Perhaps these are actually not so sneaky, but they are issues that get lost in the shuffle when other big concerns surface: lost skills, “shrinkflation” and regulation. We are bombarded with assessments of inflation, employment and more, but these less headline-worthy subjects may prove even more significant.

Lost skills

At the top of the list is the issue of lost skills due to workforce shortages. By 2030, every baby boomer will be eligible for retirement. We lack enough trained people to replace them, but there is another element we don’t pay enough attention to. New graduates may be well versed in modern tech, but they don’t have experience with the older tech that still dominates most businesses. That training has to come from the people who have been dealing with these machines for years, who too often retire before passing that knowledge on. 

In the not-so-distant past, the “old heads” would pass that knowledge on to new workers by example. But companies stopped hiring people to wait in the wings and gather knowledge. Now the experienced worker retires and the new employee is hired to replace them, and there is no opportunity to pass on the knowledge. The result is months of expensive trial and error. 

'Shrinkflation'

A second sneaky issue is “shrinkflation.” We are all familiar with the higher prices that have come with inflation of around 2.7% (officially). The issue is that inflation should be somewhat higher by now, given all the tariff and trade turmoil, higher wages and other issues. 

Producers have many ways to cope with inflation. They can simply hike prices to reflect the higher costs of inputs, but that risks losing consumers that can no longer afford the product or service. The most common alternative is “shrinkflation.” The price may stay the same, but the offering is smaller—often significantly so. The service is reduced so there is a longer wait. Notice how slow “fast food” has become. In many cases, people notice the reduced size but can do little about it. And when it comes to service, it is harder to point out. 

Consumers are deeply affected by this pattern. They routinely get less for their money, eroding the relationship between producer and consumer. If the expectation was for a product of the same size and quality as before and that is not met, there will be a strong motivation to shift to a different supplier. 

This is even more pronounced when service is cut or reduced. In many sales situations, the selling point has been “service after sale.” Machines break down, and adjustments are needed. A significantly delayed service response causes frustration, because long delays cost money. Most business is caught between two factors. They rely on suppliers to do their job so the company can meet its customers’ demands. A failure at one end of the supply chain will cascade through the entire process. If a business decides not to reduce quality or service efficiency while coping with inflation, they will have no alternative to hiking prices and risking the erosion of market share.

Regulation

The third issue has been around for a long time. Regulation has long been controversial, and for a variety of reasons. Milton Friedman is quoted as asserting that policies should be judged by their outcomes rather than their intent. Many good ideas turn out to be problematic when they encounter the real world. They contradict one another as they are promulgated by agencies with differing mandates. One problem occupies the regulator’s attention, and they pay little attention to what happens as a result. It is estimated there are more than 1 million regulations at the federal level alone, with another 4,500 issued every year. Keeping up with them easily becomes a full-time job.

Lately, there has been the additional stress of tariffs. More than 500 executive orders have been issued since January 2025, more than in any year in the last three decades. These have also changed quickly and often, which makes it even harder to keep track of what has and hasn’t been affected. Customs officials have admitted publicly they no longer know what a company’s financial obligations are.

In truth, nobody wants to live in a world with no regulation at all. There are ample reasons to seek protection for consumers, workers and the environment. But there is a solid argument to be made for overregulation. In the vast majority of cases, the original rule or regulation made sense in the context of the original problem. It becomes a problem when that rule or regulation comes into conflict with other goals and aims. 

For example, there have been calls to cap credit card interest rates at 10%. Given that everybody has long complained about how high these rates have been, it seems a very good idea. What could go wrong? The reality is that credit card issuers are well aware of the millions of defaults every year. The rate of serious delinquencies (more than 90 days) is close to 8%. There was nearly $60 billion in overdue debt in 2024 alone. Higher rates allow credit card issuers to cover the delinquencies. If the rate is capped, they will respond with a much more cautious approach to issuing credit cards. Those with weaker credit will be denied access and will be forced to use less savory options. The bottom line is that capping rates is a “good” idea in some respects, but it creates new problems.

While attention this year will be focused on the usual subjects, it is important to avoid losing sight of less common concerns too.

stock.adobe.coM/DNY3D