Those with a vested interest in the status quo will use any argument they can muster to suggest this is just temporary.

Those with a vested interest in reform will use any argument they can muster to suggest this is a long-term situation and likely to get worse.

So when someone comes with facts in support of one or other position, how do you tell whether they have an axe to grind, or are being selective or falling prey to confirmation bias?

And when the two camps above hit upon suitable frames where their preferred policy conclusion follows more easily, you'll have a clash of frames and no debate will be possible.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes