So-called "personal finance education" is a distraction

About a year or so ago I noticed a cliche spreading among a certain set of prominent investors and money managers: that a key obstacle to success among young people today is a lack of personal finance erudition. Today's entry in the genre came from Ben Carlson at Ritholtz Wealth Management, who wrote:

"I wish high schools and colleges would teach personal finance. They could show young people things like how to do their taxes, which it seems like maybe 3-4% of the population knows how to do (and that’s being generous)."The U.S. federal tax code is around 4 million words and almost 75,000 page long. To say it can be confusing would be an understatement. Changes from the latest tax overhaul throw another wrench into this equation because now people must figure out how it affects them."

This is an unusually clear example of the role "personal finance education" plays in this ideology. You can clearly identify a problem (people can't do their own taxes), you can clearly identify the cause of the problem (the tax code is too complicated), but instead of demanding that the cause of problem be solved, and the tax code simplified, you demand that teenagers receive specialized education in tax preparation!

"Personal finance education" dodges all the hard problems we face

The beauty of the personal finance education meme is that it allows you to acknowledge real-world problems, without having to undertake any of the effort required to solve them:

  • wages are too low;
  • housing is too expensive;
  • health insurance is too expensive, and leaves even insured individuals vulnerable to catastrophic medical expenses;
  • Social Security's current financing stream is inadequate to pay out its present benefits, let alone the benefits that would be needed to permanently eliminate elder poverty;
  • the Family and Medical Leave Act covers too few workers, with too few protections, for too little time;
  • occupational licensing regimes pose too many obstacles to entry for too many professions.

These are problems with solutions. But a higher minimum wage, more housing construction, single payer health insurance, higher and uncapped FICA taxes, comprehensive family leave, and occupational licensing reform are hard.There are interests on the other side who will do everything in their power to fight against efforts to solve these problems. Businesses want to pay low wages, homeowners want to keep housing scarce, insurance companies want to keep earning record profits, high-income individuals want their FICA taxes low and capped, and every licensed occupation wants to minimize the number of new entrants.So why would a genteel financial advisor, money manager, or financier want to take on those fights? High-income homeowners with occupational licenses are the bread and butter of the upper-middle-class economy! They already have workplace retirement plans, gold-plated health insurance, and generous family leave."Personal finance education," on the other hand, is easy. Sure, it might take a few classroom hours away from actual education, but that's the teacher's problem, not your problem. Plus, once it's up and running you might even be able to sell your consulting services on the side to school districts that, for obvious reasons, don't want to hire a full-time "personal finance educator," because there's no such thing.

Conclusion

Let me be clear about one thing: ignorance is also a problem. Educating people about how things really work is an important and valuable service, indeed one I try to perform here to the best of my limited abilities.The fact that IRA's, for example, are privately marketed means there's an incredible scope for abuse by savvy marketers, with both the victims and the government ultimately paying the price. An education campaign about what to look for in an IRA would be at least as good a public service as the "National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse." Even better would be strict limits on the kinds of assets eligible to be held within IRA's.But "personal finance education" is just a savvy marketing technique for inaction, insisting that we need do nothing to fix the actual problems we face, because the problems were inside us all along.

The rhetorical confusion between the administrative and regulatory states

On the occasion of a new Federalist Society nominee to the Supreme Court, I thought it'd be worth explaining a set of issues that are going to repeatedly come before the Court in the coming decades, and explain a confusing set of terms that arises from those issues.

The "Administrative" Procedure Act is about regulation, not administration

The Administrative Procedure Act lays out the rules executive agencies have to follow when creating new, legally binding regulations. So, for example, Congress might pass a law saying the EPA has to regulate pollution of the air and water, and to create corresponding regulations. The Administrative Procedure Act sets the rules by which the EPA is allowed to create those rules.This is, manifestly, a terrible way to run a regulatory state. The EPA has to pretend to collect "input" from anyone and everyone, then they have to pretend to judge the input, then they get to enact the regulation they wanted to enact in the first place.Then the people affected by the regulation get to sue and spend years working their way through the courts arguing that the EPA didn't properly take their input into consideration, or that Congress didn't have the EPA's regulation in mind when they passed the law, or that the head of the EPA wasn't properly confirmed by the Senate, or whatever else the Federalist Society comes up with next week.

Congress ought to pass more, better laws

The Administrative Procedure Act has let Congress off the hook for decades. For example, the entire legal doctrine of sexual harassment has arisen from one sentence in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead of passing additional laws specifying what kind of behavior constitutes sexual harassment and what the consequences of it should be, Congress has been happy to let the courts and the Justice Department wander all over the place, interpreting the law however they please.But we know there's a better way. When the Supreme Court threw out Lilly Ledbetter's sex discrimination claim, Nancy Pelosi led Congress in passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that simply spelled out the legal framework Congress had in mind for assessing sex discrimination claims. If a future Congress wants to assess sex discrimination claims differently, they can pass another law, but it's no longer up to the Department of Labor or the Supreme Court to fantasize about Congress's intentions.

We (still) need a well-functioning administrative state

This brings me to the rhetorical confusion I mentioned above: the Administrative Procedure Act is bad, and in my opinion should simply be repealed, but a regulatory state that is explicitly designed and endorsed by Congress will still require administration.If, instead of the EPA, in consultation with scientists, activists, and lead manufacturers, determining the level of lead that's acceptable in municipal drinking water, Congress determines and sets into law the level of lead that's acceptable in municipal drinking water, people will still have to be employed to administer the law: they'll have to take testing equipment out to Flint, fill up some test tubes, run some tests, and report whether Flint is in compliance or not.Likewise, the so-called "carried interest loophole" is not a product of any congressional action, it's the product of the IRS's interpretation of certain terms within the laws passed by Congress. But even if Congress finally passed a law specifying whether hedge fund management fees should, or should not, be treated as capital gains, the law would still have to be administered by an army of auditors swarming across the nation's hedge funds making sure they complied.

Don't leave it up to the judges

In college I fenced in the foil weapon category, which leaves a lot of discretion to referees. They're asked to determine, in real time, who initiated an offensive action, where on the weapon a defensive move lands, and whether a counteroffensive move is a riposte or a counter-attack. This, naturally, leads to a lot of hurt feelings when you feel the judges don't give your efforts enough credit.But my coach, an ornery old Russian lady, never let me mope about the judges. She told me, "don't leave it up to them." If you leave it up to the judges, you may as well be flipping a coin. If you want to win, make sure there's nothing left for the judges to decide.

The worst equilibrium is a dysfunctional Congress and an amateur judiciary

In the Supreme Court's 2012 hearing over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, the original amateur justice, Antonin Scalia, drew laughs from the usually staid audience when he suggested that Congress should simply pass another law fixing the defects in the original Act.Of course, at that point Republicans had taken control of the House of Representatives, so striking down the Affordable Care Act would have meant another generation of Americans without access to affordable health care.That is, of course, the situation we're being set up for today: a Congress that is so deeply gerrymandered that it's incapable of representing the popular will, and a Supreme Court that stands ready to strike down any legislation that is able to pass through Congress.You don't need to be a Democrat, or a liberal, or a leftist, to appreciate that a country congenitally unable to pass laws governing itself, that turns itself over to executive agencies and then resigns itself to years or decades of court battles over the slightest minutiae of statecraft, is not a country well-suited to addressing the challenges of this or any other century.

Distinguishing between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims

Right-wing troll Ben Shapiro has a cliché he deploys whenever he's confronted by someone who disagrees with his particular brand of snarky malevolence: "facts don't care about your feelings." Of course, what Ben means is that his feelings don't care about your facts. If Ben feels you're wrong, then you're wrong regardless of the evidence you provide, and if Ben feels he's right (he usually feels he's right) then he doesn't need to provide any evidence at all.I think a related, but far more productive, distinction is that between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims.

A falsifiable claim is not a fact, but it's fact-curious

There are lots of kinds of falsifiable claims, but what they have in common is that there is some piece of information that you can more or less objectively determine in advance would make the claim false:

  • If you had only ever seen trees that lose their leaves in the winter, you might claim "all trees lose their leaves in the winter." This is falsifiable because discovering a tree that does not lose its leaves in the winter would make the claim false. After encountering a pine tree, you might adapt your claim to "all leafy trees lose their leaves in the winter." After encountering a palm tree, you might adapt it further to "some leafy trees lose their leaves in the winter; others do not." Even if you never encounter an evergreen tree, however, you can acknowledge that the existence of an evergreen tree would disprove your initial claim. The falsifiability is an intrinsic feature of the claim, separate from its truth value.
  • Famously, the claim that "all swans are white" is falsifiable because you know in advance that the existence of a black swan will render the claim false — whether or not you ever find out black swans exist.
  • The claim that immigrants to the United States are violent criminals is falsifiable because you can collect data on the number of crimes committed by immigrants and see if that data shows immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, or that communities with high populations of non-native-born residents have lower crime rates than communities with low populations of immigrants. Again, the falsifiability of the claim is not dependent on whether it is false or not, but rather that there is some piece of evidence that you can acknowledge, if it existed, would prove the claim false.

Non-falsifiable claims are the ones that really motivate people

Ben Shapiro's formulation juxtaposing "facts" and "feelings" sounds reassuring, but there's a fundamental problem: while falsifiable claims have a sturdy scientific logic to them, falsifiable claims don't, in fact, motivate anyone's actions. That's because at the bottom of most falsifiable claims is a non-falsifiable claim that no evidence can cause a person to reject or modify. Global warming denialism follows this pattern:

  1. the Earth isn't warming (falsifiable);
  2. the Earth is warming, but it's not the result of human activity (falsifiable);
  3. the Earth is warming due to human activity, but it's actually good (falsifiable);
  4. the Earth is warming due to human activity, it's bad, but there's nothing we can do to stop it (falsifiable);
  5. even if we could stop it, I don't want to (non-falsifiable).

In this case it's obvious that the more time is spent arguing over the details of #1 through #4, the less time is spent dealing with the core, non-falsifiable claim in #5.

Engaging non-falsifiable claims can lead to meaningful solutions

To come around full circle to our friend Ben Shapiro, a particular obsession of his is with the existence of "biological genders." Now, people who study these things for a living will tell you that "biological gender" is an oxymoron, since gender, like race, is a social construct. Even worse, biological sex isn't even binary!But this is making a fundamental mistake, confusing falsifiable claims ("there are two biological sexes") with the non-falsifiable claims that actually motivate Shapiro: "I feel threatened by the increasing visibility of non-cisgender-people." This is illustrated in possibly one of the greatest Shapiro tweets of all time:"If you whip out your female penis next to my small daughter in a ladies' room, I don't care what you think you are."What's going on here? Does Ben Shapiro understand how restrooms work? The idea of treating this as a falsifiable claim is making a basic category error. The grievance has nothing to do with bathroom logistics, it has to do with Shapiro's fundamental insecurity in a world he doesn't recognize or understand (I don't mean this as a defense, Ben Shapiro isn't even two years older than me and I'm not a transphobe so I don't know what his excuse is).Recognizing people's claims as non-falsifiable is treated by ideologues like Shapiro as a way of dismissing them ("feelings"). Unfortunately, we often don't have that luxury in a country we have to share with one another. Once you recognize that you don't have to change people's minds to reach compromise, however, you can sometimes identify solutions acceptable to everyone.For example, the frenzy in certain conservative circles over restroom access for trans people can't be resolved by convincing conservatives of the dignity of trans people. But (as any late bloomer can tell you) you'd find support among liberals and conservatives alike for replacing open changing rooms with private changing and showering cabins at American middle schools and high schools.Likewise, equalizing federal treatment of highway and public transit funding doesn't require convincing anyone to believe in anthropogenic global warming, but would do an enormous amount to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions.This approach doesn't require anyone to admit they were wrong, which of course is a drawback to conservatives who want to destroy human civilization in order to own the libs and to leftists who want conservatives to acknowledge the dignity of their fellow man. But it has the advantage of sidestepping the non-falsifiable claims each side holds dear.

People rightly put values above facts

You can disparage non-falsifiable claims as "feelings," but it's much more accurate to describe them as values. Values are the things that motivate us in the complete absence of evidence. Fox host John Stossel thought he had a pretty good stunt dressing up in a fake beard and begging for money on the street to prove that #actually panhandlers have it pretty good. And indeed, what does cause a person to give money to a panhandler without insisting on seeing audited tax returns for the previous 5 years?Well, values do. And when values are really, fundamentally in conflict, we should have long, drawn-out, bitter battles over our values. If you think immigration causes crime, we can talk about the evidence. If you think immigration lowers wages, we can talk about the evidence. But if you think the United States is and ought to remain a white ethnostate, immigration is an issue we'll never agree or compromise on.

Conclusion

I find this framework helpful, so I thought I'd pass it along. A lot of public disagreements take place at the superficial level of falsifiable claims: how many Pinocchios does this or that Trump tweet get? But people, rightly, mostly don't care about the truth of their falsifiable claims. They care about the truth of their non-falsifiable claims — their values.Shall we preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations? Shall we spare immigrants the cruelty of family separation? Shall we honor Confederate as well as Union generals? Shall we privilege religious objections to non-discrimination laws above racist objections to non-discrimination laws?These are not questions that have answers you can find if you just dig deep enough into the scientific literature. They're questions about how a person should be. There are opportunities to finesse some of these controversies, while others must be engaged to the best of our ability, not in the interest of convincing those who don't share our values, but for the sake of activating the consciences of those who do.

What if low US labor force participation is driven by low US labor standards?

There is no cliché more beloved by chin-stroking observers of The West than the "sclerotic" labor markets of Western Europe.

There is a problem with this diagnosis, unfortunately: all three countries have higher labor force participation rates than the United States.

Sclerosis is a stiff metaphor for high labor standards

Sclerosis is such a weird metaphor that I won't belabor its exact definition, except to say that it primarily means labor protections in excess of those in the United States, which is the only example ever used of a "non-sclerotic" labor market among industrialized countries. So, the United States:

  • has a minimum wage that is a lower percentage of the median wage (35%) than any other OECD country;
  • has no guarantee of paid sick, parental, or vacation leave for the vast majority of workers;
  • has a workforce primarily composed of "at-will" employees who can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all;
  • has an extremely low level of private sector collective bargaining;
  • and allows employers to force employees into private arbitration to settle workplace disputes.

In other words, any country with a generous minimum wage, paid leave, restrictions on terminating employees, high levels of unionization, and a vigorous enforcement of workplace protections, by definition has a more "sclerotic" labor market than the one in the United States.

What keeps people out of the labor market?

It's possible, of course, that the higher labor force participation of the French, Spanish, and British populations is a result of some national characteristic so powerful that it overcomes the sclerosis of their labor market and causes people to seek work despite the labor market's shortcomings.But an alternate explanation I'd like to advance is that the high, uniform labor standards of Western Europe encourage labor force participation because of their height and uniformity.There are a few reasons this might be the case. First, due to our workplace-based benefits system, it's genuinely unclear to workers in the United States whether they'll be better or worse off if they move from our federal single-payer Medicaid program for low-income households to a workplace-based health insurance plan with co-payments and deductibles or to a state-based Affordable Care Act exchange. It's not just rational, it's correct for a low-income person with expensive health care needs to stay out of the labor market in order to avoid accidentally falling into a vastly more expensive health care plan.Likewise, the strict eligibility conditions built into the federal Family and Medical Leave Act mean that a person who is pregnant or planning to become pregnant is perfectly rational in staying out of the labor market, knowing that there's no chance they'll be eligible for (unpaid) family leave after giving birth.

What if people who are confident of fair treatment are more likely to join the labor force?

Media coverage of the US labor market is confusing because there are two equally confident, contradictory assertions made about it:

You could imagine each of these conditions being true. It might be that too many people are learning too many specialized skills that make them unwilling to perform unskilled labor. It also might be that not enough people are learning enough specialized skills, making them unable to perform skilled labor.But the fact that the labor force participation rate in Spain, France, and the United Kingdom are 5-6 percentage points higher than those in the United States makes me think a much simpler process is at work: people who expect to receive fair treatment at their places of work are more likely to seek out work than people who are certain they'll be mistreated at their places of work.

Conclusion

Whenever I read about a business owner complaining they "can't" find employees, I'm always the first to ask whether they've tried paying more, and I think it's a good and right question to ask any employer who thinks they're being held back by some force outside their control instead of the force directly within their control: the wage they pay.But if there is any truth to the claim of "labor shortages," that truth lies squarely in the fact that the United States has made labor conditions so miserable, so unappetizing, that plenty of people who might work under more appropriate conditions simply have no interest in working under the conditions that actually exist in the United States.They have smartphones in France, they have video games in Britain, they have pornography in Spain, but all those countries have somehow managed to entice much more of their working-age population into the workforce.That makes me think it might be time to introduce a bit of sclerosis here, as well.

Means-testing and the real marriage penalties (wonkish)

For decades (at least as long as I've been alive), people have used the expressions "marriage bonus" and "marriage penalty" to describe what happens to the income tax liability of a couple before and after they formally wed. But focusing attention on changes in income tax liability has resulted in a totally inadequate amount of attention being paid to the actual marriage penalties faced by low-income people considering marriage.

The classic marriage "bonus"

Consider two people, one of whom has an IRS form 1040 line 22 total income of $100,000 and one of whom has a line 22 total income of $0. With no other adjustments, in 2018, their combined income tax liability would be $15,410: the high-earner would pay income taxes on an adjusted gross income of $88,000 (after her $12,000 standard deduction), and the low-earner would pay $0 on his $0 income.Now consider if the same two people wed before the end of the calendar year, and file their taxes jointly. The same $100,000 in total income would be reduced by the new $24,000 standard deduction, and they would owe $8,739 on the remaining $76,000. The difference between the $15,410 owed when unmarried and $8,739 owed after marriage is a marriage "bonus" of $6,671.Now consider two people, each of whom has a form 1040 line 22 total income of $50,000 in 2018. Each of them would pay $4,370 on $38,000 in taxable income. If they wed before the end of the year, they'll end up paying $8,739 on their combined $76,000 in taxable income.In this stylized example, when two people with taxable income wed, their total income tax bill remains unchanged, while when a person with taxable income weds a person without taxable income, the government pays them $6,671 in reduced income tax liability.

Means-testing creates enormous marriage penalties

I am not, in general, concerned with the effects of marriage on income tax liability. I think the "marriage bonus" described above is pretty absurd, and we'd be much better off eliminating the standard deduction entirely and replacing it with a universal basic income, but that's beside the point of today's post.The real marriage penalty doesn't appear in the income tax tables, it appears in the multiplicity of ways marriage can affect people's eligibility for means-tested benefits. Let's look at a few stylized examples.

  • Health Insurance. In a Medicaid-expansion state, a person earning $16,753 is entitled to premium-free Medicaid coverage and a person earning $48,560 is entitled to premium tax credits that limit the cost of coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges to 9.6% of their income ($4,662). If the two people wed, their income will still be slightly under 400% of the federal poverty line, but 9.6% of that amount will now be $6,270, a marriage penalty of $1,608. Meanwhile, they receive a marriage "bonus" of just $95, leaving them $1,513 worse off, assuming they require no medical treatment whatsoever. If they do require medical treatment, the marriage penalty balloons further since, unlike Medicaid, Affordable Cart Act plans also include substantial deductibles and co-payments for treatment.
  • Earned Income Credit. Often described as one of the most effective programs embedded in the tax code, beloved by Democrats (anti-poverty) and Republicans (pro-work) alike, the Earned Income Credit also features an enormous marriage penalty: a single filer with $6,700 in earned income is eligible for the maximum refundable earned income credit of $510. Two such workers, each with $6,700 in earned income, when filing jointly are eligible for a refundable earned income credit of $510, resulting in a marriage penalty of $510.
  • Retirement Savings Contribution Credit. The RSCC is based on adjusted gross income, so it can get extremely complicated depending on your ability to game your AGI, but let's again use a stylized example to illustrate how marriage penalties work in practice. In 2018, one single filer with an AGI of $19,000 ($31,000 in total income) and one single filer with an AGI of $19,001 ($31,001 in total income) would be able to claim a RSCC of $1,000 and $400, respectively, for a total credit of $1,400. If wed, their credit would be just $800, resulting in a $600 marriage penalty.

Means-testing is an assault on the family

All forms of means-testing involve a certain incoherence, even if that incoherence is at times fashionable. The earned income credit, for example, is widely praised by economists for phasing in quickly and phasing out slowly, since economists believe that marginal incentives drive behavior. But if marginal incentives drive behavior, why should the earned income credit be phased out at all? And why should it be halved on the occasion of your wedding day (let alone retroactively to the first day of the year you wed)?An incoherent view towards the family and towards poverty is at the very heart of the conservative movement in the United States:

  • if marriage is the best way out of poverty, then you might want to eliminate the financial penalties for marriage I described above, in order to encourage more people to wed;
  • but if anti-poverty programs are keeping people from getting married, then you might want to eliminate benefits for the poor in order to cast them deeper into poverty and encourage them to marry solely to escape it.

Thankfully, I'm not a conservative, so I don't have to try to resolve the contradictions inherent in this worldview, but merely point them out.

Conclusion

I do not believe that the American family is "in crisis," but the more seriously you take the institution of the family in American life, the more seriously you should take the very real attacks on family formation built into our welfare state and tax code. A $510 penalty here, $610 there, and even $1,513 over there won't on their own destroy the institution of the family. But if you take that institution seriously, you ought to fight to eliminate those penalties wherever they arise.

What a culture of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship would look like

I write a lot about entrepreneurship. This is not because I think everyone should be an entrepreneur. For one thing, not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur, and part of having an economy that works for everyone means making room for folks who just want to show up at work and do their job.The problem with our current system of social and economic organization is that we've swung too far in the other direction: entrepreneurship is so maddeningly difficult that folks who would be better off starting their own business remain as employees, both occupying jobs that would be better filled by folks who want jobs, while also not pursuing their own goals.But it's easy to complain. Instead, I want to share my actual, concrete, actionable vision for what a culture of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship would look like.

Simplify the tax code

Self-employed people and entrepreneurs don't talk as much as they should about the complexity of the tax code because once you're self-employed you've almost by definition figured out the tax code. It takes me perhaps half an hour to do my taxes these days, because they're basically the same every year.That's unfortunate, because it means people aren't talking about the initial hurdle of figuring out how the tax code applies to entrepreneurs. The half hour my taxes take me today is the product of hundreds of hours of poring through tax schedules to figure out how all the pieces fit together.Fortunately, the answer's simple:

  • tax capital gains as ordinary income;
  • eliminate the floor and ceiling on FICA taxes;
  • eliminate the 20% pass-through income deduction introduced in the smash-and-grab tax reform bill of 2017.

Obviously running a business will never be exactly the same as being an employee. But if you use the basic idea of adding up all your income each year and paying taxes on the resulting number as the core principle of the tax code, we can demolish an enormous hurdle to entrepreneurship.

Eliminate (tax preferences for) workplace health and retirement benefits

I've never pretended to have all the answers; I don't know how much money people should be able to shield in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. My gut feeling says the number should be $0, but whatever amount you think they should be able to shield in tax-advantaged retirement accounts, there's obviously no reason that number should depend on their employer.

  • If the number is $5,500 (the limit on individual retirement account contributions), then the number should be $5,500 for everyone.
  • If the number is $24,000 ($5,500 in IRA contributions and $18,500 in employee-side 401(k) contributions), then the number should be $24,000 for everyone.
  • And if the number is a full $60,500 ($5,500 in IRA contributions, $18,500 in employee 401(k) contributions, and $36,500 in employer 401(k) contributions), then the number should be $60,500 for everyone.

To be clear, since this is an area where people tend to develop some very strange ideas, your employer's contribution to your workplace retirement plan is part of your labor income; it's not a gift and it's not done from the generosity of their heart. Even if you believe that there should be tax advantages to contributing to investment accounts that can only be tapped penalty-free in old age, there's no reason to believe that the investment management company, investment options, and fees should be determined by your employer, instead of by you.Meanwhile, eliminating the exclusion from personal income of workplace health insurance benefits would almost immediately end the disastrous American experiment with employer health insurance plans, and keep every business in America from having to run a small, terrible health insurance company on the side.

Make hiring easy

There was a period in the late 90's when it was fashionable to attack and vilify political candidates who hired landscapers, housekeepers, or nannies "under the table," the idea being that they were either facilitating undocumented immigration or saving money on the taxes they'd owe if they were operating on the level.This is bullshit. It is not, in fact, possible to hire someone to work legally in the United States. Don't believe me? Just try it!I've written before about E-Verify, which doesn't work, but E-Verify isn't mandatory, so set that aside.It's impossible to comply with US and state employment laws. Now, it's true that you can pay someone to handle payroll for you, but that means the hurdle to hiring an employee is not "is this employee going to produce more value than they cost?" but rather "is this employee going to produce more value than they cost plus the cost of hiring them?" The lower we can make that extra drag, the easier businesses will find it to expand and hire.The obvious way to deal with the information asymmetry between employers and the IRS is for the IRS to design a single interface that calculates federal, state, and FICA tax withholding and accepts payment for those taxes.The fact that we haven't done so is the most striking proof that we don't take entrepreneurship seriously.

Eliminate means testing and (paper)work requirements

A non-exhaustive list of big national welfare benefits:

  • the Earned Income Credit
  • the Retirement Savings Contribution Credit
  • the Child Tax Credit
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
  • Women, Infants, and Children
  • Medicaid
  • Low-income Heating Energy Assistance Program

These programs all have different requirements, each of which has to be documented, and which can push in different directions.

  • They all require you to have a low income. What qualifies as a low income depends on the program, however: in Medicaid-expansion states "low-income" means up to 138% of the poverty line, or $16,146. Meanwhile, the EIC is phased out completely at $15,000 in earned income, and the CTC at $240,000 in adjusted gross income.
  • But not too low! The same programs also have minimum income requirements. SNAP requires recipients to work 20 hours per week; the RSCC can only be credited against taxes owed, meaning recipients have to have more income than their standard deduction; and only $1,400 of the new CTC is refundable, so $600 of the credit is reserved for folks with income high enough to owe at least that amount in tax (but less than the phaseout amount, remember).

This means someone's disposable income is dependent on their income from work, but not in a coherent or dependable way. It's impossible to guess whether an additional dollar of income will actually raise your disposable income, or whether it will reduce your welfare benefits by more than a dollar.The obvious answer is to replace all the cash-like welfare programs with a universal basic income (per adult) and child allowance (per child), and pay for the higher costs with higher marginal tax rates on higher incomes. This would act as the same "phase-out" the designers of welfare programs are so enamored with, but through the simple mechanism of a progressive income tax instead of having to calculate the phase-in and phase-out points of dozens of different benefits.In this way, earning a dollar of extra income will still not increase your disposable income by a dollar, since it will be reduced by the taxes owed, but it won't be reduced again by the loss of eligibility for multiple interlocking welfare programs.

Conclusion

One of the most destructive, counterproductive tendencies in American life is to talk about entrepreneurship as something other people do. Whether it's venture capitalists in Silicon Valley or restauranteurs in Brooklyn, we hear that it takes a special kind of person, willing to work 20 hour days, spend Christmas at the office, and never see their family in order to finally hit the jackpot when their vision is realized.But when I say "entrepreneur," I mean the stay-at-home dad who screenprints t-shirts when the kids are napping. I don't care if he ever turns the business into a global conglomerate, I just want to make his life as easy as possible so he can get back to work on the t-shirts.We were not put on Earth to fill out paperwork.

Employers have forgotten how to hire. But they'll learn

I've written before about what I called the high-employment generation, which I use to describe people entering the workforce today who have no memory of the long, grinding recession which destroyed countless American communities in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008.Four pieces have come across my desk in the last few weeks which highlight the consequences of high employment in different ways:

These articles are almost universally written from the perspective of employers, rather than employees, and there's no surprise there: it's a lot easier to get the owner of a Subway sandwich shop to speak on the record than it is to get a quote from the employee making $10.93 an hour and who depends on their job for survival.

Learning to hire is hard, but I believe employers can be taught

During the low-employment generation which I belong to, employers had the dual luxury of being able to hire relatively-well-educated workers (high school and college graduates) for relatively low wages. The cliche about PhD's working as baristas was commonly used as a dig against the value of PhD's, but from a workforce perspective coffeeshops were lucky to be able to hire easily-trained PhD's to make coffee due to the abundance of slack in the labor market.It's fashionable to respond to employer complaints of difficulty hiring by saying they should raise wages, and indeed, they'll find it's necessary to raise wages. But you can see from the articles above that employers already see the outline of a much larger problem: in the context of an entire economy of steadily rising wages, employers will need to not only match competitors' wage increases, but outbid them if they want to retain workers or expand their workforce. And that's the process that we're not yet seeing take place.

How bad is the labor shortage?

The best illustration of this process is the WSJ article "How Bad Is the Labor Shortage? Cities Will Pay You to Move There." Here are the specific examples given in the article for the drastic measures cities are taking to respond to what they consider extreme labor shortages:

  • "A local community foundation opened applications for 11 scholarships—$5,000 toward student loans of people in engineering, technology, science or the arts, if they agree to live for two years in downtown Hamilton, about 45 minutes from Cincinnati."
  • "The Community Foundation of St. Clair County has awarded eight grants from among 40 applicants and recently raised its award to $15,000 from $10,000, targeting local young people who have moved away."
  • "In Grant County, Ind., the economic development office offers $5,000 toward a home for people moving to the area. The requirements are a job and advanced training or a college degree. The money must be repaid if recipients leave within five years."
  • "The chamber of commerce is developing a $9,000 scholarship program to help repay student loans."
  • "A local committee in Marne offers newcomers free land to build a house...The town’s free-lots program—funded by donations—began before the recession. So far, though, only one home has been built."
  • "The North Platte, Neb., chamber of commerce last year started offering up to $10,000 to move into town for a job...The first grant went to Audrey Bellew, a 25-year-old law school graduate. She grew up nearby and had planned to return home. The money helped pay for her move and provided support while she studied for the bar exam and prepared for a job at a local law firm....The town has landed a second newcomer, a physical therapist who moved from Colorado with her husband."

These efforts are, not to be rude to the people of North Platte, Nebraska, ridiculous. They have identified an issue that they consider of sufficient important to organize a community initiative around, and their community initiative is utterly inadequate to address the problem. $9,000 to repay student loans? How will that attract people who don't have student loans? Free land to build a house? Who wants to build a house? $5,000 "towards a home?" What does that even mean?This might lead one to despair that we're doomed to dumb employers and dumb communities proposing dumb initiatives doomed to failure.

Stunts calibrated to the scale of the problem work great

The University of California, Irvine, opened a law school that admitted its first students for classes in the fall semester of 2009. That first class had all 3 years of tuition paid for through a private scholarship program (the next two classes had their tuition by the same scholarship covered at a lower rate). The goal was to attract the nation's top law students to a program that had just sprung into existence.And it worked. The UC Irvine School of Law is ranked 21st in the latest U.S. News and World Report rankings of US law schools — a school that has been open for barely a decade!

Relocation stunts are the beginning, not the end, of these experiments

As I said, the stupidity of the relocation stunts I linked to above (merengue classes?) might lead some folks to despair. Maybe employers and communities really can't muster up sufficiently bold initiatives to solve the problems of falling populations and unfilled jobs. Maybe their brains have atrophied so much in the face of a decade of low employment and cheap labor that hysteresis will extract decades of subpar wage and employment growth.But I do not despair, and I think the UC Irvine stunt illustrates that we haven't entirely lost our capacity for ingenuity. I think when the relocation initiatives I mentioned continue to fail, bigger and bolder initiatives will be developed.Of course, they'll be developed unevenly, just as the existing initiatives offer different incentives in different places. Maybe Branson, Missouri, will figure out how to attract workers before Grant County, Indiana, and Branson will thrive while Grant County continues to decline.In hyper-local industries like the Eastern Shore of Maryland's crab-picking firms, they may not adapt fast enough to stay in business and jumbo lump crab meat might disappear from mid-Atlantic diets entirely, or appear only as the occasional delicacy. But if this occurs, it will not be a failure of immigration policy, it will be a failure of imagination.And I'm not yet prepared to bet against the American imagination.

There are no work requirements, only paperwork requirements

Paul Ryan, having decided that his services will no longer be needed by the American people come January, is taking one last bite at the apple of welfare reform by proposing onerous restrictions on who is eligible to receive SNAP benefits, the only remaining near-cash welfare benefit available to low-income Americans.I do not have a very high opinion of work as an occupation, but I'm not here to convince you that poor Americans "should" or "shouldn't" work. My objection to so-called "work requirements" is much simpler.

There is no such thing as a work requirement

In order to receive SNAP benefits more than 3 months out of every 36, recipients are already "required" to work 20 hours per week.This is the 32-page application Texas uses for SNAP (and other income-dependent programs). Here's California's 18-page application.I want to give an honorary mention to Texas's 2-page form "Report of Pregnancy," which reads in part "THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT PAY YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM. Thank you for your assistance."But while these forms are required, "work" is not required.

All work requirements are actually paperwork requirements

Before desktop publishing became a reality, I assume paystubs had to be manually typeset at great expense by trained professionals. But since we live in the 21st, not 19th, century, I would invite you to pull out or download your last paystub and actually look at it.A paystub is an Excel spreadsheet with a bunch of merged cells and some light math.Anybody born after 1980 can produce a paystub showing any number of hours worked, at any wage, in about 20 minutes (if they can keep from being distracted by Twitter for that long).And of course anyone claiming to earn income through self-employment doesn't even need to do that.

Means-testing is an expensive, vicious mistake

As should be obvious at this point, the problem is not the amount of time low-income Americans spend working, it's the amount of time low-income Americans spend navigating the welfare bureaucracy.I truly do not care if an hour saved filling out Texas's 32-page form is spend at work or if it is spent catching up on the latest scandal. I only want it to not be spent filling out a 32-page form.At an American Enterprise Institute event on work requirements last year, the entire panel literally did not understand my question about the paperwork requirements they were proposing subjecting low-income Americans to.But as I attempted to painstakingly explain to them, any so-called "work requirement" has two separate costs:

  • the cost of being denied benefits to those who are unable to meet the paperwork requirements;
  • and the cost of attempting to the meet the paperwork requirement whether using "genuine" documents or a little time in Excel.

It's important to understand that the latter cost is even more serious than the former, since it's imposed on everyone whether or not they in fact meet the work requirement.In other words, even if you are fine with onerous paperwork requirements being imposed on people who are ineligible for benefits, you should strenuously oppose onerous paperwork requirements on people who are eligible for benefits. And since it's impossible to know in advance which is which, the obvious solution is to end paperwork requirements for everyone.

The solution: universal benefits, progressive income taxes

Americans often pretend to be upset about the idea of universal welfare benefits, presumably because they don't realize they're already receiving them. A free public school is a universal welfare benefit. Streetlights, roads, and busses are all universal welfare benefits. In-state tuition at public universities is a universal welfare benefit. Police, firefighters, judges, and clerks of the court are all universal welfare benefits.And even universal welfare benefits paid for through property taxes are paid for disproportionately by those occupying the most expensive homes, a kind of primitive progressive taxation (depending on local restrictions on property assessments).I did not think very much of the personal exemption, and am glad it was eliminated in the 2017 tax reform law. But it did unintentionally contain an essential truth: people need money to live, everyone should receive enough money to live, and then once everyone has enough money to live, the surplus should be split up in the most efficient way possible.Paul Ryan's project appears to be something like the opposite: destroy the ability of people to meet their essential needs, consign them to unending poverty, and see if you can wring any productive labor out of them before they die, miserable and alone.

What can the police do but arrest them?

I read with interest the essay of National Review columnist Kyle Smith about the response of the Starbucks coffee drink company to reports that one of their employees summoned Philadelphia's municipal law enforcement authorities in response to the presence of two men at one of their Rittenhouse Square coffee drink locations. He writes:

"We can all easily imagine circumstances in which a manager of a coffee shop or restaurant might properly call the police to ask them to remove loiterers. These are places of business. There’s nothing wrong in principle with calling the cops on non-customers who are taking up space. And there’s nothing wrong with police asking people to leave private property where they aren’t welcome, given that trespassing is a crime. When such people refuse, that’s unfortunate, but what can the police do but arrest them?"

I am glad Mr. Smith asked this question, because it's precisely the question people on both the left and the right should be asking about how we should be expected to deal with one another.

An Anecdote

In my late 20's, I was a graduate student in Providence, Rhode Island. Without expressing any unwarranted prejudice against the people of Rhode Island, it is a den of villainy. Nowhere was this more perfectly expressed than in the taxi industry, which was populated exclusively with the worst people in Rhode Island, and perhaps in all of New England.If you're from Rhode Island, then I suppose you get pretty used to the way your taxi drivers abuse their passengers, but if you're not from Rhode Island, it gets very old, very fast.One day, I flew into T. F. Green International Airport (named, hilariously, after the guy President Johnson is intimidating in the famous picture of his manhood), and taxis were in short supply. The taxi jockey at the airport insisted on putting multiple people into the same cab in order to move the line along. I was seated with a fellow going to the Providence Marriott, perhaps a half mile from my apartment. After dropping off the first passenger, and being paid by him, the driver continued to my apartment, where I handed him the difference between the final fare and the fare as of the first passenger's arrival at the Marriott.The driver was not amused. He insisted that I owed him half the fare to the Marriott, plus the additional distance he'd driven me. When I told him I wasn't paying him that, he said he'd call the police, and I told him I'd wait up in my apartment.He really did call the police! And when the police car finally pulled up 20-30 minutes later, I went downstairs and explained the situation to him. The cop patiently listened to us both, and understood both sides:

  • On the one hand, why should I pay for somebody else's trip to the Providence Marriott, which took me out of my way home?
  • On the other hand, why should I get a free trip downtown from the airport and only pay for the last half-mile of the trip?

But you know what the cop did? Nothing. He listened to both sides, he understood what both of us were saying, and he didn't arrest anybody at all.

The police don't have to arrest anybody

Was I "stealing" from my taxi driver by not paying what he thought I should for my share of my ride from the airport? Maybe!Were the two Philadelphia Starbucks patrons "trespassing" by sitting at a table for a few minutes before the manager called the police? Maybe!We can use whatever legalisms we want to describe particular situations, whether it's theft, trespassing, vandalism, loitering, or jaywalking, without insisting that the police have no choice but to arrest us, incarcerate us, and immiserate us.They always have a choice, and best of all, they work for us. Which means, like it or not, that it's up to us to do something about it.

Consumption smoothing is the best-theorized, least-implemented idea in economics

Given the prestige economics holds as a profession under late capitalism, it's somewhat odd how little attention is paid to the genuine theoretical innovations of the economics profession. I was reminded of this most recently by George Will's recent column in the Washington Post, which I'll quote at length:

"The recent bipartisan budget agreement, which signals that 12-digit deficits are acceptable to both parties even when the economy is robust, indicates government’s future. So does government’s pregnancy, which was announced nine months ago by this tweet from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): 'In America, no family should be forced to put off having children due to economic insecurity.'"The phrase 'due to economic insecurity' is a way to avoid saying 'until they can afford them.' Evidently it is now retrograde to expect family planning to involve families making plans that fit their resources. Which brings us to the approaching birth of a new entitlement: paid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child. This arrival will coincide with gargantuan deficits produced primarily by existing entitlements."

I think it's worth thanking George Will for making explicit what is often implicit in criticism of reproductive decision-making, since it allows us to ask the question: shall our human biology be subservient to the economics of late capitalism, or shall we forge a political and economic system that encourages human thriving as we actually exist in the world?

What does it mean to afford a child?

We can crudely identify a variety of (non-exhaustive) costs that childbearing creates:

  1. Prenatal, delivery, and neonatal medical care. Whether you think childbirth should be as "medicalized" as it is in the United States, even our hippies usually want a few ultrasounds, a clean room to give birth in, and somebody to check in on their newborn. A fully-medicalized birth, of course, costs far more, and if a C-section is required (or "required") the amounts involved can easily reach the high tens of thousands.
  2. Early childhood maintenance. During a child's youngest years, they demand attention throughout the day and night. This care can either be performed professionally, or by an unpaid amateur who foregoes paid work, but in either case the work performed by the caregiver is a cost created by the presence of the additional human being.
  3. Living expenses. In addition to the costs of childhood maintenance, human beings also have nutritional requirements, and rapidly-growing children often have unexpectedly high nutritional requirements. Under conditions of multiple children living in the same home, it's also frequently found necessary to acquire a larger living space to accommodate the additional people.
  4. Educational expenses. Parents often enroll their children in schools, where professional teachers provide instruction in a range of subjects the children may find useful.

No one can afford a child

Looking at the list above, it should be obvious that virtually no one can afford a child, and no one tries.Most working-age people in the United States have medical insurance provided by their employer or the employer of a partner or parent, so that the medical costs created by pregnancy and birth are spread throughout a pool of people, not all of whom are delivering children at the same time, and some of whom will never deliver children.Most school-age children in the United States attend public schools paid for with taxes levied on their entire community, some of whom have many children, and some none at all.George Will would never be stupid enough to ask that people not give birth until they can prove to their obstetrician that their $40,000 check will clear, or until they can afford the services of a professional schoolteacher to educate their child, because George Will is a well-insured columnist living in a leafy Washington suburb with good public schools.

Consumption smoothing is basic economics

What about food, shelter, and supervision? Aren't those expenses parents should be expected to personally pay for out of current income?Upon even a moment's reflection, the answer is obviously not. When a child is enrolled in kindergarten, their childcare is suddenly paid for collectively by everyone who pays taxes in the city, county, or state in question. But the child doesn't undergo a transfiguration making them worthy of state-provided childcare, they are simply newly eligible for childcare and education provided collectively by their fellow citizens, instead of directly by their parents. There's nothing "natural" about privatizing the costs of childcare for the first few years of a child's life and socializing them thereafter.Of course, the community does this not because they're deeply committed to the concept of socialized childcare, but because well-educated children are a boon to the community.But well-fed, well-sheltered children are also a boon to the community, and privatizing the provision of those needs makes no more sense than privatizing the provision of education.

We don't take consumption smoothing seriously, but we should

All of this comes back to the theoretical innovation I mentioned earlier: consumption smoothing. Throughout history, the vast majority of people have tended to live, reproduce, and die, relying solely on their current income. Under the radical material constraints of feudalism and early capitalism, this often took the form of simply malnourishing, murdering or abandoning to exposure children who required too many resources given the current year's harvest. In other words, when George Will takes about "affording" children, for most of human history he was talking about infanticide.But even under late capitalism, the problem is no less obvious: since people's income tends to rise as they gain experience and education, they have less money than they need early in life and more money than they need later in life. But humans are also more fertile early in life than they are later in life! The logical response to these conditions is for people to consume more than they earn in their younger years, and less than they earn in their older years, "smoothing" their consumption from year to year so they aren't constantly changing their lifestyle due to income fluctuations, whatever the cause.

Intergenerational consumption smoothing is even more justified

Smoothing consumption across a single human lifespan is a tricky proposition: you would want to start with a fairly accurate estimate of a person's lifetime, inflation-adjusted income, build in a margin of safety, then divide by the person's expected lifespan. Then you'd need to find someone to loan them the money in their early years at a low-enough interest rate that they'd completely repay the loan in their higher-earning years without reducing real, inflation-adjusted consumption below the desired baseline.But intergenerational consumption smoothing is easy! Since the United States is organized as a perpetual entity, all we have to do to is issue debt today that will repaid by our much-richer descendants. Assuming a modest 2% average real growth in GDP over the next 75 years, our descendants will have $4.42 of real resources available to repay each dollar we borrow today.That's not to say debt-financing long-term investments is always, or even usually, the best course of action. When interest rates are especially high, debt-financed spending may reduce future consumption to below the level it raises current consumption to, reducing overall consumption instead of merely smoothing it. Under those circumstances, tax-financed spending may be more justified. And of course, there's no reason to commit to a single option: since growth rates are necessarily uncertain, tax-financed and debt-financed spending are two great tastes that taste great together.But whenever anyone tells you that your children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren "will get the bill," insist on sending it COD — your great-grandchildren will thank you in between their vacations to the moon.

The high-employment generation

The lives of Americans my age are overwhelmingly defined by a single formative experience. Not the September 11 attacks, which happened at the beginning of my junior year of high school, but the global financial crisis. Obviously both events affected Americans of all ages old enough to remember them, but people my age had the unique privilege of entering the workforce during the highest period of unemployment since Reagan's first term.After spending a year teaching English abroad, I returned to the United States in July, 2008, when the unemployment rate had just reached 6%. It would continue to rise before cresting in January, 2010, at 10.6%, and beginning the long, slow decline which has brought it down to 4.5% today.For 18 months new college graduates were looking for work in an environment where more jobs were being destroyed than created. And college graduates had it lucky compared to the high school graduates they were suddenly competing with for low-wage work.I say all this by way of background, since it's essential to understanding why people in the brief cohort that came of age between roughly 2007 and 2013 (when unemployment dropped to 6.5%, its previous post-9/11 peak), turned out the way we did, and because it gives a framework for insight into the generation coming of age today.

What will the high-employment generation look like?

Coming of age today means rather than entering the workforce at at time of historically high unemployment, new workers are seeing unemployment low and falling, while wages continue their slow but steady trot higher.By analogy, I'd like to suggest a few consequences this has for 18-to-22-year-olds entering the workforce today.

  • Less education. Many folks of my generation were able to hide out in the universities while the recession raged around us. Besides a modicum of debt-financed financial security, a by-product was more education. Between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of advanced degree holders rose by a full 25%, from 9.6% to 12%. With plentiful jobs and rising wages, fewer people will be inclined to sit out of the job market, and I expect the number of advanced degree holders will flatten or decline in the coming years.
  • Less entrepreneurial. Just among my friends from high school and college, I know two app developers, one bitcoin millionaire, one event photographer, and one acrobat. Plus one blogger, if you want to count me. And I didn't have many friends! We started businesses because what else were we going to do? Today's graduates don't have that problem, and I expect the high-employment generation will start somewhat fewer businesses since the tradeoffs between formal employment and self-employment will be concrete in a way they weren't for my generation.
  • Less radical. The radicalism of my generation is based on the fact, manifest everywhere you looked, that the system of global capitalism had proved itself yet again incapable of providing stable growth. A system prone to the periodic immiseration of a broad swathe of society based on accidents of timing was a bad system, it needed to be destroyed and replaced with a system that was more resilient. That's as true today as it was in 2008, but with the passage of the radicalizing moment, I expect today's generation to have much more incrementalist views on change. For example, in a period of high unemployment and marginal work, the absurdness of employer-based health insurance was obvious, and enormous effort was expended making health insurance less dependent on employment. In a period of high employment and steady work, most people will be mostly satisfied with the insurance they get through their employer, and radical changes will be harder to mobilize young people around.
  • Less gig employment. Companies like Uber and AirBnB have been able to survive for three reasons: the low cost of capital; the weakness of state and local regulators; and the labor surplus. While I don't foresee states and localities stepping up their regulation, rising interest rates and wages will make it harder and harder to continue operating unprofitable businesses. Such firms are only ever one funding round away from insolvency, and it's impossible to predict when investor sentiment is going to swing away from them. But any attempt to extend their funding by cutting the income of drivers and renters will push people out of the gig economy into the formal labor market. That'll be especially true as attacks on the Affordable Care Act like we're seeing in Idaho make comprehensive health insurance unaffordable to gig economy workers.
  • More family formation. Whatever the underlying long-term trend in marriage rates, superimposed on that trendline is the overall economic well-being of young people, and I expect the current generation will see both earlier marriages and more marriages as they enter the workforce with stable, long-term employment.
  • Higher lifetime incomes. It's frequently observed that people who enter the workforce during a recession have lower lifetime incomes, as their future raises are "anchored" to the relatively low base they began their careers with. The flip side of that is also true: if my generation saw a lifetime earnings hit due to an accident of timing, the present generation will see higher lifetime incomes as their future income is anchored to a higher starting point.

Conclusion

There are only a few periods in post-World War II history when unemployment has been as low as it is today, and the key unknown is which of those periods our present moment will most resemble. Will it be 1964, when unemployment stayed low for another 6 years? Or will it be more like 1973, 1997, or 2006, when low unemployment was followed by long, grinding recessions? The answer to that question will determine how long the high-employment microgeneration lasts, and how many of the predictions I made above will bear out.Meanwhile, it's possible to pursue policies that encourage the best results of low employment (higher lifetime incomes, more family formation) while mitigating the worst results. For example, simplifying the tax code is always worth doing, but it's especially worth doing in a period of declining entrepreneurship in order to offset the appeal of formal employment. Reducing the burden of tuition is always worth doing, but it's especially worth doing in a period when advanced degrees are relatively more expensive due to the more lucrative job opportunities available.And finally, if the relative ease with which young people could be radicalized against global capitalism in a period when its failures were obvious made radical organizations lose their rhetorical edge, then the relative prosperity of the current generation will quickly marginalize organizations that do not have a message that continues to resonate under today's actual existing economic conditions.

Is intergenerational advice possible?

Canadian philosophy professor and YouTube hit Jordan Peterson recently attracted some attention when he published a book called "12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos," and a number of other folks on the internet got in on the act with their own "rules for life." You can read Peterson's rules here, if you're so inclined. I don't know whether they're good rules or bad rules.What the whole thing got me thinking about is the subject of intergenerational advice. Is it possible? And if it's not possible, should people try to give it anyway?

Lifecycle effects and generational effects dilute the power of advice

I use the phrase "lifecycle effects" to describe how someone's perspective shifts over time purely through the process of aging, and "generational effects" to describe how the world changes through the passage of time. Importantly, the two effects can weaken each other or reinforce each other.To take an example from my other project, there's nothing experienced travel hackers love more than explaining how easy travel hacking used to be, and how what's left today is a mere shadow of the hobby's former glory. Here you see the two effects reinforcing each other: there really are fewer opportunities easily available in many parts of the country, but it's also true that travel hacking is easier at age 25 than it is at 30, and easier at 30 than it is at 35. No one complaining about how much worse the travel hacking landscape is today than it was in 2010 remembers to add, "also I had a lot more free time because I wasn't married, didn't have kids, and had fewer responsibilities at work."At a population level this can give rise to ambiguous situations. For example, social scientists have observed that people's voting habits become more conservative as they age. However, if each successive generation is further left than the generation before it, it's possible for the overall electorate to become further left. What matters are the rates of change: are individuals of a generation drawn right as they age more or less quickly than subsequent generations are drawn left?These interacting effects are what make it unclear to me whether intergenerational advice is possible. To take a final example, think about what kind of advice a late-career, 60-year-old professional could give a graduating 18-year-old high school senior today. The professional was age 18 in 1976. In that year, a nonresident undergraduate at the University of California would pay $2,130 in tuition and fees ($9,116 in 2017 dollars; it's $40,644 today). In the intervening years, the professional has experienced the lifecycle effect of rising income as her career advances. But in the background the generational effect of accelerating tuition has proceeded apace. So what advice can our professional give our high school graduate today? Should she advise the graduate to skip college, since its cost has quadrupled in real terms in the intervening 42 years, racing ahead of inflation? Or should she advise the graduate to attend college, based on the fact that all her well-off professional colleagues have college degrees? Now flip it around. What advice should a late-career union machinist in a Toyota factory give the same student? He's also seen his wage rise through the years, and seen the cost of college rise even faster. If college wasn't worth it in 1976, how could it be worth it at quadruple the price?And most importantly of all, how can the person receiving the advice untangle the two effects? If they aren't able to do so, how are they supposed to evaluate it?

The advice you can use is different from the advice you need

If intergenerational advice is possible, I think it's only possible by separating out the advice that the person giving it thinks is necessary from the advice the person receiving it can actually use:

  • the advice a reimbursed business traveler needs is to put their travel and meals on a Chase Sapphire Reserve credit card. The advice a reimbursed business travel can use may be to just sign up for a BankAmericard Travel Rewards credit card and redeem the points they earn against their travel purchases.
  • the advice a new hire needs is to invest their 401(k) contributions in a diversified portfolio of low-cost mutual funds. The advice a new hire can use may be to invest in a target date retirement fund.
  • the advice teenager need is to stay out of trouble. The advice teenagers can use is to not get caught.
  • the advice a high school graduate needs is to wait until they're treated by the FAFSA as independent before applying for financial aid. The advice a high school graduate can use is to apply to as many schools as possible that guarantee to cover their full financial need.

The problem with a book written to impart wisdom on younger (or older!) generations is that the best you can do is give people the advice they need, not the advice they can use. To give a person useful advice, you need to know something meaningful about the person you're advising. To sell a million copies of a self-help book, the only advice you can give is advice guaranteed to be of no use to anyone.

Five questions about immigration

Immigration has emerged somewhat abruptly and I gather somewhat unexpectedly as a major political issue in 2018 due to the president's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which offered work permits and reprieve from deportation to immigrants who entered the United States without authorization as children (this group of immigrants is sometimes called "kids" but the population is in fact mostly adults, given the effect of time on the human body).Immigration is an issue that famously divided both political parties for decades, so while these days it's always tempting to retreat into partisan corners, I want to ask five questions relevant both to the current political squabble and to figuring out what kind of immigration policy you actually favor. (Note: these questions deliberately exclude all racist arguments for and against immigration from particular countries. I'm not interested).

What is E-Verify, and should it be mandatory?

E-Verify is a system developed by US Citizenship and Immigration Services to instantly verify employees' authorization to work in the United States. While CIS brags that it is "used nationwide by more than 700,000 employers of all sizes," according to the best data I could scrounge there are about 17 million employers in the United States. So currently, about 4% of employers are enrolled in E-Verify (note that some employers are enrolled but don't use it)."Mandatory E-Verify" is the term of art used by people who think the use of E-Verify should be mandatory for all employers. This has become a key demand of some Republicans in the current immigration debate.Should use of E-Verify be mandatory? Here are some things to consider:

  • The overwhelming majority of new hires in the United States are authorized to work here. Remember that E-Verify is designed to detect people who are present in the United States, are not authorized to work here, and are applying for new jobs. This will only ever be a tiny fraction of the total number of new hires. To pick a recent non-seasonally-adjusted peak, in June, 2017, there were 6.2 million new hires; the 2017 low was in February, at 4.4 million. Averaging and annualizing those gives 63.6 million annual new hires. The total unauthorized population in the United States in 2015 was 11.3 million. Assume 50% of those are workers (and not infants, students, the self-employed, and retirees), and 50% of those get a new job each year, and you're forcing 64 million authorized workers to go through E-Verify in order to potentially catch 2.8 million unauthorized workers.
  • E-Verify isn't free. In order to accommodate 25 times as many employers, E-Verify would need to radically expand its capacity. This would be very expensive for both the federal government and for employers who aren't able to proceed with hiring due to the overwhelmed system.
  • E-Verify isn't easy. I would encourage you, right now, to head on over to E-Verify and set up an account. This time I actually got all the way to the end before I got the error message: "Please verify your input parameters and try again. If the problem persists, contact the help desk. Object reference not set to an instance of an object." Maybe next time.

This is the question I feel most strongly about as an advocate for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Is starting a business too easy? Is hiring your first employee too easy? Is managing payroll too easy? In order to make the process of hiring employees manifestly more difficult for every employer in the country, the benefits would have to be overwhelming. Are they? Or is this just a massive subsidy for payroll firms to add an additional "service" they're happy to provide — as long as companies are able to afford it?

Is it preferable for immigrants to be older or younger?

This is an interesting question that people have extremely strong opinions about, but about which I have no opinion:

  • Very young immigrants are entitled to free public education, which makes them more expensive to support initially but also has the potential to better integrate them into American society and culture, possibly giving them higher lifetime incomes.
  • Very old immigrants (often parsed as "the parents of US citizens" because they are often able to immigrate relatively late in life through family reunification provisions) have fewer productive working years remaining, but are also able to provide valuable home work like childcare and cost relatively little (assuming they arrive too late to earn enough Social Security and Medicare work credits). They are also, perhaps needless to say, unlikely to commit many crimes.
  • Are there "just right" immigrants? If so, what is the right age to permanently relocate to a foreign land? Should we try to guess? Should we try to use our limited and fractured dataset of past immigration patterns to decide which age on immigration is most predictive of lifetime success?

As I say, this is a legitimately interesting question, but one about which I have no opinion whatsoever.

How much education should immigrants have relative to the native population?

If you know anything about immigration, you know that immigrants to the United States are more educated, overall, than the native-born population. So one way to phrase this question is, should we admit additional immigrants until the immigrant population has the same educational attainment as the native population, or should we reduce immigration until the immigrant population has an even higher educational attainment than the native population? How much more educated should an immigrant be than a native-born citizen to be considered worth admitting?Are we willing to pay more for, or give up completely, the childcare, valet parking, landscaping services, construction, and other jobs relatively unskilled immigrants perform?

Is it preferable to have immigrants with or without connections to the United States?

This is a question that I had literally never considered until I recently listened to episode 73 of "The Editors" podcast from National Review and heard Reihan Salam explain why he thought family reunification (or "chain") immigration to the United States was a problem. In every other area of American life, liberals and conservatives are united in believing that family and community are essential to human thriving.But Reihan Salam passionately expressed the view that immigrants should have no ties to the United States because if they do, they'll form communities that keep them from integrating into American culture. This argument is, I believe, totally novel in the history of American immigration policy. Every period of American immigration has been characterized by the formation of communities based on national or religious identity that have provided mutual support as they integrate into mainstream society. I don't know what Salam's vision of scattering isolated immigrants across the country surrounded by strangers would even look like.

Are periodic immigration amnesties a problem?

Until the immigration amnesty of 1986, the word "amnesty" had, as far as I can tell, an exclusively positive connotation. An amnesty was a period of mercy, of slate-cleansing, of rebirth, like the ancient Jewish concept of jubilee.Since then, the word "amnesty" has become a kind of weapon against any attempt to normalize the status of unauthorized immigrants. Even those in favor of such normalization insist that it doesn't constitute "amnesty" since there will be fines and paperwork involved.Immigration "hawks" believe any amnesty has to be accompanied by assurances that it's "the last time," the problem will be solved "once and for all." That's the unfulfilled promise of the 1986 amnesty.But that seems symptomatic of the general conservative pathology of insisting on a final solution for every problem. No matter what immigration compromise is agreed to, and indeed if no compromise is agreed to at all, tourists, students, and temporary workers will continue to enter the United States, they'll continue to overstay their visas, they'll continue to fall in love, get married, and have children. Why should this year's immigration bill be the last bill ever passed? Why should every potential immigrant begin to abide by US immigration restrictions in this year that they ignored in every previous year?The United States is, hopefully, going to be around for a long time. Why do we have to solve every problem we'll ever face this year?

Why China doesn't scare me

I've recently read and listened to a number of interviews and stories about Harvard scholar Graham Alison's recent book "Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?"The book catalogues China's present and future rise as a great economic and military power, and describes 16 similar cases in history, with some resulting in war, and others peace. As the blurb helpfully explains:

"Today, as an unstoppable China approaches an immovable America and both Xi Jinping and Donald Trump promise to make their countries 'great again,' the seventeenth case looks grim."

China is changing very rapidly

While it's very fashionable to refer to the growth of China's GDP as an "objective" measurement of the changes taking place there, there are other measures that I think make the point even more clearly, like this very cool graphic showing the growth of Chinese metropolitan rail systems. You can fudge GDP numbers, you can waste money keeping state-owned enterprises afloat, but if used to be hard to get across Nanjing and now it's easy to get across Nanjing, that's going to be a meaningful difference in the lives of Nanjing's residents.Likewise the widespread deployment of high-speed rail in China, despite high-profile accidents, manifestly increases the speed with which Chinese people can traverse their country, in a concrete way that national steel mill or semiconductor factory output doesn't capture.Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Maybe single-party rule works better for small, industrializing economies than large, industrialized ones. Maybe the lingering effects of pollution will retard Chinese growth or lead to rising crime like the US saw in the aftermath of our introduction of lead into our children's environment. Maybe Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era will be bad Thought instead of good Thought.Who knows?

China doesn't scare me

None of China's achievements bother me in the least, and I don't think they should bother you either. As far as I can tell, China isn't responsible for any of the actual challenges facing the United States:

  • China didn't make the United States pass tax cuts in the early 2000's, apparently-permanently squandering a first-in-a-generation budget surplus;
  • China didn't make the United States squander trillions in wealth and thousands of lives invading Iraq;
  • China didn't make the United States attack Muammar Qaddafi and thrust Libya into anarchy;
  • China didn't make the United States permit an enormous buildup in fraudulent mortgage assets, and it didn't force the United States to keep our insolvent banks in private hands instead of nationalizing them;
  • China didn't make the President of the United States deliberately omit unconditional support for Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty in his first speech to our treaty allies;
  • China didn't make the United States withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership;
  • China didn't keep the United States from responding to a foreclosure and unemployment crisis with the kind of overwhelming effort that would have been required to quickly restore stability and growth;
  • China isn't keeping the most productive areas of the United States from building more affordable housing, forcing people into less-productive industries in more-affordable communities;
  • China isn't keeping the United States from building out rural broadband;
  • China isn't keeping the United States from reforming our patent and copyright laws;
  • China isn't keeping the United States from restoring the affordability and accessibility of our institutions of public higher education.

In Bill Clinton's first inaugural address he said, "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."To adapt his aphorism, there's nothing wrong with America that hasn't been caused by what's wrong with America. Whether America is rich, strong, and a leading member of an international order based on the rule of law, or a poor and marginal player in a world dominated by Chinese interests isn't up to China. It's up to us.So it's not China I'm scared of.

Survivorship bias everywhere

Survivorship bias is one of those rare ideas that is at once instantly accessible and incredibly powerful. The classic explanation of survivorship bias is when a mutual fund company advertises the 5-year or 10-year returns of the funds it offers, without reporting the 5-year or 10-year returns of all the funds that didn't survive 5 or 10 years, since they were closed for underperformance in their first year or two. That leaves potential customers with an inflated idea of the fund company's management expertise, since the company's performance is inflated by survivorship bias.Once you understand survivorship bias, I think it's worth taking seriously and applying to a whole range of situations. The key question survivorship bias raises is: are the survivors winning for a manifestly objective reason, or are they winning because the losers have been excluded from the comparison? And how can we tell the difference?

Why does the United States have the largest economy in the world?

Once you know that the United States has the largest economy in the world, there are a lot of reasons that spring to mind to explain that achievement:

  • geographic isolation means that even catastrophic global conflicts affect the United States only indirectly;
  • a strong tradition of rule of law means that people are more willing to enter into long-term, speculative investments, knowing that they'll have recourse to a neutral arbiter in case of disputes over the terms of the investment;
  • the protestant ethic means that Americans are unusually inclined to labor, raising the return to capital and increasing capital investment in the United States compared to other countries;
  • an oppressive welfare state focused on the "working" poor over the "undeserving" poor increases the labor force participation of Americans who would otherwise perform household labor like child-rearing and elder care that would not show up in GDP calculations.

And of course all these explanations, plus as many others as you can conceive, are correct. But they're only correct once you know that America is the largest economy in the world, just as you can only calculate the 10-year annualized return of mutual funds that are still in business after 10 years.What if the United States were a country imploding with inflation and struggling to avoid default? Well, our economists would soberly conclude that:

  • geographic isolation means that our natural resources and manufactures are too expensive to export to the rest of the world;
  • our rule-bound judiciary isn't flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions on the ground;
  • the protestant ethic means workers are willing to continue working for low wages even when they'd be better off changing jobs, returning to school, or migrating to a higher-wage country in order to improve their financial situation and remit payments home;
  • a welfare state that exclusively rewards paid work has inflated the number of jobs in the unproductive childcare and eldercare sectors, while forcing workers into unproductive jobs in order to trigger the welfare payments they need to survive and care for their families.

Why do so many bloggers rely on credit card affiliate revenue?

Once you know that bloggers in the financial independence, travel hacking, and other blogging spaces rely on credit card affiliate revenue, one conclusion you could come to is that in order to maintain a successful blog, you need to rely on betraying your readers and selling them credit cards they neither want nor need, in anticipation of banks being able to earn more from the people you refer than the amount of your referral commission.But this, too, is a case of survivorship bias. It confuses the fact that a majority of surviving blogs rely on credit card affiliate revenue for the claim that in order to survive you need credit card affiliate revenue, just as people confuse the fact that the largest economy in the world has a strong tradition of rule of law for the claim that a strong tradition of rule of law is essential for having a large and growing economy (an obviously false claim, see, e.g., China, People's Republic Of).

Acknowledging survivorship bias means rethinking a whole range of conclusions

In a world subject to survivorship bias, it's never enough to look at the current state of the world and draw conclusions about how that world "really" works, because your conclusions are invariably based on the characteristics present in the successful people and institutions that survived, whether or not those same characteristics were present in the people and institutions that did not.If you're a successful professional, you're bound to attribute your success to particular characteristics you identify in yourself. But that's a sampling error, pure and simple; you don't know how many people with those identical characteristics failed to achieve your level of success.Likewise suggesting the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the sick made the wrong decisions in their life suggests an aggressive ignorance of all the people with the same attributes, and who who made the same decisions, but who faced none of the same consequences.

Conclusion

Why is Bitcoin the most valuable cryptocurrency in the world? Is it because it's the most liquid? Is it because it has the best underlying code? Is it because it has the most distributed infrastructure? Maybe.Alternatively, since Bitcoin is the most valuable cryptocurrency in the world, people are desperate to find an explanation why, and arrive at conclusions like liquidity, code quality, and infrastructure distribution.And that is survivorship bias, pure and simple.

Come to terms now with the fact that you will feel poorer in old age

Today we are enjoying the fruits of a politics founded, at its core, on the principle that the wealthiest, most powerful people in our society feel ill-used by the political system they exert an almost unfathomable amount of control over. They feel that someone, somewhere, must be pulling one over on them, whether it's immigrants, ethnic minorities, the poor, public school teachers, or climate scientists.Many people find this difficult to understand, or at least they pretend to. I don't find it difficult to understand at all. On the contrary, nothing could be more natural. What I would like to do today is give you a little pep talk, so that when you're a bit older, you might not feel the same impulse to sabotage our civilization out of generational grievance.

In 30 years the GDP of the United States will be much larger

Right now our political class is engaged in a posturing game over what rate of near-term growth we can squeeze out of our economy this late in the business cycle. In some ways, this is an extremely urgent agenda: higher economic growth rates, like all growth rates compounded over long periods, result in wildly different end values.In other ways, it's not worth thinking about at all: over 30 years a 1% real GDP growth rate will result in an economy 35% larger, 2% real GDP growth will give an economy 81% larger, and 3% real GDP growth will leave us with an economy 143% larger.The difference between the numbers is large, which is why growth rates matter, but none of the growth figures returns a real economy smaller than the one we have now, and indeed, there's no reason to believe the real economy will be smaller in 30 years than it is today.It will, in fact, be much larger.

In 30 years the economy of the United States will look radically different

I do not know what the economy will look like in 30 years, and anyone telling you they know what the economy will look like in 30 years is lying to you. The only thing you need to know about the economy of the United States in 30 years is that the number of workers per dollar of GDP will be much lower than it is today.That's a mechanical product of two functions: a much higher real GDP (see above) and a much lower number of workers as a share of the total population.It's almost irresistible, when you have two facts like these you know to be incontrovertibly true, to reach fantastic conclusions about driverless busses, libraries without librarians, grocery stores without cashiers, banks without tellers, factories without workers, and so on.But there's nothing inevitable about that. We could decide to pay bus drivers enough that we still have busses driven by humans in 30 years. We could pay grocery store cashiers and bank tellers so much that we still have humans performing those jobs in 30 years. We could keep factories open staffed with unionized workers. The only thing you need to know is that higher GDP and fewer workers will make every decision to use human power expensive and deliberate.

You will experience that economy and your role within it as a kind of immiseration

The good news is that you, personally, will be much wealthier in 30 years than you are today. You'll either be in your peak earning years, or collecting your wage-inflation-adjusted Social Security benefit and drawing down the vast fortune you've accumulated across IRA's, 401(k)'s, 403(b)'s, 529's, health savings accounts, and of course taxable accounts.The bad news is that you will be paying more for everything, and you'll experience those increased payments as a burden despite your increased wealth.Here are a few of an unlimited number of examples:

  • If we maintain a service-oriented economy, wages will be much higher, and the cost of services will rise. Full service restaurants will become much more expensive. Gratuities will become mandatory "service charges," and you'll complain about how tipping used to be voluntary.
  • Alternatively, if we end up automating as much of the economy as possible in order to keep down prices, you'll find annoying how hard it is to find someone to complain to when an item scans incorrectly at the grocery store.
  • In the health care sector, if you're below the Medicare enrollment age you'll be paying more in insurance premiums (whether or not the ACA is repealed, plans are allowed to "age rate" premiums for older folks) and insurance premiums as a whole will be much higher simply through the operation of medical price inflation.
  • Your state and local taxes will be higher in 30 years than they are today. You'll likely own your own home by then if you don't already, so you'll be paying property taxes directly instead of having them folded into your rent. Meanwhile, property values in the kind of well-functioning communities you'll be able to afford to live in will be much higher in 30 years. That means you'll be paying property taxes on a higher assessed amount.

The key point is that it doesn't matter exactly which economy we end up with in 30 years. You, personally, will experience that changed economy as an affront, because you'll be 30 years older, and you'll remember how things are now, and how they were when you were growing up, and you'll compare them to the (as-yet unknowable) conditions of 30 years from now.You, personally, at age 60, or 65, or 70, will have to deal with new and confusing technology that is not going to make you feel good. I think a lot of 30-year-olds understand the difficulty their parents have with today's technology, but don't have a glimmer of understanding of the trouble they're going to have with the technology of 2047.

Inoculate yourself against grievance

I wouldn't ask you to read all the way through this without offering some solutions. While there's nothing you can do to prevent yourself from feeling poorer in 30 years than you do today (despite your vastly higher wealth), there are some things you can do to avoid channeling that feeling into a politics of grievance and nostalgia.First, be conscious of the coming changes as they happen. At a McDonalds location near my apartment, they've installed an electronic ordering kiosk. You don't have to use it; you can still order at the counter. That's such a minor change it almost disappears into the background. But in 30 years, it's going to be all electronic ordering kiosks everywhere. Think about that, and how it'll make you feel, and you might not find it so jarring when that day comes.Second, support universal programs. In one of the only actual policy disagreements between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Sanders argued that public universities should be tuition-free for everyone, while Clinton argued that they should only be tuition-free for the poor, middle class, and moderately wealthy, but not for the extremely wealthy (it was a weird campaign). Sanders was right: in my experience the wealthy treat the idea that the poor receive special treatment as a key source of grievance. The answer isn't to make life even harder for the poor: it's to eliminate the web of means-testing and income-verification designed to identify and exclude the wealthy from receiving benefits. If you have access to the same benefits as the poor in 30 years, you might not be tempted to accuse them of "gaming" the system.Third, engage your neighbors and community offline, outside of work. My impression is that people with kids have an easier time doing this because they have school events, extracurricular activities, and so on, but anyone can join a local sports league (bowling is easy, fencing is hard) or fraternal organization. This is good for your mental health in general, but it's particularly important as you get older to have a source of community that's not dependent on your workplace, or profession, or even your location. The more multigenerational, the better, since as you age you'll want to get gradually acclimated to the changes that are coming, rather than discover them all at once when Fox News runs a special report on kids these days.Finally, fight for an economy that works for everyone. Pick a subject you know a lot about, or nothing about, and get educated about it and educate others. I'm obsessed with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Find a topic that excites you: zoning rules, public transportation, school funding, whatever. Show up at neighborhood or city council meetings. Vote! Staying engaged is the best way to fend off the sense of helplessness that might make you want to respond to fundraising mailers in old age.

Conclusion

As a millennial I'm obviously not thrilled with the way Baby Boomers have channeled their feelings of grievance and resentment into the politics we endure today. But the millennial generation is also the biggest generation since the Baby Boom, and it would pain me even more if, in 30 years, when we form the largest, most politically active demographic, we have turned our own grievances into a narrow, bitter politics directed against the young and the poor in a vain attempt to preserve our own sense of wealth and privilege.Let's do better this time.

The problem of class projection

A few different situations have recently set me to ruminating on a curious problem that I think doesn't receive the attention it deserves. My working name for this problem is "class projection," although I'm sure the academics have already come up with a much better, or at least longer, term for it. The problem is that when people imagine how other people think, they project onto them an experience deeply informed by their own socio-economic class, instead of the class of the person they're trying to understand. Let me share a few examples to see if I can make this point clearly.

Workers project working class problems onto their bosses

Working people see, every day, the problems afflicting their organization. They see how faulty software slows them down, they see how some coworkers show up late or leave early, they know who contributes the most to the functioning of the organization and who contributes the least. Where class projection comes in is when a worker assumes that the problems they observe are, in fact, the most important problems faced by the business as a whole.To give a concrete example, I spend an hour or two every week at Walmart customer service centers. Each customer service center is different, and each employee is different. Over time, you can start to pick up who's more competent, who's less competent, who has a better attitude, who has a worse attitude. From the perspective of the customer service employee, such differences are even more profound. A slow worker can cause a line to back up, an inattentive worker can require constant supervisor intervention to correct errors, etc.It would be perfectly understandable for a customer service worker who notices all these problems to conclude that the key problem Walmart faces is lazy, inattentive, and poorly trained customer service workers.But of course nothing could be further from the truth. A Walmart customer service center is a loss leader. It's where they take back broken junk and have to give customers refunds. It has to exist (Walmart's return policy is one reason people shop there), but the slower and less efficiently it works, the less money Walmart has to return to its customers! A poorly-functioning customer service center is a real problem for individual customer service employees and a real boon for the Walmart Corporation.I'm not saying this is actually Walmart's corporate strategy. I'm saying that it's an example of workers projecting their own very real problems onto the firm they work for.

Bosses project their own class experience onto workers

We have turned life for the middle and upper-middle classes into a labyrinth of programs they're expected to deftly navigate simply in order to stay solvent. You, dear reader, no doubt read dozens of pages of documents about the different health care plans your employer offers. You dug into the different investment options in your 401(k). You're excited about shielding some of your income in an HSA which you plan to invest aggressively in order to use in retirement.First, to state the obvious, we did not have to do this. We did not have to make health insurance tax-free compensation. We did not have to make HSA's available to employees with high-deductible health insurance plans. We did not have to make retirement so precarious people are desperate to leap on any promise of some modicum of dignity in old age.But having done it, we have also introduced the problem of class projection. A person who pays enough in mortgage interest to itemize their deductions becomes incensed by the possibility of a working class person wrongly claiming the earned income credit. A person who shields tens of thousands of dollars in income from taxes insists on vigorous work requirements for SNAP benefits to root out any "cheaters."This is class projection at its worst: asking "what would I do if earning a little more income suddenly cost me access to food support, health care, or refundable tax credits?" The answer is always, "I'd cheat," which is why gallons of digital ink have been spilled over supposedly pressing national issues like earned income credit fraud.The earned income credit was projected to cost, in 2016, $58.7 billion. That is a lot of money, although it's less than the $75.2 billion in foregone taxes due to the mortgage interest deduction and much less than the cost of excluding health insurance costs from taxable income ($216 billion). Earned income credit "fraud," Medicaid "fraud," and all other kinds of "fraud" against the welfare state are fantasies concocted by the wealthy who imagine how good they would have it if they could take advantage of welfare programs the way the cheating poor do. That's because our system does, in fact, encourage the wealthy to cheat as much as possible.The same logic applies to the "voter fraud" sensation that has swept the Republican party in recent years. I believe it is genuinely shocking to the relatively well-off that all you need to do to vote is fill out a form with your name and address on it.Filing their taxes is so much harder than that. Applying for financial aid for their children is so much harder than that. Deciding on their asset allocation is so much harder than that. It's so easy to vote, how could it not be the case that millions of people illegally register to vote, then vote, and then get away with it?The answer, of course, is that it's illegal, so virtually no one does it, because if they did it they would be breaking the law. This is common sense to the actual poor, but totally preposterous to policymakers who see the mere existence of poverty as a kind of fraud against capitalism itself.

On sophistication

One of my favorite euphemisms in the entire galaxy of finance and investing is the "sophisticated investor." A sophisticated investor, in legal terms, is one determined to be wealthy enough to be fleeced by con artists without missing the money too much.For example, not just anybody could invest in Bernie Madoff's hedge fund. Only those with plenty of money to spare could invest, with the understanding that when he absconded with it they wouldn't miss it too much.Likewise with the solar, housing, and other non-tradable asset classes with "annual target returns" in the high single digits: if you're poor enough to actually need your money, you can't participate, because of the unlikelihood that you'll get it back.What this has to do with sophistication has always eluded me. Whenever I meet someone who tells me about their stock-picking prowess, or the "really good team" at their brokerage firm, I quickly determine that person is an extremely unsophisticated investor, since they are not invested in low-cost passively indexed mutual funds (note: you can disagree with me. There are many excellent blogs describing all manner of contortions their authors believe are more sophisticated than a low-cost passively indexed portfolio). There's nothing wrong with being an unsophisticated investor, it's just fairly expensive compared to the alternative.So I treat the "sophisticated investor" standard as allowing con artists to ply their trade, but only on those with enough money not to mind being ripped off, and who might enjoy the ride anyway.Why do I bring this up? Because while it's an odd (and oddly-named) standard, at least the sophisticated investor standard protects the most vulnerable people from losing their shirts. And it was introduced because, left to their own devices, con artists aren't particularly picky about whose shirts they end up with.Unfortunately, the guru economy doesn't have any such guardrails. The other day I stumbled across this post at the White Coat Investor, in which he promotes some bank that refinances student loans at lower interest rates in exchange for giving up the protection of income-based repayment on federal student loans. This is far from an exception. Mr. Money Mustache pitches credit cards (as do many prominent financial independence sites). Others promote insurance companies, mortgage brokers, or whomever else they can find to finance their operation.But there's no "sophisticated reader" standard in the blogosphere. There's no way to ensure your sponsored blog posts are only displayed to readers who understand the consequences of taking their advice. On the contrary, blogs are often targeted at folks who are unfamiliar with the relevant concepts (if they were familiar with them they wouldn't be reading blogs about them), and thus more vulnerable to misleading advertisements, especially when they're cast in the voice of a trusted author.Whenever I raise these issues readers harangue me about the importance of personal responsibility. But of course the concept of personal or individual responsibility proves far too much: if we're really individually responsible, then why should we publicly promote the virtues of financial independence/early retirement/weight loss/child-rearing/etc? When you take your advice public you make a public claim that the public will be better off if they follow your advice. Selling that platform to the highest bidder is the equivalent of saying that, having improved the public's well-being by so much, it's only fair that you claw a little bit of it back.I don't buy it.If you only think something is worth doing if you can make money doing it, congratulations, you belong to a long and storied line of American capitalists.If you think something is still worth doing even if it makes others worse off, congratulations, you belong to a long and storied line of American con artists.Just don't tell me you're here to help.