during the first eight months of the Trump administration.
  • White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett publicly criticized the paper as “the worst” he’s seen from the Fed.

Memorable Quotes:

• “It's, I think, the worst paper I've ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve System.” – Kevin Hassett, via D (04:31)
• “The beatings will continue until the numbers improve.” (C, 07:11)
• “He was like, they should be disciplined. And I'm like, I don't even know what that means.” (B, 06:53)

Insights & Takeaways:

• The disagreement hinges on whether tariffs truly help American workers or simply pass costs to them—both sides pointing to different data and interpretations.
• Research from other sources (like a German institute) closely matches the Fed’s findings (Americans pay 96% of tariffs per their model), reinforcing the idea that US consumers and businesses mostly bear the burden.
• Foreign exporters do lower prices slightly in response to tariffs, but not enough to shift the main burden away from Americans.

Timestamps:

• Tariff research and controversy (04:00–07:16)

---

3. The Boneless Chicken Wing Lawsuit

Key Discussion Points:

• Indicator: 0
  • There are zero chicken wings in Buffalo Wild Wings’ “Boneless Wings” dish—it’s made with chicken breast, not actual wing meat.
  • A customer, believing he’d be served real wings (just deboned), sued for fraud, arguing the chain was misleading buyers because wing meat is more expensive.

Memorable Quotes:

• “0 is the number of chicken wings that you will find in Buffalo Wild Wings boneless wings entree.” (D, 07:54)
• “The plaintiff’s case had, quote, no meat on its bones.” – Judge’s opinion, paraphrased by D (09:22)
• “What do words even mean anymore?” (B, 10:02)

Insights & Takeaways:

• The case was ultimately dismissed: the judge determined “boneless wings” is understood by the average consumer as a fanciful name, not literal.
• Examples of other menu items like “cauliflower wings” show that consumers can discern playful branding.
• The segment ends on a humorous note about how language and food naming can be misleading, but not illegally so.

Timestamps:

• The “Boneless Wing” lawsuit (07:16–10:04)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “You could have a great strategy, but somebody else does a lot better or a lot worse for random reasons.” (C, 03:24)
• “I’m on the plaintiff's side, I think. First goes the chicken wings, then goes what? Did we say that we're just serving applesauce made out of pears?” (C, 09:02)

---

Episode Flow & Tone

The hosts blend serious analysis with playful banter, moving briskly from pressing economic data to tongue-in-cheek cultural commentary. The tone is accessible, witty, and sharply observant.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode addresses three timely and diverse economic stories:

• The unacknowledged element of luck in retirement savings,
• The real impact of tariffs on Americans and the political wrangling over economic analysis,
• And a “food fraud” drama that underscores the blurry line between marketing and literalism.

For listeners, it’s both illuminating and fun—a quick deep dive into big issues, with just the right amount of irreverence.

Transcript

[A]

Npr.

[B]

This is the indicator from Planet Money. I'm Waylon Wong.

[C]

I'm Darian Woods.

[D]

And I'm Adrienne Ma.

[B]

And today it is, in fact indicators of the week.

[C]

This is, of course, the day of the week where we talk about our favorite numbers from the news. On today's episode, we're going to be talking about the blind luck of retirement.

[B]

We have the Federal Reserve's worst economic research ever, according to the White House.

[D]

And perhaps the most important economic question we've ever asked on this show. What's up with boneless chicken wings?

[A]

Straight after the break, this message comes from Grammarly. From emails and reports to proposals, work today demands clear thinking and confident communication. 90% of professionals say Grammarly has saved them time writing and editing their work. It helps simplify complex ideas so your message lands clearly and quickly. This is AI that works with you, not over you. In a world of generic, AI don't sound like everyone else. With Grammarly, you never will. Download Grammarly for [e-mail] support for NPR

[D]

and the following message come from Edward Jones. What does it mean to live a rich life? Maybe it's full of brave first leaps, tearful goodbyes, and everything in between. And with over 100 years of experience, your Edward Jones financial advisor can help. EDWARD Jones Member SIPC

[B]

It's Indicators of the week. Darian woods, you're up first.

[C]

My indicator is 2.9. As in you could be 2.9 times richer just because you started saving and retired on a lucky year.

[B]

I was born. Year of the rooster. Is that a lucky year?

[C]

Yes, you could argue, and this was all calculated not so much on the Zodiac, but on stock returns by Jesus Fernandez Villaverde. Jesus is a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. And he looked at 80 years of stock market data to make some simulations. He ran hypothetical people born in different years who all started investing for their retirement at age 22. And then he calculated how much wealth they would have amassed from the at age 68.

[D]

Okay, so someone who starts saving for retirement in, say, 1972, they would have a different outcome from somebody who started in 1980.

[C]

Yeah, and we all know that the stock market has good years and bad years. But what was striking to me was just how much those good or bad years matter. The best cohort of investors retired in the year 2000.

[B]

So it's like right before the dot com crash.

[C]

Yeah, that peak right beforehand, they were

[B]

sitting well timed, well timed.

[C]

And the worst cohort with about 2, 2/3 less wealth retired in 2009.

[D]

So that was during the Great Recession.

[C]

Yeah. Not recommended to retire into that period. And it goes to show that what happens to your retirement savings is really driven by what happens with the stock market right before you retire.

[B]

Yeah. So these are things that are completely out of your control.

[D]

I think it just goes to show how much of a gambler retirement is.

[C]

Absolutely. To me, this was shocking that you could have a great strategy, but somebody else does a lot better or a lot worse for random reasons. But, you know, we do have some control in our lives. Jesus says you could get substantial benefits from being flexible over your retirement age. Jesus says maybe you could put some of those retirement savings in like a cash reserve so that you don't draw down on those depressed stocks Right. As you retire. Jesus also points out that we kind of insure each other against these kind of random wins and losses already as a society to some extent. And that's Social Security.

[D]

Thank you very much. Darian Waylon, you want to go next?

[B]

Yes. My indicator is 94%. That's how much of the tariff burden fell on US businesses and consumers during the first eight months of the Trump administration. This indicator comes courtesy of the New York Federal Reserve. It crunched the numbers for a recent blog post on its website. And I'm bringing it up today because White House economic adviser economist Kevin Hassett went on CNBC to talk about how much he hates this number.

[D]

It's, I think, the worst paper I've ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve System.

[C]

Is this the Streisand Effect, where most people would not have thought about this paper until he highlighted it to the public?

[B]

I think so. I mean, I saw this blog post because I subscribed to updates for the New York Federal Reserve's economic blog. But it's like a very widely read blog outside of economic circles. But yeah, now it's been mentioned on cnbc, so everyone can flock to it and check out the analysis for themselves. And I will say this 94% number that has Kevin Hassett so mad is very similar to an indicator we discussed in January. A German research institute that focuses on global economics did its own calculations and concluded that Americans pay 96% of the tariffs. And these two analyses use different methodologies, but both are looking at import prices, in other words, what American importers pay for stuff.

[C]

And tariffs are a tax on imports. And so these estimates are saying Americans shoulder 90 plus percent of the costs.

[B]

Yes. Now foreign exporters are bearing a tiny Part of the burden, the way this happens is that they lower their prices in response to tariffs because they don't want to lose out on sales. And, but for the most part, according to this economic research, American importers end up paying higher prices because of tariffs.

[D]

Okay, so that is what the researchers say. But why, why is Kevin Hassett making a big fuss over this?

[B]

He told CNBC that he doesn't think the numbers reflect how tariffs have helped Americans. He says that tariffs on, for example, China are shifting demand to American made products. And he says that drives up wages and makes the American consumer better off.

[C]

Okay, so wages over the last year are up even after inflation. How much of that is due to tariffs?

[B]

Well, if you just look at the timeline, Trump's big announcement on tariffs wasn't until April of 2025. Real wages were going up way before then during the Biden administration. In fact, there's only a few months overlap between, you know, tariffs happening and the wage increases that Hassett is talking

[D]

about in his comments. Didn't, didn't Hassett also say that the Fed researchers should be more disciplined?

[B]

He didn't say they should be more disciplined. He said they should be disciplined for they should be disciplined economic work.

[C]

So naughty researchers.

[B]

Yeah. So it went even stronger than being like, oh, they should have been more rigorous in their methodology. He was like, they should be disciplined. And I'm like, I don't even know what that means.

[D]

Elaborate.

[B]

They should stay after school and write on the chalkboard. I will take into account producer and consumer surplus 85 times. I don't know. I don't know what he wants them to do.

[C]

The beatings will continue until the numbers improve.

[D]

Okay, so we have covered two very important topics. We've talked about retirement and talked about the impact of tariffs on consumers and U.S. businesses. But I think we saved the most important topic for last, and that is chicken wings.

[B]

Not my favorite part of the chicken, but I know that this is an important snack food for a lot of people.

[D]

That's right. And a very well known purveyor of chicken wings is Buffalo Wild Wings, the restaurant chain. Sure, you've all heard of it. And the indicator is 0. 0 is the number of chicken wings that you will find in Buffalo Wild Wings. Boneless wings Entree.

[B]

But. But wings is right there in the name.

[D]

It is true. There's no wings in the boneless wings.

[B]

The boneless wings.

[D]

If you are confused, you're not alone on this. In 2023, there was a man in Illinois who went to a Buffalo Wild Wings ordered the boneless wings. And he says he was expected to be served chicken wings that were deboned. But come to find out the meat in the boneless wings were actually made from chicken breast meat.

[A]

What?

[C]

Right.

[D]

So this made this customer very mad, and he filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that he had been defrauded. And the plaintiff in this case says that Buffalo Wild Wings intentionally tricked him and other customers because chicken wing meat is more expensive than breast meat. And so it's in their interest to, like, trick people into thinking they're eating wings.

[B]

Oh, so it's like they're tricking customers into thinking they're getting a fancier kind of chicken than what they're being served.

[D]

That's right.

[C]

I'm on the plaintiff's side, I think. First goes the chicken wings, then goes what? Then what? Did we say? That we're just serving applesauce made out of pears?

[B]

We've already lost the plot.

[D]

I mean, the fact that we're still talking about this. Like, you could see why there has been confusion in this case. Right? This case has dragged out for the last few years, and only this few years, the court issued. Issued a decision saying they're dismissing the lawsuit. And in the judge's words, the plaintiff's case had, quote, no meat on its bones.

[C]

He must be a dad. That is a dad joke.

[D]

Just to boil it down, he basically said that, you know, the boneless wing is clearly meant to be fanciful and that no reasonable customer would be confused by that. And he also said that the menu also includes items like cauliflower wings, which the plaintiff acknowledged he didn't expect cauliflower wings to have meat in them. So he was kind of like, well, I don't think you have a case.

[C]

I bet those chickens weren't wild either. I'm gonna start a new case. They were neither buffaloes. They weren't wild, and they weren't wings.

[B]

Yeah, what do words even mean anymore?

[C]

Thing was a facade.

[B]

This episode was produced by Angel Carreras with engineering by Jimmy Keeley. It was fact checked by Sierra Juarez and Corey Bridges. Cake and Cannon edits the show, and the indicator is a production of npr.

[A]

This message comes from BetterHelp. During February. It can feel like everyone has it all together in their love lives. But the truth is, most people are still figuring it out. Take the pressure off and feel lighter in therapy. Visit betterhelp.com NPR for 10% off. This message comes from Rosetta Stone. They have been the trusted leader in language learning for over 30 years. Their immersive, intuitive method helps you truly pick up your new language naturally. Access lessons from your desktop or mobile app. Whether you have five minutes or an hour, it fits your lifestyle with flexible on the go learning. Receive 50% off a lifetime membership with unlimited access to 25 language courses for life. Visit rosettastone.com NPR this message comes from Capital One with the Venture X card, earn unlimited double miles, a $300 annual capital one travel credit and access to airport lounges. Capital One what's in your wallet Terms Apply [e-mail].