Results for “those new service sector jobs”
138 found

Working as a model for stock photography — what’s it like?

I very much liked this Jonathan Kay piece, which has so many good, interesting, and separate points, here is one of them:

“One of the most important elements of the Shutterstock quality-control process is to ensure there are no logos or other brand identifiers,” she told me. “Nor can the photos contain identifiable people or locations which haven’t released their legal rights.” The blackouts here can be extremely broad, and include some of the most famous landmarks on the planet. You can’t include the Eiffel Tower in most forms of stock photography, for instance. Nor can you include anyone wearing the iconic beige-and-blue Burberry pattern. Even a tiny patch of it in the background renders an image completely unusable.

And this:

Click through the Shutterstock database, and you find that professionally shot and curated stock photos invariably exhibit what might be called calculated soullessness. The subjects project human emotions—happy, sad, confused, angry—but in a simple, one-dimensional way. There should be nothing bespeaking a complex inner life. Real human interest always will distract the audience from the intended product or idea.

In closing:

How does a photographer achieve authenticity in an age where authentic culture increasingly is built around irony? More broadly: Is the project of organizing human experience into databases of generic happy faces and sad faces still relevant to us in 2016?

Alas, I can no longer remember to whom I owe the pointer, my apologies.

File under Those New Service Sector Jobs.  And if that doesn’t suit you, here is “Calling all ‘bulky’ Alec Baldwin lookalikes”.

Tuesday assorted links

1. “Streaming, brought to you by jets.

2. The Welfare Trait: “Over the past five years, he has accumulated a mass of evidence about the personalities of welfare claimants and concluded that individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies — what he calls the ‘employment–resistant personality profile’ — are over-represented among benefit recipients.”

3. The Animal Soul project (photos).

4. Those new service sector jobs: “Yukigassen is professional snowball fighting…

5. Editing Wikipedia for pay.

6. “Can Wisconsin make a sex offender who’s completed his sentence wear a GPS monitor on his ankle for the rest of his life?”  Posner says yes.

7. Why pawn shop prices differ.

Assorted links

1. Do horses prefer wearing clothes, and how do we know?

2. The lists of Susan Sontag.

3. Monitoring bank phone calls.

4. Rick Searle reviews Average is Over.

5. We the economy, curated by Morgan Spurlock.  And why partyism is wrong.

6. MIE: selling places in clinical trials?  And ManServants, those new service sector jobs (caveat emptor).

7. France moves closer to private sector funding for culture.

Assorted links

1. Do we need a conservative literary movement?

2. Is there a new liberaltarian alliance in Washington?  And Thomas Edsall on what young Democrats believe.

3. Growth across Mexican regions, or what went wrong in Campeche?  And reforming Pemex won’t be that easy.

4. How concentrated is wealth at the very top? (pdf)

5. Caplan vs. Borjas on immigration and the trillion dollar bill.

6. Equine markets in everything, those new service sector jobs.

Assorted links

1. How to earn money trolling dating sites for hot, thin white women (those new service sector jobs).

2. What are the most edited Wikipedia articles?  And a critique of the internet.

3. Immortal soccer fans.

4. A chess grandmaster examines Piketty’s claim about rates of return.  And Krugman on where the Piketty debate is at now.

5. Stephen Williamson is moving full-time to the St. Louis Fed…and will continue blogging.

6. The influence of economists on merger reviews.

Assorted links

1. Rent-a-man (those new service sector jobs).  And let your drone take your dog for a walk.

2. Japan, hamsters, etc.

3. Darkcoin is booming.

4. What can economics learn from video games?

5. Turtles all the way down?  Well, some of the way down.

6. Caplan responds to Bauman in a classical Caplan post.  And Jeffrey Sachs responds to Bill Gates.

7. N.T. Wright (a former bishop), Ross Douthat, and Peter Thiel video on a bunch of things, including theology.

8. Getting a get.

Assorted links

1. The McDonalds tasting menu.

2. Purva paksha.

3. Some more on those new service sector jobs. “”I bet there are many more people who are unfaithful than are Jewish,” Biderman remembers thinking.”  Washington D.C. is a clear number one for membership.

4. “Your vacuum might rent an attachment from the neighbor’s vacuum without telling you.”

5. Are anti-bullying programs actually “how to” courses?

2022 as the year of AI?

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:

But the benefits of AI do not accrue only to those in the technology sector. AI makes many goods and services cheaper, and that in turn benefits the poor and disadvantaged. If software routes packages and shipments more efficiently, then transportation costs will be lower. If software and AI programs help economize on the use of electricity, then it will be easier to mitigate climate change. As computational biology improves health care, the sick will benefit.

The people who least need AI are the super-rich. They already can hire armies of servants to manage their obligations, schedules, and so on. They do not need to economize on the use of human labor. The rest of us do, whether directly or indirectly through the businesses we patronize.

Another benefit for lower-income groups is that current manifestations of AI do not usually displace the jobs of the poor. Many poor individuals hold jobs in the service sector or perform manual labor. Those tasks are either hard to automate (a robot gardener?) or, because wages are low, less profitable to automate.

It may be true that the costs of AI in the labor force — displaced jobs — are more visible than the benefits of AI — new jobs and lower prices. So it’s not surprising if AI is not entirely popular.


Real consumption must at some point fall

That is the theme of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:

The best way to adjudicate competing claims about today’s economy is to consider opportunities for consumption. Over much of the last two years, labor supply contracted significantly, in large part due to the pandemic. That means the economy produced less. If you produce less, sooner or later you have to consume less, too. And if you consume less, you will be dissatisfied with economic conditions, especially in America, where the consumer typically is considered to be king (or queen).

There isn’t any way around this basic logic, no matter what the data say. Even if measured consumption is currently high, at some point it will have to fall relative to expectations. And indeed there are a host of problems, with shortages, supply-chain delays and a sluggish service sector. In a normal year, more Americans would have seen “Dune” on the big screen and gone to concerts. Americans are not quite able to get what they want, and that is obscured in the aggregate statistics.

The biggest messenger for consumption losses is the rate of consumer price inflation, which measured at 6.2% on last reading. Not so many Americans expect to get an offsetting raise…in return, and above-average inflation is likely to continue for a year or two, some would say for longer. So real wages for many millions of Americans will be noticeably lower for the near future, too. That will translate into lower levels of consumption, with the timing of those losses depending on the spending and borrowing plans of individual households.

Add to all this growing and unprecedentedly high debt for the federal government, plus unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security.

Even if they don’t understand the exact economic logic here, most Americans grasp the common-sense truth that inflation and deficits are bad — for them, for their real wages, and for their future opportunities. They are happy to have higher savings in the bank, but they see the treadmill turning ever faster.

Some parts of the labor shortage also qualify as a decline in consumption. One reason for the “great resignation” is that people cannot get the kinds of jobs they want. That too is a manner of enduring lower consumption, even though it does not show up in consumption statistics. It’s not just the unemployed, as many people took jobs they were only marginally happy with. A job might involve a higher risk of Covid exposure than a worker feels comfortable with, or an internship might take place in a largely empty office.

Here is the James Brown song “The Payback.”

Monday assorted links

1. The roots of why people refuse to engage in win-win thinking.

2. Those new Mozambique service sector jobs: “This musician will sing about your enemies over WhatsApp.”

3. Hanson on Douthat on God.

4. “Our estimates show that various disclosure and internal governance rules lead to a total compliance cost of 4.1% of the market capitalization for a median U.S. public firm.

5. On Sam Bankman-Fried.

6. Hanania interviews Andreessen.

Saturday assorted links

1. “The first vaccination data from the Neptune Declaration Crew Change Indicator shows that only 15.3% of seafarers are vaccinated.

2. New IMF working paper “Mask Mandates Save Lives,” note pre-Delta.

3. People who have been working two jobs from home (WSJ): “The money is incredible, the 29-year-old software engineer says. So is the stress: “I’ll wake up in the morning and I’m like, ‘Oh, this is the day I’m gonna get found out.’ ”

4. Those new (and temporary) service sector jobs.  And circa 2020, NYT publishes Op-Ed from the Taliban, outlining what they in fact want.

5. More on Paul Samuelson’s very bad macroeconomics.

6. A high-placed Delta Straussian.