1

Blue Collar Blues

The working class man is a hot topic this month. The publication of Andrew Cherlin’s new book, Labor’s Love Lost, a series of  New York Times articles, and recent Washington Post articles on the middle class  have called more attention to the social and economic plight of the working class man. For thinking conservative men, such as the New York Time’s Ross Douthat and the University of Virginia’s Brad Wilcox, much of that inquiry is focused on the issue of gender: is the move toward “an egalitarian vision of gender roles in parenting and breadwinning” part of the reason for the reinvention of marriage for the elite and of its decline for the working class? And is greater tolerance of non-marital sexuality an essential part of this egalitarian vision? An op ed in the Wall Street Journal this week went even farther to declare that the “biggest culprit” in family breakdown “is feminism’s devaluing of males and the conceit that “strong women” can do it all.”

We are particularly interested in the relationship between economic inequality, gender, and family structure not just because we teach family law, but also because we are often attacked for our claims that family structure – and the legal developments that underlie it — are tied to the economy. But we are bemused by the claims that changes in gender roles are a cause rather than a consequence of the increasing instability of working class families. Instead, we are wondering if the focus on gender isn’t really a distraction – a distraction from the remarkable development taking place in discussions of the family. Now that marriage equality no longer occupies the disproportionate share of national attention, there is something close to consensus taking place. That consensus is that family stability for the working class is unlikely to return without better jobs.

Few serious academics dispute that the disappearance of stable, well-paying jobs for blue collar men has a lot to do with the decline in blue collar marriage and the increased rate of divorce. And few serious academic disputes that cultural changes reinforce the effect. The point of our book, Marriage Markets, was to explain how the law institutionalizes a new model of marriage (the subject of our next blog) and (the focus of this blog) how a changing economy does not just produce less marriage in some straight-line fashion that varies with the latest marginal change in unemployment rates, but rather how it changes the way men and women relate to each other producing reinforcing cycles of gender distrust.

Read More

0

Welcome to Naomi Cahn

Cahn Naomi 02I am delighted to announce that Professor Naomi Cahn is joining Concurring Opinions to post here on a regular basis.  Naomi teaches at George Washington University Law School, where she holds the Harold H. Greene Chair.  She is involved in book, article, and law reform projects concerning families’ interactions and intersections with the law and gendered institutions, nationally and globally.  Her scholarship and teaching cover the entire lifespan, from pregnancy (and attempts to become pregnant) through death and inheritance.   Her co-authored book with June Carbone, Marriage Markets (OUP 2014),  about the relationship between family structure and marriage, was on the list of best books for 2014 issued by both The Economist and Newsweek.  Other ongoing projects include work on assisted reproductive technology and, with Rev. Amy Ziettlow, a book on elder care.   She has testified before Congress on adoption-related issues and  worked with the Uniform Law Commission to draft model legislation on post-death access to digital assets, and her work has been covered in media outlets ranging from The New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to The Christian Century.

Before joining the GW faculty, Naomi worked at the SEC, legal services, a large law firm, a small law firm, and Georgetown’s  domestic violence clinic.

Her areas of interest include Gender, Feminism, Family Law, International Women’s Rights, and  Trusts and Estates.

0

Fusion and the Firm

Lockheed Martin claims it is closing in a fusion reactor. Such claims pop up often enough to be dismissed. Yet as the Economist notes Lockheed Martin is asserting that its design could be viable in 10 years rather than previous claims by others which tended to be 30 years. One random, nice thing about being at GA Tech is that when I first read about the claim, I happened to meet a PhD student who was studying nuclear engineering on the campus tram. He confirmed that the approach is known. He was skeptical but agreed it was promising. And that is where the firm comes in. Apparently Lockheed Martin has gone public, because to get the design to production will require the help of folks outside the firm. The researcher, Dr. McGuire, “thinks his design could deliver a 100MW reactor (able to power 80,000 homes) of about 7 metres in diameter, weighing less than 1,000 tonnes. Indeed, smaller versions might fit on a large lorry.” It may be a pipe dream, and with oil on a free fall, investment in new energy sources may seem less attractive. Still, if the idea is percolating in private and public arenas and the payoff is a clean, less expensive, renewable energy source, that would be amazing. I recall just after President Clinton left office and was on Letterman, he said if he were an oil country, he’d be thinking of energy, not oil, as the industry of the the future. Rather smart insight. Seems others are paying attention, but that works too.

5

Original Jurisdiction Practice

Most original jurisdiction cases in the Supreme Court involve dull territorial disputes between states, but the lawsuit filed yesterday by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado is anything but.  The claim is that Colorado’s legalization of marijuana violates federal law and is an “interstate nuisance,” which is some sort of new federalism theory.

Here’s my question.  If the Court dismisses this action as not falling within its original jurisdiction, can it do that with a simple order (like a certiorari denial), or is an actual opinion required?

0

“The Interview” and Eminent Domain

Personally I hope that the NSA figures out a way to knock North Korean State TV off the air.  In the meantime, though, the United States should exercise eminent domain and buy the movie from Sony as a partial compensation for its loss.  Then the Administration should make the movie freely available with dubbing and commentary in as many languages as possible.

I’m disturbed to hear some discussion in the vein of “Oh, it looks like a terrible and offensive movie, so why should we stir up a hornet’s nest by going after the hackers?”  Major free speech issues often involve unsavory expression–who cares about whether “The Interview” is up for any Oscars?  I don’t expect a principled stance from a corporation, but I do expect one from public officials and citizens.

1

Child Safety, Part III

How might tort law respond, if at all, to the preferences of parents and the general population to invest about twice as much in child safety as adult safety? (see this post for a summary of the data, and this post for a discussion of whether those preferences are normatively defensible).

Here’s my take, which you can read more about here:

Because the studies that I’m drawing from concern the allocation of safety-related resources, they have their most direct implications when we view tort law as (at least partially) a means to make people safer by deterring risky behavior. Those studies create two main implications, one for levels of care and one for damages.

Under a deterrence rationale, the standard of care in tort law reflects what we want potential tortfeasors to invest in accident prevention. The investment patterns from my first post in this series suggest that, at least as a prima facie matter, people want potential tortfeasors to invest twice as many resources in preventing accidents when children are the primary potential victims, even when both children and adults are equally vulnerable.  And if my second post in this series is right, we have reasons to respect those preferences. So when children are among the foreseeable class of victims, courts should require a heightened level of care. Although courts appear to respond to a child’s increased vulnerability to harms—they blindly run out into the street to reach ice cream trucks, for example—I have not found evidence that courts have picked up on the extra value that we appear to place on child safety. I’ve also looked at practitioner treatises, and so far I cannot find any mention that courts or juries are more likely to find a defendant negligent if the victim was a child. So, as a prima facie matter, there are reasons to question whether judges and juries are applying a sufficiently stringent level of care in cases involving children.

To motivate potential tortfeasors to take a heightened level of care for children, damages for child victims should be about twice as high as damages for adult victims. Currently, tort damages tend to exhibit child discounts or mild child premiums. This should not be a surprise. We ask juries to set damages in particular ways that constrain their discretion. For wrongful death, we generally ask them to set damages by looking at the economic contributions that the decedent would have made to her relatives. This puts a very small value on dead children, and results in child discounts even after we add non-economic damages. For permanent injuries, some back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that juries tend to award children 20-25 percent more than adults. This is approximately what we would expect if juries were awarding damages based on the number of years that a victim will have to live with her injuries, and then discounting those future yearly payouts to arrive at a single lump sum.   But that child premium is significantly lower than the 2 to 1 ratio that a deterrence-oriented tort system might strive for. So, as a prima facie matter, there are reasons to question whether damages for child victims are high enough to generate the amount of deterrence that people appear to desire.

Of course, there is much more to say.

A fuller deterrence analysis would require examining a host of additional factors, such as whether regulatory agencies or market forces or the threat of criminal liability already provide extra protection for children, whether risk compensation or substitution effects operate differently for the adult and child populations, the differences between contractual settings like medical malpractice and stranger cases, how to handle “hidden-child” cases (which would be partially analogous to thin-skull cases), etc. I invite readers to offer their thoughts on these issues. But as a first cut, there are reasons to think that tort law does not offer the desired mix of protection for adults and children.

We could also ask what civil recourse and corrective justice accounts of tort law might contribute to the discussion. But I will leave that for another day.

1

Yahoo! and YouTube

Mozilla switched to using Yahoo! for its search engine, and so I noticed something about how it shows YouTube results; something that may upset YouTube aka Google. When I was writing about lightsabers and 3D printing, I wanted to embed a clip from Return of the Jedi. The search on Yahoo! showed me a potential clip. I hit play to confirm that. It was good for my needs. I looked for the embed code, and it wasn’t there. There was a share button up top, but for the full page and codes, I had to go to the YouTube page. Now that is what happens when one embeds a YouTube video. But I wonder whether YouTube posters will be upset (or maybe even YouTube/Google) to find that a rival search engine maybe undercutting them. For example, it seems, I stress seems as I ran only one test, that a YouTube video that has an ad before a video lacks that ad when on Yahoo! Banner ads seem to be present on both, but they differ. I am guessing Google gets to serve those and maybe they vary depending on where the video is served. That would make sense given the targeting should vary depending on where the video is shown. Still if Yahoo! is taking content and showing it on its site, perhaps making money that way too (or at least keeping it from the Goog), will we see a replay of the early Internet cases on framing, diversion, etc., but with Google as the plaintiff? If so, is that an ironic moment where some folks will be saying Google just got Googled (i.e., I am thinking certain industries see being “Googled” as something other than being searched for; hey that may show that the whole genericisim question is less of an issue.).

0

Hello Stigler: Google Trusted Stores, Amazon, and Price Discrimination

Hello, Stigler. Matchmaking and advertising are Google’s forte. It has upped its game. Never to leave things as they are, Google has been rolling out a trusted vendor system. I noticed the service for a company that I cannot recall. Not a good sign for the company, but then again I don’t notice Amazon third parties either. If Google can use algorithms and other options such as requiring applications by vendors to be part of a trusted network of retailers, that change could be huge. There are, however, some issues.

First, Amazon should keep an eye on this program as it might be the first one to challenge Amazon’s excellent third party system. For that to be a true threat, Google will have to find a way to protect customers. Amazon has been great, in my experience, when it comes to protecting me while I deal with sellers far away and sometimes dubious. It does not give away my credit card etc. So if a lemon is in play, Amazon covers me. I assume it takes a fee for being the broker. Google customer service may have to evolve, if it is to match Amazon. A series of online, automated loops that end up hitting walls will make me stay with Amazon. But as Google gets better at identifying good sellers and protecting consumers, the service may work well. In addition, the play should feed into Google’s foray into ecommerce. Again if it can aid in delivery and resolve poor third party service, Google could do quite well in this space.

Second, will search results be influenced by participation in the program? On the one hand, I’d love results that lead to better sellers. Heck if Amazon or eBay ratings figured into Google results and improved knowing whether an ad or listed result was trust-worthy, that’d be great. Then again, right or wrong, I expect Google watchers/haters/worriers will argue that Google has promoted results unfairly. As long as a company can go through certification, it seems that argument should fail. I imagine Amazon, eBay, and others require some level of clearance to be in their system. Regardless of purveyor, it seems systems that are relatively low-cost (or maybe free except for time to fill out forms) to join and then are monitored should be embraced. In other words, Yelp etc. are near useless to me. Crowds are not as smart as folks think. As the great agent Kay in Men in Black said, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” More ways to improve how each of us, separately, evaluates options would be welcome, and plays to the way we each are capable of being smart. Options that limit us and feed echoes of dubious sources, behaviors, and beliefs, I’d like to avoid.

So we’ll see whether Google can one-up Amazon in connecting buyers and sellers. If so, I may buy more LPs and who knows what from folks I will never meet. And prices should be more competitive. Of course, that will be so until Christmas hits. Then as happened this year, prices may go up. But hey, Amazon listed the MSRP and connected me to a retailer whose markup combined with Amazon shipping worked for a gift to my niece. That was great. Wait, did I just agree with perfect price discrimination?!!? Damn, you Goog! and Amazon! Or is that Happy Holidays! I got what I wanted without fighting through stores.

0

Million Dollar Reward Case Over

aaa millionA claim to $1 million for meeting a lawyer’s dare made on Dateline NBC is now dead. The case is over thanks to an opinion, by Judge Wilson for the 11th Circuit, that will be in the next editions of all Contracts casebooks: it  provides a comprehensive, careful and contestable treatment of unilateral contracts.

Former law student Dustin Kolodziej filed the case in 2009 against high-profile Florida defense lawyer, James Cheney Mason.  Prosecutors said Mason’s client, a wealthy businessman on trial for  murdering his business partner and others, manufactured an alibi putting him in a La Quinta hotel in Atlanta on the day of the Central Florida murders.

On Dateline NBC, Mason explained his defense, that the state could not show that the trip they imagined the defendant took was possible within the time frame.  A vital leg of the journey involved getting off a plane at Atlanta’s busy airport to the hotel five miles away, in less than 30 minutes, where the defendant was seen in security tape early and late in the day.

Mason said he’d pay $1 million if proven wrong.  Kolodziej did just that,  reenacting the full trip, capturing it on his camcorder, and making the final leg in less than 30 minutes.    Kolodziej claimed a valid contract, formed by Mason making an offer of a reward for an act and Kolodziej accepting it by performing the act.   Mason called the claim ridiculous.

The case raises a classic issue in contract law, about whether dares to be proven wrong like this are recognized as offers or mere bluffs and jests.  The 11th Circuit, affirming a grant of summary judgment, sided with Mason.  Stressing context,  not only was his bluster about the million a joke, the full text of what he said makes clear he was daring the prosecutors to prove the point, not the general public.

Dave Hoffman correctly predicted this outcome–nice job Dave (here and here)! I thought the case a closer call, as I explained  here and in my book, Contracts in the Real World: Stories of Popular Contracts and Why They Matter (Cambridge U Press 2012).

While I am persuaded by Dave and the 11th Circuit’s opinion, I remain convinced that Mason was wrong to call the claim ridiculous.  The court takes the claim more seriously, to its credit, though I wish they had engaged more with the arguments  put forth in my book (which, alas, the court does not cite).

Hat tip to Jim Gross, currently clerking for the 9th Circuit, who wrote to remind me that we discussed this case on his first day of Contracts class at GW back in 2011.  Hat tip also to David George, the lawyer for Kolodziej, who also sent me a copy.

0

Goliath aka Google aka No Surprises in Hollywood versus Silicon Valley

This just in: Hollywood hates/fears/plots against Google! The Sony security breach and following leaks have yielded many insights, sort of. If anyone thought Hollywood executives were discrete, that was naive and now debunked. If anyone thought most people knew not to use work email for personal business, that too is shown false. (I am continually amazed at how many law professors have thought it “odd” or “paranoid” that I use different emails for work and non-work communication). And yes, Hollywood aka the copyright industry is quite savvy and plots ways to go after its competitors and/or threats. The revealed emails do show the details of the plans and that there was a code word, Goliath, for Google (which I take as a place holder for Silicon Valley). All of which seems very Dr. Evil. But let’s be clear. Strategies to go after state attorneys general or legislators and to push negative news stories are endemic. They are endemic to Hollywood, telecoms, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, and really any major industry. I am not saying that these practices are great or that policy is well-made from them. But they are real and should be understood. And, for those interested in the open Internet debates there are some other lessons. If you thought SOPA was the end, think again.

Vigilance and support for many companies and groups that support your issue (regardless of what it is) matters. The game is afoot. It will not end. Disclosure moment: Yes, I worked at Google in the policy group, and I have also worked on a political campaign. And one thing that I know from my experience and research (check Jessica Litman’s work on the copyright industry for a great lesson in this industry’s ability to play the game) is that if ideas come from only one entity, they seem weak. For better or worse, trade groups, NGOs, etc. matter. I prefer those that are independent and offer some nuances, but overall the concerted voices of many can be powerful. No matter what issue you wish to see succeed, backing only one entity dilutes the power of the idea or makes it seem like one company or group is crying over its lot in life. Some other post may get into the public choice issues here. But for now, the Sony leaks show that nothing much has changed. “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.” Ecclesiastes, 1:5-6.

Hollywood will always lobby for its interests and so will everyone else. “So it goes.”