Thursday assorted links

Comments

First.

Congratulations, Tommy boy! Look at you, doing such a good job, always putting in the extra effort to best your peers. Next time, could you maybe link your website or newsletter so we can better associate your attention-grabbing efforts with a more permanent identity?

"Congratulations, Tommy boy! Look at you, doing such a good job, always putting in the extra effort to best your peers."
"Thank you for the recognition, sometimes it seems such a thankless mission.
"Next time, could you maybe link your website or newsletter so we can better associate your attention-grabbing efforts with a more permanent identity."
I would like nothing better, but modesty forbids me, I fear.

Ah, modesty-driven "First" commenters -- those are my favorite!

Achievement is what drives me. Beating others and beating my own limitations.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"

Comments for this post are closed

"ad astra per aspergers"

Comments for this post are closed

"Alba Canis Merga"

Comments for this post are closed

To infinity and beyond.

Comments for this post are closed

Modesty will get you nowhere on the Internet.

"Ego hanc sententiam Latine scribere Google Translate"

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

If I were an undergrad again I would avoid even eye contact with women. We've got "she's had a glass of wine so it's not consent" and the deification of false-malicious accusers like Sulkowicz and this tripe.

Havard has recently had a number of arrests - arrests - over unsolicited hand to glute touches.

Wuss. It's really easy. If you are not sure that a woman wants you, ask her! And if you don't feel confident in her expressions of consent because she is drunk, high or is acting non-committal, stop doing what you are doing and don't have sex with her.

Unwanted sexual touching - like unsolicited ass groping - is a crime. Being in college is not an excuse.

I think this kind of heavy handed approach is worse than the problem.

Of course you do, no stranger has ever grabbed your ass.

It's occurred to me more than once. And I'm a pretty normal straight guy. Equating it with rape is ludicrous.

Comments for this post are closed

This is, in fact, one my Mom's favorite stories to tell about my Dad during the 80s. My Dad stopped this "groping" problem by not accidentally walking into gay bars.

Comments for this post are closed

Accidentally on purpose?

Comments for this post are closed

Is this about ass grabbing? Just the other day Tyler was touting this study with his comment that "most[]" of the misconduct suffered by 20% of women was rape or attempted rape.

This farce of a study was intended to demonize college men in support of ongoing legislative attempts to curtail their civil rights and reduce their educational opportunities. Supporters of the legislative efforts have explicitly argued that its ok that some innocent men will be wrongly stigmatized as long as the others are sufficiently intimidated. Supporters regard the absence of due process as a feature of the legislative program, not a bug.

Now, try to imagine Tyler's reaction, and the reaction of other supporters, if the target of the program were immigrants, Muslims, African-Americans, Homosexuals, or any other group. I presume Tyler has some rudimentary understanding of statistics. I presume he is able to distinguish real scholarship from cheap propaganda, at least when the propaganda is at this level of sophistication. When the methods used in this study are turned on groups that Tyler favors, will he give those studies the same pass he gave this one?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

+1

Has a first-kiss ever come with a legal request for consent prior to the kiss? Has nobody ever tried a first-kiss only to find maybe they were optimistic about the reception? Should this really define a crime, as CM appears to believe?

Yes, it should.

Comments for this post are closed

That would criminalize normal human behavior, when there isn't even a suggestion of harm.

Comments for this post are closed

I am sure unsolicited ass groping is normal behavior for you, it certainly is not in my family.

Comments for this post are closed

I think I described kissing.

But also, I suspect I'm being trolled here, so I'm dropping out.

Comments for this post are closed

An absence of unsolicited ass groping and kissing would destroy some of the mystery and fun of romance, IMO.

Comments for this post are closed

But you defended an approving commentary on "unsolicited ass groping"

Comments for this post are closed

Obvious troll is obvious.

It would criminalize adolescence. The idea that every time a girl touched your butt at a party, it should result in a charge, is ludicrous. Equating it with rape is ludicrous.

I realize the goal here is to make normal people quake with rage, 'cause that's fun or something. But it trivializes real problems and real rape, and that's not cool.

Comments for this post are closed

"I realize the goal here is to make normal people quake with rage, ’cause that’s fun or something. But it trivializes real problems and real rape, and that’s not cool. "

Are you sure? I think he might be serious. Plenty of people believe that any behavior that deviates from what they find acceptable should be criminalized.

Comments for this post are closed

"It would criminalize adolescence."
Yours, maybe. And some people's extended ones surely. But not anyone's I know.
"The idea that every time a girl touched your butt at a party, it should result in a charge, is ludicrous."
I guess I am much less irresistible at parties than you are.

Comments for this post are closed

So in your youth you were never dancing with a girl and your/her hands gradually slid down to her/your butt? Somtimes to be gently lifted back to the waist by the other party and others left alone without comment.

How much less fun it would be to say "I would like to put my hands on your butt while we are dancing, Is that acceptable?"

Comments for this post are closed

"So in your youth you were never dancing with a girl and your/her hands gradually slid down to her/your butt? "
Neither in my youth nor in anyone's I know.

Comments for this post are closed

Thiago Ribeiro September 24, 2015 at 5:13 pm

Neither in my youth nor in anyone’s I know.

What do you know. MR is a great place to learn and develop. Look - all my prejudices about Brazilians have been smashed in one go.

I was crossing the road the other day with a much younger colleague. She was stepping off and about to do something stupid. So I stopped her by putting my hand on her arm somewhere between her elbow and shoulder - guiding her into a safer space.

Tell me, am I guilty of sexual assault?

Comments for this post are closed

"unsolicited" =/= "unapproving"

As a female, I prefer not to have to affirmatively give voice to every single potential touch or grope I am willing to accept. Although I never got to have the fun of having my dance partners obliquely attempt an ass-grope, I might have enjoyed one. Same with the traditional yawn and stretch arm maneuver. Sadly, I was born too late and the sexual assault hysteria had already hit colleges by the time I arrived, which made it nearly impossible to tell if guys were attracted to me, and leaves it almost entirely up to the woman to make advances.

Comments for this post are closed

Ezra Klein's own words:

> To work, "Yes Means Yes" needs to create a world where men are afraid

Comments for this post are closed

"Look – all my prejudices about Brazilians have been smashed in one go."
I would like to say you are doing the same with any prejudices I may have about Americans, but alas. All I can say is, I will try not to generalize from one extreme data point.
Unfortunately,we have lots of homicides and drug-related turf wars in Brazil. Hey, maybe we should legalize homicide. Who never burned a rival drug baron with burning tires and killed cops? Ah, to be young again...
"Tell me, am I guilty of sexual assault?"
The same way Uzzah died for having touched the Ark of the Covenant. You should be more concerned with what can happen if your advances are well received. You may marry the lady. If you had just pushed her in front of a car instead, in 30 years--tops-- you would become a free man again.
"So I stopped her by putting my hand on her arm somewhere between her elbow and shoulder."
Oh, so it is what all the groping people's asses at parties thing was about? Saving lives? Knifing people should be legal, surgeons do it all the time! Are you serious?

Comments for this post are closed

Thiago Ribeiro September 24, 2015 at 6:09 pm
I would like to say you are doing the same with any prejudices I may have about Americans, but alas.

So you are an accountant from Ohio pretending to be Brazilian on line? Got it.

Hey, maybe we should legalize homicide.

Homicide is not illegal. There is an argument for legalizing drugs.

"You should be more concerned with what can happen if your advances are well received. You may marry the lady."

So that would be ..... yes, you think that was a sexual assault.

"Oh, so it is what all the groping people’s asses at parties thing was about?"

No it is about what is normal and what should be criminalized. So is it sexual assault? Is it a sexual assault if the victim deems the touch to be sexual even if the person doing it does not?

Comments for this post are closed

"So you are an accountant from Ohio pretending to be Brazilian on line?"
No, I am a Brazilian pretending to be a Brazilian on line to hide that I am, in fact, Brazilian. Stanislavski would be proud.
"Is it a sexual assault if the victim deems the touch to be sexual even if the person doing it does not? "
Can I do the Heimlich maneuver? What if the other part thinks it is a violent act? We only will be safe when we legalize all lascivious and violent acts. If Mr. Incredible had made the suicidal guy sign an authorization form before trying to rescue him, his family would have been spared many problems. A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I really would not have guessed ass gropers spend their time saving human lives.

Comments for this post are closed

"Homicide is not illegal."
https://www.google.com.br/search?q=homicide&oq=homicide&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61l2j69i60l2j69i65.2293j0j4&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Comments for this post are closed

You could just avoid the kiss if you don't want it.

If someone tries to force it on you, well, it's not rape (that's silly), but it's not right either.

I think we're at an unfortunate stage here where some people are being penalized for some exceedingly natural (and non-violent) things while great numbers of women continue to struggle to be taken seriously when they try to report very serious cases of rape.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

If only actual consent were enough to avoid charges of sexual assault

Comments for this post are closed

So you're advocating "can I kiss you, pretty pretty puh puh please" while calling others a wuss? Please.

It certainly better than "I fear women I can not harass with impunity, better not make eye contact".

A certainly charitable view to take of men.

Comments for this post are closed

It was a charitable view of Mr. “If I were an undergrad again I would avoid even eye contact with women”. Calling him a man is an uncharitable (and mostly unfair) view of men.

Comments for this post are closed

We've now elevated something as innocent as misreading nonverbal signals of wanting a first kiss to the same category as penetrative rape. That's in the same year we invited a false-malicious rape accuser to congress and gave her college credit for what amounts to slander.

I do not think wanting to sidestep all of this has anything to do with desiring to harass women. Indeed I have no idea how one is supposed to interact profitably with a group who publicly calls for the rapeificiation of an unwanted first kiss, but who privately deride weak men and fantasize endlessly about 50 Shades of Grey.

Comments for this post are closed

" I have no idea how one is supposed to interact profitably with a group who publicly calls for the rapeificiation of an unwanted first kiss."
I am sure you have no idea. Well, I doubt they are losing anything in your case.

Comments for this post are closed

Generally the side throwing ad Homs is the side with weak arguments. Because if they were holding a reasonable position, they'd defend it with reason.

The present culture is nuts. You can recuse yourself or run the risk of getting expelled for going for a kiss to close out the second date.

Comments for this post are closed

Ben September 24, 2015 at 4:57 pm

That’s in the same year we invited a false-malicious rape accuser to congress and gave her college credit for what amounts to slander.

While at the same time the leading Democratic front runner is someone who responded to accusations her husband committed rape by smearing the victim. As she did back in the days when she was defending someone who raped a 12 year old. Now she says we should believe people who make accusations of rape. I notice no one in the media is asking her about Bill's little shenanigans.

But maybe this fuss is all a way of the Left trying to cleanse itself of the filth they wallowed in to protect Bill? They feel dirty because, well, they got dirty, smearing rape and sexual harassment victims in order to further their preferred politics, and now they are over-compensating?

Indeed I have no idea how one is supposed to interact profitably with a group who publicly calls for the rapeificiation of an unwanted first kiss, but who privately deride weak men and fantasize endlessly about 50 Shades of Grey.

It is a problem. Revealed preferences. Build up a billion dollar company, learn to fly a helicopter, make sure you have blonde hair and grey eyes. Then I think you are pretty much set to assume their private fantasies are what they really want.

Comments for this post are closed

"if they were holding a reasonable position, they’d defend it with reason."
A reasonable unwanted ass grab, you mean?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Pretty much. If you are too afraid of rejection or mockery to seek consent you are a coward and a menace. A man who asks might look silly but he is confident enough to be respectful.

FWIW, I am not calling for unwanted touching to be criminalized. I'm stating a fact: unwanted touching is a crime. In Massachusetts, it's called indecent assault and it includes unwanted ass-groping:

http://www.mymassachusettsdefenselawyer.com/massachusetts-criminal-charges/indecent-assault-battery/

Also . . . if you are put-off by "talking" to the woman you want to kiss, try looking her in the eye and moving your lips close to hers. If she meets you half-way, she wants to kiss. If she stays frozen or turns away, she does not. Very simple. If you want to signal that you are interested in a woman with touch, don't just grab her ass. That's caveman bullshit. Make and hold eye contact. Then hold her hand, touch her shoulder, touch your knee to her knee and see if she responds. If you are not a moron (which you might be given your post) you will be able to tell if she is into you touching her. If you can't tell, stop. Again, very simple.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Voluntary Celibacy (volcel) is beginning to get big on campuses

I was an unvolcel in college

Comments for this post are closed

beginning to get big.
Really bad choice of words.

Comments for this post are closed

My guess is the biggest proponents are deluding themselves as to the voluntariness.

Comments for this post are closed

"Our vocabulary is defective: we give the same name to woman's lack of temptation and man's lack of opportunity.” - Ambrose Bierce

Comments for this post are closed

It's almost like extended family networks, traditional virtues, religious communities have some sort of ... rationale.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

"If I were an undergrad again I would avoid even eye contact with women."
Come see the violence inherent in the System.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

"This most plausible explanation is that most of those classified by the survey as “victims” of sexual assault or rape did not really think that they had been sexually assaulted."

That just fits with all the rest doesn't it. It' not required that a victim to actually exist if "we" (or some vocal group) decides some activity is wrong. (Of course we also have been doing the reverse when we justify police shooting people with toy guns in playgrounds or toy stores. There's a clear victim but no crime.)

There's another obvious problem. The reported rate is NOT a rate of assaults that the female undergraduates suffered on campus, or claim were perpetrated by students or faculty (thus plausibly related to school policies and oversight). So they might not all be of the type that students would think to report to schools.

Here are the actual questions from the survey: http://t.co/jYamEjorv1 Sexual Assault section begins on page 71 (page number, not page 71 of the pdf file).

The first paragraph of the section specifically states that: “The person with whom you had the nonconsensual or unwanted contact could have been someone you know, such as someone you are currently or were in a relationship with, a co-worker, a professor, or a family member. Or it could be someone you do not know.” Only the time period references the university – the question is did it happen while attending the university.

A respondent could easily interpret this as asking about some assault that happened while home on a school break by someone met at a nightclub, and it would be included here. But it would not be reported to the school.

Obviously the question was worded way too broadly if they wanted to capture only activity occurring on campus, or with other students or school personnel.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

On #4, a 19% response rate is pretty high all things considered. Outside of an official government survey, you aren't going to do much better. That respondents are more likely to be female would matter if the statistics weren't all solely about women.

The real damning thing to me is the number of women who said yes, but also that they didn't consider it serious enough to report, which does point to an overly expansive definition of sexual assault (or, less likely, a lack of faith that the reporting will help)

And the style of the survey puts penetrative rape in the same bucket with unconsenting touching and kissing.

I'm going to go ahead and impone to suggest that some of that touching and kissing was simply men initiating contact in a reasonable context, the woman saying no, and the contact stopping, which has nothing to do with sexual assault

Comments for this post are closed

It's not solely about women, you dick

Ah, I see what you are saying, but it's not a representative sample is the point

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

The survey methodology clearly wasn't crafted in a way to determine the actual incidence of sexual assault. So, I suspect that it was crafted to support a narrative.

Or perhaps they weren`t trying to establish a specific narrative, but instead it`s a sort of first draft that needs to be improved on in the next round. That would be pretty normal.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

3. The issue is whether the non-recognition rule of section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code applies to the receipt of a partnership interest in exchange for services. If not, then the taxable event occurs at the time of receipt (not later when the partnership sells its assets), the (ordinary) income measured by the difference between the value of the partnership interest received and the service partner's tax basis (usually zero). For a time the IRS took the position that section 721 did not apply in such case (because section 721 only applies to the transfer of "property" to a partnership in exchange for a partnership interest), and that the service partner was taxed at the time of receipt. The IRS changed course because of the difficulties it created (I'm being either optimistic or naive). What difficulties: measuring the value of the partnership interest (which should be based on the present value of the projected future profits) and the conceptual issues raised (without going into the details, if section 721 doesn't apply to the service partner, then ipso facto it doesn't apply to the partnership either and, hence, the partnership would also realize income based on a hypothetical sale of a pro rata portion of its assets (i.e., the same as the profits percentage interest)). Of course, the "carried interest rule" applies to all partnerships, not just those owned by hedge funds, including the partnership with your brother in law who has a knack for real estate and buys and manages real estate in a joint venture between the two of you, with you providing the capital and your brother in law providing the services. We don't know the details of what Trump et al. will propose, but I suspect it will include an election by the service partner to treat the receipt of the partnership interest as a taxable event (at ordinary income rates), in which case any gain on a later sale of the interest would be capital gain. Pay me now or pay me later. Or much ado about very little. As those who work in this area know, the tax benefit of the "carried interest rule" is small beans when compared to the many other tax planning opportunities provided by sub-chapter K. When will the populists attack them? First they came for my carried interest, and I did not object, . . . .

When I studied tax law back in the dark ages it all made perfect sense to me, with its symmetry and elevation of substance over form. Understanding a complex tax statue merely required application of logic (reasoning). After studying economics as an undergraduate, it all fell right into place for me. Boy, have times changed. Tax law today is mostly about politics, just as economics today is mostly about politics. I'm at a loss how people practice tax law today, with schemes like that used by Apple, and I'm equally at a loss how people practice economics. I guess I'm getting too old for my job. Too grouchy. Can't stand the aggravation.

Comments for this post are closed

paragraphs bro

+1

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

The IRS should not care how you and your brother-in-law agree to carve up the proceeds of a long-term capital gain. You are both generally (at marginal rates, which is what is generally at play here in these big deals) subject to the same tax rate. As you note, the non-recognition rule applies to *all* partnerships and not just private equity or hedge fund partnerships. It makes it possible for you, who may have the money, and your brother-in-law, who may have the expertise, to set up a business partnership deal to share in profits without un-towards up-front consequences. If you want to change the non-recognition rule, though, I suppose the general partner could be taxed on formation of the partnership in the amount equal to the capital he would have had to put up to get the profit share the partnership allocates to him and he would have basis in such an amount for determining eventual gain or loss. This should be easily measurable without the need to value the future profits. It would, however, hinder bona fide business formation that is not tax driven.

However, this is not a question of "the issue"; but if there is *an* issue, it is this: The elephant in the room, whom nobody wants to acknowledge, much less attack, are the tax exempt partners who are trading their capital gains for services. The likes of Ivy League Endowment Funds, exempt pension funds, etc. Why are they and other non-profits in the US so sacrosanct? I guess they are not easy political bogeymen. They give up a pro-rata share of their eventual capital gain because the preferable rate on such gains is meaningless to them, as is an ordinary deduction for ordinary compensation paid to the general partner. It's not the same scenario as you and your brother-in-law. Carried interest is a tax rate arbitrage game.

I suggest that to counter it the best thing to do would be to adopt a rule that requires a pro-rata allocation of gain (or up-front taxation of services for capital interest) for partnership agreements entered into with "tax exempt" partners as generally defined in section 163(j) (earnings stripping rules). This would include all US tax exempts and foreign entities. The would pretty much end the game and any loss of revenue to the Treasury.

One further point: Of course, it could be that your brother-in-law is more knowledgeable about tax law than you are and he realises that if he is allocated a portion of that possible LTCG, he will be taxed at more favourable tax rates than ordinary comp for services. But, if you are not stupid, you will say, hey, bro, I'm giving you a valuable tax opportunity that I would otherwise enjoy and I expect to be compensated for that. How you divvy up that gain between you is generally tax neutral overall to Treasury. Not so for dealings among a taxable partner and a non-taxable partner. However, these exempt funds aren't stupid either. They get some benefit in the form of lower fees. Among partners, it's an arm's length deal.

Comments for this post are closed

I think you may be confusing a capital interest with a profits interest: the service partner does not receive a capital interest he only receives a profits interest. The difference: if the partnership were liquidated the day after it was formed, what would the service partner receive? If it's a true profits interest, nothing (because at that point there are no profits); if it's a capital interest, then, yes, that's the measure of his income. But the receipt of a capital interest has always been and continues to be treated as a taxable event; it's the receipt of a profits interest that is up for debate. But you do raise another complexity: if the receipt of a profits interest is taxable (because section 721 does not apply) to both the service partner and the partnership, then the partnership would receive a deduction equal to the amount of income to the service partner. Typically, the deduction is allocated to the service partner (to offset the service partner's income), but that ignores the partnership income from the hypothetical sale of partnership assets I mentioned in my comment. Phantom income to the capital partner, for which she will not be happy. It's the complex ramifications resulting from treating section 721 as inapplicable that caused the IRS to punt on the issue; either that or, when I'm being a realist, because the IRS chose not to take on the bankers - as opposed to the much smaller real estate deal makers - once these deals (private equity, hedge fund, etc.) became popular with the investor class.

No, I'm saying the GP should be taxed as if he got a capital interest.

That is, in cases in which there is tax status arbitrage (as with tax exempts). As I noted, and I think you acknowledged, taxing services up front in return for a non-pro rata (to capital) profits interest would harm business formation in cases in which there is no abuse. Recognizing that the loss of revenue and therefore the abuse occurs when the tax status (and therefore tax rates) applicable to the LP's and the GP, the "fix"should be limited to those cases.

Comments for this post are closed

"...applicable to the LP's and the GP *is different*"

Comments for this post are closed

Life was good when being a tax lawyer was mostly about these interesting (interesting to us anyway) issues. Of course, with high marginal rates (I do remember the 70% marginal rate, though not the 90%), the time value of money (i.e., deferral) was very important, which also was the case during very high interest rates. And converting ordinary income to capital gains was great fun too. With today's relatively low tax rates and low interest rates, the time value of money isn't much of a motivation; instead, we have "progressed" to tax avoidance, or, more accurately, tax evasion. It's no fun anymore. Tax techniques common today weren't acceptable in my day; indeed, if a client or tax adviser suggested the techniques common today, I would advise the client not to report the income, both equally fraudulent, but my suggested technique would come without expensive tax advice.

Comments for this post are closed

"And converting ordinary income to capital gains was great fun too."

I'm not sure I agree with that characterisation as it is applied to "carried interest". I hear it a lot and I think it is misleading. It sounds like Midas is turning sand into gold. Look at it this way---does "carried interest" result in a greater amount of LTCG to the partnership and, indirectly to the partners, or is the more proper way to look at it that it simply changes the allocation among partners of the total LTCG that is realised ? This is what I mean by tax status arbitrage involving the allocation of gain.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

What about just a law making all C-corporations into S-corporations?

As for the linked article asking Trump to outline his own tax-dodging strategies, that would simply open up Trump to potential lawsuits from disgruntled investors, of which there are many (he's declared bankruptcy several times, so quite a few of his projects are dodgy).

Comments for this post are closed

Bloomberg is close to putting two-and two together on the connection between tax exempt investors and "carried interest" (in this case, Calpers), but they are not quite there yet...:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/calpers-carried-interest-data-may-hold-shock-value-for-public?cmpid=yhoo

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

6. There are two labor doomsday realities:
a) Demographics are going lower labor supply the next generation.
b) Robots will take all working class jobs away.

In reality, I think both are happening and that is why both labor and capital are so pissed off right now. Labor hasn't had a wage increase since 2000 and capital can't find good workers. What did Jamie Dimon that the US workers never had it so good? Notice the jobless claims are exceptionally low for 2015. My guess is we are going to continue seeing both and there will be a return to more single income families.

(Addtionally, in more modern times, Didn't WW2 and the political suport for the Baby Boom lower labor supply in developed nations from 1948 - 1970?)

(a) How is this is a doomsday scenario, unless the number of workers goes below the number of available jobs? And that doesn't seem to be the case anywhere, does it? Not even in Japan.
(b) Someone has to build and maintain those robots too, right? Presumably such tasks can be broken down into small enough parts that a trained high-school graduate can do them repeatedly. That's a working class job.

Unemployment is below 3% in Japan. Surely at that level, some jobs cannot be filled because there are no qualified workers while a few workers still cannot find jobs because they have no skills or other problems

I have a Japanese friend - Japan has a lot of make work jobs to keep unemployment low. For example, they have parking lot attendants even though the parking garages are fully automated. Stuff like that.

@Moelicious:

Precisely what I was thinking vis-a-vis robots and automation. Given all the fear surrounding a potential robot takeover of the world, it might be well worth the cost to a society to train blue collar workers to be emergency troubleshooters. They get regular salaries but don't do anything most of the time; only when a robot malfunctions (or goes berserk) do they get called up to duty. A lot like our police force if you think about it. I'm not sure if such jobs can make up for the ones lost to automation, but they can definitely help.

Comments for this post are closed

Moelicious - how do these "make work" jobs get paid for? I see that Japan has pretty low taxes when compared with other countries so it can't be Government. Do firms provide this employment out of the goodness of their hearts?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

In Oregon you are not allowed to pump your own gas.

Comments for this post are closed

There's a significant supply of potential workers who aren't in the labor force. And no, they are not all old fossils with obsolete skills. When wages go up some of these people are induced to reenter the labor force. Short of Black Death type of demographic calamity it's hard to imagine a situation where we could literally run out of workers.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

"Presumably such tasks can be broken down into small enough parts that a trained high-school graduate can do them repeatedly. That’s a working class job."

Unless automation reaches this level of competence, at which point, you won't have any nearly as many such jobs. It is a potential problem, but of course it's still a potential problem, because the automation hasn't reached that level of competence on a broad scale.

I get what you are saying, but when I hear the word "competence", I look at the state of software in our world today. (I've worked in the software industry both as a programmer and a researcher). A perfectly working piece of software is a unicorn; it doesn't exist. Every programmer makes mistakes; the bugs introduced by the best programmers just take longer to manifest and are harder to debug. Producing a perfectly competent robot requires the process of production to be perfectly competent, but since that process necessarily involves humans, one can expect bugs to show up over time. Once when I was working for one of the top software companies in the world (and doing some pretty creative work), I estimate that I (and everyone else on the team) spent over 60% of their man-hours on software maintenance rather than writing new features. You can argue that maintenance could also be one day done by robots, but the algorithm to maintain software (and hardware) was once manually programmed and suffers from the same birth defect, so we can never really eliminate the chicken-and-egg problem.

Hope this makes sense! My point is that leaving everything up the the robots might eliminate some kind of work (building stuff) but increase maintenance work, especially as the software and hardware are going to be a lot more complex than anything we see in the world today.

I work in the Controls Automation world and we right plenty of code. But the perspective is completely different than that employed by most Software companies.

"A perfectly working piece of software is a unicorn; "

Agreed, but you don't need or expect a perfectly working piece of software in any plant. Certainly you don't design your equipment assuming that there will never be a fault. You design it so that a fault is an expected routine occurrence. And then you start an iterative approach to reducing faults / down time.

"My point is that leaving everything up the the robots might eliminate some kind of work (building stuff) but increase maintenance work,"

Yes, that's absolutely true. Indeed, I do that for a living. However, the usual process is to take a Line of manually operated machines and reduce it to One operator per line. That Operator is there primarily to handle unexpected Faults and to recover or if she can't to call in a Maintenance Tech and if the MT can't then she'll call in an Engineer.

Factories in the US have been undergoing this transformation for decades. And frankly, you won't see much of a change in that sector. The huge change is when you see that level of automation become cheap enough to implement at say a fast food restaurant. Currently you go from a staff of 12 and two managers at rush hours down to a manager and one person late night. This will via automation transform to 3-4 people at rush hour down to 2 at night.

Comments for this post are closed

Twelve years ago I went to a McD's near Orlando and it had automatic ordering touch screens. Yet I've never seen that anywhere since. Were there technical problems with that early implementation? Or another reason McD's (and other fast food chains) decided not to go that route?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Consider early 2000s. The big concern was how we would fill all the positions when baby boomers retired.

But now (post 2008), baby boomers retirement savings aren`t looking as good as they had hoped so they plan to work for longer, and besides which, there are still lots of unemployed in many advanced economies (or not looking for work).

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

1. Welfare state destroys the family
2. Change definition of family
3. Welfare state supports family formation

Exactly. This line is telling: Further, we find that the welfare state decouples marriage and fertility, and therefore, alters the organization of the average family.

I.e., the welfare state destroys the family.

Is this a "shout it from the rooftops" finding?

Comments for this post are closed

While I don't believe the study either, why has the welfare state destory the family?

I think other changes to society, the optimal marrying age for a man and woman is 29, a labor free from sexual discrimination and the increase of birth control have had more impact here.

why has the welfare state destory the family?

I think the reasoning is that couples who have children out of wedlock no loner feel compelled to marry and set up a conventional nuclear family as both the single mother and the father (going their separate ways) are eligible for welfare from the government, especially the single mother. A couple of generations ago, the couple would have married and the man would have at least tried to be a breadwinner.

Comments for this post are closed

I recall a study about a guaranteed minimum income at a city level in ... Denmark (?). None of the findings were very robust except that women were more likely to file for divorce under the GMI program. I think there's also a city-level study from the 1970s in America that has similar conclusions.

The obvious (?) interpretation is that women who don't think they can cut it in the job market are enabled to leave abusive relationships.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Alternatively stated, it empowers women to leave abusive relationships.

I think it also enables women to have sex/babies with men who make poor husbands and fathers.

That's hardly anything new. You would blame welfare for that?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Huh? Marriage and fertility have been decoupled for a long time: Childless marriages were always a possibility and you can look through history, or a family genealogy, and find examples easily.
To the extent childless marriages have gotten more common the cause is much more likely to be effective contraception.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Depends on what you mean by "welfare". If it's payments that depend in some way on being in a single parent family, it's obvious why it's deleterious to families.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

"2. Smart camera stops you from taking ordinary, cliched photographs.
If too many other people have taken a picture where you are, Camera Restricta won't let you make your shot. "NEIN!" "

So it's a Statist camera.

Yes, as the final paragraph about the defeated law to prevent photography of copyrighted buildings.

Imagine having to pay a fee to photograph the Eiffel Tower!

Comments for this post are closed

Will it let you take cliched photographs ironically? If not, we're talking about the end of hipsterdom. Nay! The end of an entire phase of adolescent rebellion! Think of the children! And the grandmas who only want cliched pictures that conform to their mental image of their grand children!

Then again, it might be all worth it to end hipsterdom. Sorry grandma.

Comments for this post are closed

It is for the greater good.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

#5...Too good!

Comments for this post are closed

#3...I basically agree, except that, based on the records in office of candidates claiming they will cut the size of government, Sanders will likely cut the size of government.

Comments for this post are closed

The idea of taxing carried interest is to get more folks behind the idea of reforming the income tax. If there were fewer "loopholes" that treated reinvested income as ordinary income, we might be able to get a sensible, progressive consumption tax.

Comments for this post are closed

1. Guess Scumacher may not necessarily have been correct when he thought "Small is beautiful."

Comments for this post are closed

#1 “Sensational 1K ZX 81 Chess,” by D.R. Horne

I remember playing that once! Of course, cramming chess into 1 Kb means you have to take a few shortcuts. Plus, well....it won't be very good.

But the fun part was that you could make illegal moves if you had to!

The assembly language chess program article was not well written. It insinuated that the two programmers have a history of dealing with and insulting each other ("Gutiérrez vehemently denies any copying. “I didn’t see his code on purpose” to avoid prejudicing the work, he says, adding that Poudade brought the challenge on himself. “I didn’t have any plans to write my chess in assembler code,” he says. But friends pointed him toward the BootChess readme file, where Poudade writes that before him, nobody had matched David Horne’s record, “despite numerous false and misleading claims.” Immediately after, he singles out two of Toledo Gutiérrez’s earlier chess games. The implication is clear. And so, it appeared, the gauntlet had been thrown.")

I think the Mexican is the better programmer. Often, as an amateur programmer myself, it takes me ten times longer to write the same code an expert programmer would write. This is not unusual.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

In my experience, sexual assault at college defined as unwanted sexual advances carried to the point where they became really offensive or dangerous or criminal were extremely rare. However, the concept of being able to second guess date night behavior and label it sexual assault has been on the rise for many decades, led by feminists who find it difficult to believe that women like to have sex with men, are more likely to engage in this behavior when intoxicated, and under any reasonable equality of rights interpretation are just as responsible for their own behavior as men are. The infantilization, desexualization and victimization of women and parallel demonization of men only exists on campus, supported by various loony political agendas and perhaps legions of sexually unsuccessful men. In the real world women pursue men with sexual abandon and if anything complain about their lack of interest, not being raped at high frequency.

Comments for this post are closed

I think everyone has met guys who think it's OK to get girls drunk and then try to sleep with them. This is obviously sleazy, but should it be illegal? How drunk does she have to be before she cannot consent? (I recall the phrase "liquid panty remover" being used quite commonly in my college days, and it always sorta bothered me.)

Surely, it is possible that both parties will choose to get drunk with the intent of loosening things up enroute to sexual adventure ... ?

Perhaps alcoholic beverages should be required to be sold with warnings saying "Please drink responsibly. You might be more likely to want to have sex after consumption." This could even be used as a talking point, earlier on in drunken escapades, to ensure that no one is being taken advantage of.

Comments for this post are closed

I am somewhat mollified by your inclusion of the Stuart Taylor 's critique of the AAU survey. I know you knew all this when you lent your (considerable) credibility to the rape witch hunt. I can only conclude that it has become dangrrous for you to dissent from campus othodoxy on this issue. If so academe is far more corrupt and dangerous to the nation than i had thought.

Again, if colleges really are these conveyor-operated rape factories that corral helpless women for targeting by sexually aggressive men, then they need to be shut down. Trade schools, community colleges don't seem to have these problems.

What the secular state schools unquestionably enable is juvenile behavior by supposed adults, and I'm sure some of the interactions are harmful. Another under-remarked point: a lot of these colleges are now located in very different environments from their beginnings, so colleges now have to maintain police forces to combat the human predators inevitably attracted by having lots of young women walking around.

Scale colleges back to classroom facilities and instructors and make them subject to profit and loss and tort liability like every other business. Then "campus rape" disappears. This is why we can't have nice things.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Tyler, why is Ambrose-Pritchard's forecast wrong? I've been saying this for years - although we're about to get a new demographic dividend from Africa, which could make the forecast wrong. Very interested in your answer.

Comments for this post are closed

Sorry, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed