Blogs

iluistrator/Shutterstock

The current share of the American population with a job is still far below what it was before the recession, stagnating at a level not seen since the 1980s. And the jobs that have been regained since 2008 have overwhelmingly been low-wage. But now there's good news for unskilled unemployed people who are interested in getting one of those low-wage jobs—working for free can help them eventually land a paid gig.

A new study to be released Tuesday by a federal agency called the Corporation for National and Community Service found that jobless Americans can increase their chances of finding work by 27 percent if they volunteer first. People without a high school diploma and people in rural areas can increase their chances by more than 50 percent, the Washington Post reports.

Volunteering is useful for people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, Christopher Spera, the lead author of the study, explained to the Post, because they don't have the same opportunities as better-off Americans: "Folks with lower levels of education tend not to have the networks and social capital enjoyed by folks with higher levels of education," he says. Here's the Post on how volunteering can help:

The report builds on other research that has found that volunteering helps people learn skills, be presented with leadership opportunities, enhance their résumés and—perhaps most crucially—develop a network of contacts that can help them find work...

The link between volunteering and reducing joblessness was endorsed by former labor secretary Hilda L. Solis, who last year issued a guidance to state workforce agencies emphasizing that volunteering may be one strategy that can help put the unemployed—particularly the 4.4 million Americans who have been out of work for more than six months—back to work.

"In a complex 21st-century economy that demands new skills of American workers, volunteerism is not a substitute for job training," Solis said. "But it can be an important complement."

Now we know that poor, less-educated people can benefit from unpaid work in the same way that their more well-heeled, highly-educated counterparts can. After all, unpaid internships have exploded in recent years; over half of the class of 2012 had an internship during college, and half of those were unpaid. The only difference is that when poor people work for free, their parents probably won't be able to help them get by.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Safe as houses.

Financial reformers cheered this week's news that Wall Street banks were unable to find buyers for a certain type of risky financial product—called a synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation, or synthetic CDO. But if you think the big banks have given up on slicing and dicing crappy loans and semi-magically turning them into higher-rated, supposedly safer securities, think again. There's still plenty of that happening.

CDOs are types of derivatives—financial products with values derived from underlying variables. With many CDOs, the underlying variable in question is the stream of payments from a group of bundled loans. Synthetic CDOs, the products that the banks were unable to sell, are different from standard CDOs in a key way. This is complicated, so bear with me: Instead of being based on streams of payments from loans, their value is instead based on payments from insurance policies on those loans.

Here's a simplified explanation of what's happening in a synthetic CDO. To make a synthetic CDO, someone—let's call this Person A—has to have taken out what is essentially an insurance policy (called a credit default swap) against the possibility that a grouping of loans will default. Person A is betting that those loans will default. If they do, Person A gets paid; until then, he or she has to make premium payments. To make a synthetic CDO, a bank mashes together the premium payment streams from a bunch of these insurance policies. Generally, banks don't hold on to these products. Instead, they sell them to investors. For simplicity, we'll assume Person B buys the entire synthetic CDO. (In reality, it's broken up into several pieces, which are usually sold to different investors.) Person B is betting that the loans won't default and that Person A will have to keep making premium payments.

Here's the problem. Person A has a huge advantage in this transaction because he's picking the loans he wants to bet against. He can cherry pick the crappiest pile of loans and bet only against them. Person B, the person who owns the synthetic CDO, is taking the other side of that bet. Person B is not simply buying a pile of loans. He's betting on a group of loans that Person A has already bet are going to turn out to be worthless. And that's why the Person Bs of the world are now so wary: they realize that the Person As might know something they don't.

The good news is that the banks haven't been able to find anyone to take the synthetic CDO bet quite yet. But synthetic CDOs, while perhaps the most notorious of the products involved in the financial crisis, weren't the only problem. One of the big underlying issues that led to the crisis was that slicing and dicing loans and selling them off in chunks made them appear less risky to ratings agencies and investors than they actually were. But banks still do that slicing and dicing all the time. Taking the payment streams from a bunch of loans and mashing them together into a standard CDO is still big business for the banks, and there are plenty of buyers. So far in 2013, $38 billion worth of CLOs—CDOs based on business loans—have been sold in the US. That's up from $15.6 billion in the same period last year, according to numbers from the Royal Bank of Scotland cited in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. Maybe this time the borrowers of the underlying loans are more likely to pay them back, or the ratings agencies have done a better job of assessing how risky each CDO is. Wanna bet?

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

As we contemplate a future in which the sky is black with tacocopters, state legislatures and civil libertarians are starting to weigh in. Tim Lee reports:

The Texas legislation illustrates the complexity of regulating private drone use. The legislation that Perry signed on Friday features a broad prohibition on public and private drone use followed by a long list of exceptions. For example, Texas allows drones to be used by “a Texas licensed real estate broker in connection with the marketing, sale, or financing of real property.” Oil and gas companies can use drones for “inspecting, maintaining, or repairing pipelines.” Utility companies can use drones for “assessing vegetation growth for the purpose of maintaining clearances on utility easements.” The legislation enumerates at least 19 circumstances where drone use is allowed.

This approach assumes the Texas legislature can anticipate all of the beneficial uses for drones. That’s probably not a good assumption — people often discover unanticipated applications for new technologies, and it will be cumbersome to amend the law every time someone thinks of a new drone application.

Margot Kaminski, a scholar at Yale Law School, describes the Texas approach to regulating privately operated drones as “kind of a disaster.” She warns that regulations of private drone use could raise First Amendment problems.

For example, “if you have a news organization hovering over a protest and videoing cops beating protesters, that’s really valuable for the First Amendment,” she says. The courts have already said that private citizens have a First Amendment right to video-record the activities of public officials. The same reasoning suggests that aerial recording of police conduct would be constitutionally protected.

I'm going to tentatively—very tentatively—speak up in favor of the Texas approach. First off, I don't think it assumes that they can anticipate every possible beneficial use of drones. Rather, it sets up a regime which assumes drones are bad unless proven otherwise. If you can sucessfully prove otherwise, then a new exemption will be written into the law.

Now, there are obviously problems with this. For starters, it's a certainty that exemptions will be granted mostly to deep-pocketed special interests, not to the most worthy causes. It's also, obviously, a pretty cumbersome approach. The Texas legislature may very well get tired someday of considering yet another plea from a drone-happy special interest. On the other hand, this might still be the best approach in the early going. Broader rules would almost certainly be better and fairer, but if Texas wants to keep a tight rein on drones until we have a better idea of what kind of rules we really want, that doesn't strike me as an unreasonable approach. It will be easier to lighten the regs later than it will be to tighten them if drone use gets out of control (as Texas's already long list of exemptions demonstrates).

As for Kaminski's concerns, I just don't get them at all. The First Amendment clearly allows broad regulations that aren't aimed specifically at restricting speech. If you want to fly a helicopter, you have to have a license and you have to obey the rules, even if you're a reporter covering a news event. Likewise, news organizations have to pay taxes and obey OSHA rules just like anyone else. They don't get a pass just because they're members of the press. A ban on drones that's genuinely based on broad safety and privacy concerns would almost certainly hold up in court.

At the risk of being called a Luddite, I'd say the thing to think about here is not what's possible today, but what's going to be possible in ten years. Drones are only going to get better and cheaper over time, and we need to think about what kind of regs we want in place when (a) anyone can buy a personal fleet of drones for the price of a washing machine; (b) small drones can fly for hours without recharging; (c) their surveillance capabilities are high quality; and (d) they're automated enough not to need much human control. Does it sound silly to think that a typical neighborhood could have hundreds or thousands of drones flying around? I don't think so. In fact, given my dyspeptic view of my fellow human beings, I'd say it sounds likely. Keeping a lid on this stuff until we're a lot more sure of the consequences doesn't really sound like such a bad idea to me.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Pfc. Anna Ciamaichelo, I Battery, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, carrying the FIM-92 Stinger missile she is about to fire. Casey Slusser/US Army

On Tuesday, the Pentagon is expected to announce that women will be allowed train for and potentially serve in elite combat positions in the US military, including the Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, and other special ops forces. (In January, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted a ban on women serving in combat roles, which made women eligible for another 238,000 jobs in the military.) According to details of the proposals obtained by the Associated Press, women will be able to train for the Army Rangers by mid-2015 and for the Navy SEALs in 2016 if senior leaders sign on. The AP reports:

[The plan will] call for requiring women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead...Military leaders have suggested [to Hagel] bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition...U.S. Special Operations Command is coordinating the matter of what commando jobs could be opened to women, what exceptions might be requested and when the transition would take place.

The proposals leave some wiggle room for continued exclusion of women from certain roles if future studies indicate that women would somehow be significantly less equipped for these positions. The services would, however, have to defend the continued exclusion to top Pentagon officials, and common sense and the success of women already serving in tough jobs in the US military have long discredited such arguments.

News of this proposal comes after a series of stories in recent months highlighting the startlingly high number of sexual assaults and incidents of harassment in the US armed forces. In January, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a press conference that he was convinced that rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks exists partly because women have been so long subordinated to men in American military culture, and hadn't been permitted to serve officially in military combat roles including special operations forces. "It's because we've had separate classes of military personnel," Dempsey said. "The more we can treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet