Divorce, Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in Denmark

I attended a social gathering in Denmark hosted by a successful businessman with two teenage daughters. “Their mom didn’t want custody,” he explained, “so I’ve had them since the youngest was four years old”. The mother had initiated the divorce, but had not sought any contact with the kids other than an optional twice/month (every other weekend) visit. “It isn’t the life that I expected to live, but it is a good life.” The Americans at the party were shocked by this. What about the maternal instinct? Was it different in Denmark than in the U.S.? “Most middle class parents who divorce simply split the children 50-50,” explained a Dane. “Children aren’t cash cows in Denmark, except for lower class people with six children, for whom state subsidies and child support from the other parent can be a significant source of income. The previous government tried to limit this by paying only for the first two children. But they watched Muslim women in black burkas rioting across the bridge in Sweden [youtube] so the new government restored the benefits for an unlimited number of children.” Child support payments in Denmark can continue until a child turns 24 (if the kid is still in school, which of course he or she is likely to be in Europe, the original home of infinite adolescence). Our host’s income was easily high enough that in Massachusetts he would have been tapped by a divorce lawsuit plaintiff for $50,000 tax-free dollars per year in child support (roughly $1 million over 20 years; see worksheet). Could it really be the case that children who supposedly cost $1 million to rear in Massachusetts would yield only minimal child support in Denmark, where the cost of almost everything is far higher?

One of the nice things about Denmark is that it is small enough to support a lot of informal social links. Very quickly I was able to get the name of one of Denmark’s top divorce litigators, Sandra Moll, and she agreed to be interviewed. Ms. Moll had graduated from University of Milan in 1981 and from University of Copenhagen in 1990. She was licensed in both Italy and Denmark and specialized in divorce litigation and property law.

First we discussed what a divorce is in Denmark. In the U.S., a marriage starts with a simple administrative proceeding at a city hall (the marriage license application) and ends, in many states, in a standard civil lawsuit with a plaintiff and defendant (just as if two corporations had a dispute about a contract). Not so in Denmark. “You must start in an administrative proceeding,” explained Ms. Moll. “You go to the Statsforvaltningen and fill out some forms. The couple is then contacted to come in for a mediation session. People who don’t have enough money to have a lawyer will get one from the state. So the administration tries to get them to agree in order to save the government money. If the administrator can get the couple to agree, they sign some papers and are divorced within 6-12 months after the first papers were filed. Unfortunately there is some fine print on the form that says ‘valid only in Scandinavia,’ which creates a lot of problems when one person is living in a foreign country and wants to get remarried. Ultimately the couple may need to go to court to get something that is valid in a foreign country.”

What if the couple doesn’t agree? “Then the administration refers the case to a judge and the trial will be about three months later. Either party has the right to be separated even if the spouse disagrees. After six months of living apart, either party has the right to ask for a divorce because of the separation. That right becomes absolute after a year of separation.”

I asked how long the process would take under the assumption that the parties could not agree on anything. So the court would have to decide on custody, child support, division of property, and alimony. “If everything goes smoothly, it could be done in one year. The trial is just 1-2 hours and everything is decided on the basis of written reports rather than witnesses. For custody issues there will be a report from a psychologist who has spent a few hours with the child and each parent. There is a separate court for handling division of property. A party is not entitled to alimony in any marriage shorter than five years unless he or she needs to complete an educational program. Even if a party wasn’t working during the marriage, that is not relevant for determining alimony. If a person is able to work, he or she is expected to work rather than collect alimony.”

Is there an appeals process? “The first trial is in front of a single judge. There is a right to appeal to a three-judge panel, which will re-try all of the issues of both fact and law.” [U.S. comparison: most states provide divorce lawsuit defendants a trial with a single judge, whose decisions regarding facts cannot be appealed.]

In a society where Americans think that men and women have reached a much higher level of equality than in the U.S., what happens with custody? “There is no presumption of 50/50 custody, though that is what a lot of middle class parents will agree on. If the parents are unmarried, first of all, the single mother automatically gets custody. For married couples traditionally it is the mother who has been taking care of the children and spending more time with the children. Very few fathers take paternity leave though it is available to them. Partly this is because mothers do not allow the fathers to take it and partly because the fathers don’t want to. A custody dispute will be decided by the court based on the psychologist’s report, which is seriously flawed due to the limited time that the psychologist spends with the parents and children. Courts are also starting to take the childrens’ preferences into account when children are as young as 6 or 7. That has its own problems because a parent can bribe a child.”

What’s at stake financially with custody? Suppose that the non-custodial parent earns $500,000 per year working in finance. How much can the custodial parent collect? “The basic amount is just over 1000 kroner per month [about $180]. Depending on the non-custodial parent’s income and the number of kids, this can be multiplied or supplemented. the highest number that I’ve ever seen is 3X that basic amount in a case where the father was a banker. It is all worked out by the Statsforvaltningen based on a table, which you can find on their Web site.” [link in English; Danish version with more detail] So the absolute maximum that a person could collect in child support is about $8000 per year? “Yes,” replied Ms. Moll.

What if the parents who wins the kids has a high income? Can a person who makes $1 million per year collect an additional $8000 per year in child support payments? “Yes. The income of the custodial parent is not part of any of the calculations.”

How do people game the system? “It is mostly people with lower incomes who try to get extra money. Single parents get more money from the state for each child and therefore it is common for people to pretend not to be married to a second spouse. Mothers will accuse the father of being a child molester in order to get custody so that they can then collect both the state subsidies for single parents and child support from the father.” What if the father doesn’t have a job? “The state will pay on behalf of the father if the father cannot pay. The state pays for most of the consequences of failed marriages.”

[A Dane wrote to explain “In the Muslim communities there’s a thing called a ‘father hotel’. It’s a one room apartment allegedly housing 18 men, divorced from their wives. In reality the men are living with their wives and kids enjoying the single mother benefits in spades. Visit http://denkorteavis.dk/2012/vi-bliver-snydt-sa-vandet-driver/ and ask Google to translate it. Divorce is a sound business decision for poor people with lots of kids.”]

How much of a family’s wealth/the children’s inheritance is spent on litigation? “My fee is 2600 kroner per hour [about $465]. A normal divorce that goes to the administration and then straight to court will cost each party about 15,000 kroner [$2675]. If there are complicated international issues or unusual delays it could be 50,000 kroner [about $8900].”

Circling back to this month’s weblog theme of why Danes score higher on happiness surveys than do their wealthier American counterparts… For people who entered a marriage for the standard reasons of love, forming a life partnership, collaborating on rearing children, etc. a divorce is not going to be a happy event. Yet compared to divorced Americans that I’ve talked to, divorced Danes seem to have suffered much less trauma. The custodial parents had the self-respect that comes from supporting themselves through work rather than living off an ex-partner for decades. The custodial parents did not keep going back to court to try to get additional or extended child support or alimony payments. The non-custodial parents made payments that they generally considered fair and that did not amount to an additional income tax discouraging them from advancing their careers. Danish children from middle class families are much more seldom the subject of custody battles, are much more likely to benefit from substantial involvement by both parents (e.g., in a 50/50 time split), and their parents are substantially wealthier than divorced Americans who have gone through litigation (since what stops a lot of divorce lawsuits is that the couple runs out of assets to pay the lawyers). Even in the event of a complete lack of agreement on every issue, everyone involved is much more likely to be able to move on with their lives. To the extent that happiness surveys include divorced people, I would expect that Danish results would get a lift compared to American ones due to the fact that so much less money is at stake in a middle class divorce, which has the effect of greatly reducing the intensity of the fighting. The result is that both the time and cost of a divorce are lower.

The main flaw with the Danish system seems to be that wealth and income are transferred from those who behave with traditional middle class responsibility and respectability to those who do not [Danes complain about this, but the overall amount seems to be negligible compared to the amount that divorcing American families transfer to attorneys and other workers in the litigated divorce industry]. A couple who has put in the work necessary to stay married for 30 years and rear two children in a three-bedroom Copenhagen apartment will pay taxes to support single parent supplements [roughly $3,500 per year per child, but married couples also get supplements for having kids] to never-married and divorced parents. The married couple’s taxes will, in the event that a non-custodial parent can’t pay the roughly $2200/year minimum child support, be used to pay child support to a single parent. On the third hand, this is the same issue with every aspect of any Welfare State. If you take cash from workers and give it to people for doing something other than work, the result is a reduction in the number of hours that a group of people will work.

Full post, including comments

Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom camera phone

If you’re tired of carrying both a phone and a camera, the new Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom camera phone has been announced (dpreview.com). They glued an Android phone to the back of a basic compact camera. I’ve been wanting something like this for years, but probably not this particular device unfortunately. The sensor is 1/2.3″ or about 6.1×4.5mm in size. This is tiny compared to the sensor in everyone’s favorite point and shoot camera, the Sony DSC-RX100 (12.8×9.6mm). It is about twice the area of the sensor in an iPhone (1/3.2″ or 4.5×3.4mm) and about one third the area of the sensor in the Nokia 808 phone. [I guess it would be fatiguing to hold something as heavy as a Sony Rx100 up to one’s ear for a long conversation. But that would be a good incentive to keep phone calls short!]

The optical image stabilizer will arguably allow for using lower ISO settings indoors. And of course the camera will perform much better when zoomed in since it is an optical rather than a digital zoom.

See http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/ for some good comparisons of sensor size.

Is anyone out there excited by this device? Due to the small screen it would seem to be a much less useful phone than the standard Android phones today. Due to the small sensor it would seem to be a much less useful camera than the point and shoots that photography enthusiasts generally buy. So it would seem that the device won’t make phone nerds or camera nerds happy.

Full post, including comments

A new interface for point and shoot cameras?

Folks:

I’ve written an article about a simpler yet more powerful interface for point and shoot (“compact digital”) cameras at http://philip.greenspun.com/business/point-and-shoot-camera-interface and would appreciate comments/suggestions. I think this is a great project for a master’s student who likes to code (or maybe a group of graduate students). The practicality of the project hinges on the fact that Samsung has released the source code for the software within two of its high quality cameras.

Thanks in advance for ideas to make this design better.

Full post, including comments

Sand castles for kids, Scandinavian style

I went to the Copenhagen Sand Sculpture Festival exhibit today with the intent of taking a bunch of pictures to show some 3-5-year-old children back in the U.S. The exhibits starts with an enormous sandbox, which was filled with Danish children playing. Day care workers led groups of kids ages 3-7 around the place patiently explaining each sculpture. The sculptures looked a little off, though, not like the miniature village Christmas scenes I’d expected. The labels reminded me of the label affixed to the Cement Cuddler toys: “Unfortunate Child, do not mistake me for living thing, nor seek in me the warmth denied you by your parents. For beneath my plush surface lies a hardness as impervious and unforgiving as this World’s own indifference to your mortal struggle. Hold on to me when you are sad, and I will weigh you down, but bear this weight throughout your years, and it will strengthen your limbs and harden your will so that one day no man dare oppose you.”

Check the photos on Google+ to see the explanations of each sculpture that the teachers were reading and explaining to the kids.

 

Full post, including comments

A quiet birthday for Søren Kierkegaard here in Copenhagen

Copenhagen has put out a fair number of banners marking Søren Kierkegaard’s 200th birthday. Danes, however, do not seem to be thronging the various Kierkegaard-related exhibitions. I’m wondering if they find his personal life less than inspiring. Kierkegaard inherited a modest fortune from his dad and, due to the lack of any need to work, found himself with a lot of time on his hands to brood and write. He fell in love with a 14-year-old girl (Regine Olsen) and then broke her heart. (Note that Elvis Presley also fell in love with a 14-year-old girl, Priscilla, but followed through with a marriage seven years later.) This exposed Kierkegaard to ridicule from contemporaries, such as P.L. Møller who wrote “[Regine] cannot grasp the fact that I both want to be engaged and also to break up, that I both want to break up and also not break up, both get married and not get married. She cannot grasp the fact that my engagement is dialectical, in that it both represents love and an absence of love.”

Full post, including comments

Book recommendation: read the first third of Skios

Michael Frayn, the British playwright, has given us Skios, poking fun at the world’s big thinkers. A young exotic dancer named Bahama LeStarr marries an 81-year-old rich guy, Fred Topler, who has a heart attack six weeks later. The widow starts a foundation that pulls together the world’s most successful people to the Greek island of Skios to hear an annual lecture by a big thinker. It seems to have been inspired by the John Templeton Foundation with its emphasis on unifying science and spirituality:

“The John Templeton Foundation serves as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality. We support research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution, and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will. We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.”

The big thinker who shows up at the summer retreat covered by the novel turns out to be a playboy/idler impostor who knows nothing about science or mathematics and is making it all up as he goes along. Meanwhile the genuine academic genius (specialty: “The scientific management of science” a.k.a. “scientometrics” (a term also used by Scientologists)) is delayed and entangled due to his obsession with settling a score via email while waiting for his luggage at an airport baggage carousel.

The idea for the book could hardly be better and the first third-to-half is excellent, though it reads more like a script than a novel at times. However, the author can’t seem to figure out what to do with the characters once he has them suitably mixed up (i.e., he is not Shakespeare!). So my recommendation is to read the first third carefully, enjoying it as a short story, and then put it down and/or skim the remainder.

Full post, including comments

Book review: Going Clear (Scientology)

Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, by Lawrence Wright, is a fascinating biography as well as a great way to learn about Americans in general. The 450 pages are never dull, partly thanks to L. Ron Hubbard’s quirky personality and partly due to the author’s skill in telling the story of Scientology and its followers.

What is probably toughest for a contemporary reader to understand is what a compelling individual Hubbard must have been. He does not seem to have been a likely leader of thousands. Hubbard claimed to have been wounded in action as a Navy officer during World War II and to have recovered from horrifying injuries with special techniques that would later become part of Scientology. However, it was pretty easy for journalists to discover that Hubbard had never served in combat. In fact, whenever he got close to being shipped off to a dangerous assignment he would develop a mysterious stomach ailment and require hospitalization. Due to the Navy’s desperation for experienced sailors, Hubbard was given command of a small ship (PC-815) for about 80 days but he stayed close to shore and had a couple of mishaps. On the very first excursion out into the ocean Hubbard, who had finished near the bottom of his class in SONAR interpretation, thought that he heard a Japanese submarine just off the coast of Astoria, Oregon. Depth charges were dropped, other Navy ships were called in, but no submarine was found (and Japanese records uncovered after the war indicated that no sub was in the area at the time). Hubbard also opened fire with the ship’s guns on (1) a log, (2) an island near Baja that he thought was owned by the U.S. and acceptable for target practice (in fact it was owned by Mexico and the Mexicans were not too happy about the incident).

Hubbard’s personal life did not go any better than his Navy career. There were multiple wives, sometimes at the same time, abandoned children, lawsuits, etc. When he did take care of children it wasn’t exactly what you’d expect a father of the time to be doing: “When the girls became old enough to start wearing makeup, Hubbard was the one who showed them how to apply it.” [Disclaimer: I painted a 2.5-year-old girl’s toenails purple, but I don’t think that puts me in Hubbard’s league because I did so incompetently and would certainly not have suggested to anyone of any age that I possessed special knowledge regarding makeup.] Hubbard promised adherents of the new religion powerful tools to triumph over age and disease but Hubbard did not seem to be grappling with these foes any better than the average person:

Other members of the Sea Org were having a hard time coping with the blatant contradiction between Hubbard’s legend and the crabby, disconsolate figure howling in his stateroom. “If he is who he says he is, why does he have so little staying power?” Hana Eltringham wondered. “He has a motorcycle accident, he doesn’t recover quickly, and he doesn’t use Scientology techniques on himself.”

Hubbard was sixty-four years old in 1975, as the Apollo began its circumnavigation of the Caribbean. He weighed 260 pounds. He was still meticulously groomed, but his teeth and fingers were darkly stained from constant smoking. He was on the run from the courts, fearful of being discovered, marked by age, and visibly in decline. In Curaçao, he suffered a small stroke and spent several weeks in a local hospital. It was becoming clear that life at sea posed a real danger for a man in such frail health. His crew rationalized his obvious decline by saying that his body was battered by the research he was undertaking and the volumes of suppression aimed at him. “He’s risking his life for us,” they told each other.

There is an almost funny side to the book, mostly when talking about the various Hollywood stars who are members of the Church of Scientology. The church takes on the challenge of matching up Tom Cruise with a new wife (pre-Katie Holmes):

The Scientology search team came up with another aspiring actress, Nazanin Boniadi, twenty-five years old, who had been born in Iran and raised in London. Naz was well educated and beautiful in the way that Cruise was inclined to respond to—dark and slender, with large eyes and a flashing smile.

At one point during the intensive auditing and security checks, Wilhere informed her that she would have to break up with her longtime boyfriend in order for the project to proceed. She refused. She couldn’t understand why her boyfriend posed any kind of problem; indeed, she had personally introduced him to Scientology. Wilhere persisted, asking what it would take for her to break off the romance. Flustered, she responded that she would break up if she knew he had been cheating on her. According to Naz’s friends, the very next day, Wilhere brought in her boyfriend’s confidential auditing files and showed her several instances of his infidelities, which had been circled in red. Naz felt betrayed, but also guilty, because Wilhere blamed her for failing to know and report her boyfriend’s ethical lapses herself; after all, she had audited him on several occasions. Obviously, she had missed his “withhold.” She confronted her boyfriend and he confessed.

Cruise was charming. He said that he and Davis were headed over to the Empire State Building and then to Nobu for some sushi—why didn’t they join them? Afterward, they all went skating at Rockefeller Center, which was closed to the public while they were on the rink. It was beginning to seem a little too perfect. She spent that first night with Cruise in the Trump Tower, where he had taken an entire floor for his entourage.

Two weeks later, Jessica Feshbach told Naz to pack her things. Cruise was too busy to say good-bye. Naz’s last glimpse was of him working out in his home gym. Davis later explained to her that Cruise had simply changed his mind about the relationship,

In February 2005, Naz went to Clearwater [Florida; a center for Scientology] to take the courses. At first, she was treated like a VIP, but soon one of her friends noticed dramatic changes in her— she was weeping all the time. Naz confided that she had just gone through a wrenching breakup with Tom Cruise. The shocked friend immediately reported her to Ethics. Naz was assigned a condition of Treason and ordered to do reparations for the damages she had done to the group by revealing her relationship with Cruise. She was made to dig ditches and scrub public toilets with a toothbrush. Finally, in June, she worked her way back into good standing with the church, but she was ordered to stay away from the Celebrity Centre. Davis advised her to go live in some far corner of the world and never utter another word about Tom Cruise.

(Katie Holmes at least got a helicopter ride on her first date, according to the book.) We also learn about Tom Cruise’s fondness for monster SUVs:

Miscavige purchased another Excursion for Cruise to replace the one that had been botched. Meanwhile, Brousseau spent the next six months personally rebuilding the original Excursion. He ripped the vehicle down to its frame and installed handmade reclining seats and wood paneling fashioned from a burl of a eucalyptus tree that had been toppled in a storm.

Stepping back from the colorful anecdotes and the celebrities, Wright does give some consideration to what has made Scientology meaningful

SCIENTOLOGY WANTS TO BE understood as a scientific approach to spiritual enlightenment. It has, really, no grounding in science at all. It would be better understood as a philosophy of human nature; seen in that light, Hubbard’s thought could be compared with that of other moral philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant and Søren Kierkegaard, although no one has ever approached the sweep of Hubbard’s work. His often ingenious and minutely observed categories of behavior have been shadowed by the bogus elements of his personality and the absurdity that is interwoven with his bouts of brilliance, making it difficult for non-Scientologists to know what to make of it. Serious academic study of his writing has also been constrained by the vindictive reputation of the church. The field of psychotherapy is Scientology’s more respectable cousin, although it cannot honestly claim to be a science, either.

[Separately, if you are feeling any sadness about Mitt Romney’s failure to unseat Barack Obama as president, reading this book will cheer you up a bit. Romney apparently identified Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth as his favorite novel.]

If you’re a parent, portions of this book are very painful to read. According to Wright, Scientology has forced followers to divorce spouses, abandon children, have abortions, and do some less drastic things that yet deprive children of the right to have a normal childhood.

On balance it is a very interesting book. Despite the relatively small impact of Scientology on American society (due to the small number of members), the book is interesting because it covers a guy (Hubbard) who achieved far more than anyone could have predicted based on his family background and education. He lived out a kind of American Dream.

More: Read Going Clear

Full post, including comments

U.S. Government creates jobs for data warehouse experts and recent CS grads

It seems that the U.S. government is now collecting data on all phone calls made within the U.S. (example story from the Guardian). If the Federales are getting data from Verizon it seems safe to assume that they are getting it from all telcos. Let’s think about how much data this might be.

There are 310 million Americans. The FCC publishes some statistics on telephone usage but I can’t find just the simple total number of calls (see http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf ). Back of the envelope the typical cell phone plan is 900 minutes and the average call might last 3 minutes so that’s 300 calls per month or 10 per day (if the 900 minutes are used up, which is probably not reasonable to assume, but this is back-of-the-envelope). Assume another 10 per day made on wired phones (lots of business lines and people whose only job is to answer the phone) and that’s 20 calls per day for the average person who uses a phone. We’ll subtract out the very young and old so that is 200 million people times 20 calls per day = 4 billion calls.

A call record has to include two 10-digit numbers, a date-time stamp, and a number of minutes. If it is wireless there is presumably some additional data about the cell(s), such as location or at least cell ID. That has to be 100 bytes per record. So the government would be collecting a minimum of 400 GB per day of information that would have to be stored in a data warehouse. The data warehouse machinery, such as links to additional dimensions, would at least double this to 800 GB. Round up to 1 TB to make calculation easier and that is 365 TB of data per year or a minimum of 1.6 petabytes for the years that the Obama Administration has been in power.

[I’ll be very interested to see comments from readers who work in this area and can tell me where the above calculations are wrong.]

Questions of civil liberties aside, it would seem that our government has created an interesting data warehousing challenge. Is 1.6 petabytes off the charts for size? No. This article says that eBay is at 9.2 petabytes and some individual telcos are in the same league.

This looks like a great opportunity for young people. Check out the NSA’s careers section, in particular their Computer Science Development Program for recent CS grads where they get rotating assignments and explicit classroom training (and pay that can be as much as $97,33 per year (plus benefits!)). It is hard to imagine a better opportunity to start a career in Big Data than this three-year program.

[Separately… as long as the government is collecting all of that stuff maybe they could give it back to us in a useful form! A friend was recently involved in a tax dispute with New York State. The state asserted that someone they wanted to tax was a resident. My friend wanted wireline phone records to show that in fact the “New York resident” was making daily phone calls from a wired phone in the Boston area. In our age of unlimited long distance it turns out not to be that easy to get such records. Wouldn’t it have been nice to go to www.nsa.gov, type in your name and some sort of authentication and get an official printout of all the phone calls that you’ve ever made and where you were located at the time? If the government can have these data, why can’t we citizens at least get them too?]

Full post, including comments

Is government harassment of photographers an example of streetlight effect?

In the streetlight effect, a drunk searches for his keys underneath a street light even though he lost them in a dark park. Asked why, he explains that the light is better under the street lamp.

I’m wondering if our government’s harassment of photographers is an example of this effect. In the wake of the Marathon bombing here in Boston, the FBI recommends looking for people making “discreet use of cameras” (source). The man with a camera has been an irresistible target for law enforcement personnel since 9/11. For example, see

We could debate the relative merits of security for government workers versus First Amendment, but maybe it is worth stepping back and asking a few questions:

  • given that the useful life of a building may be 50 to 100 years, would it not be a bad design feature for the security to be compromised in the event that someone took a picture of it?
  • to what extent have terrorists made use of cameras?

With a worldwide Internet, many photo-posting sites are in countries whose freedom of press laws would prevent the U.S. government from order a take-down of a photo of a U.S. government building. So if at any time in a 50-100-year period if a photo is taken that would facilitate an attack, the photo will be permanently available. Would it not then be better to create U.S. government facilities whose security does not depend on them never being photographed? (example: a suburban campus with a quarter-mile-wide border of grass, a tall fence around the interior, some guarded gates, and one more fence around the quarter-mile-wide grass border)

Which terrorist attacks were accomplished with the aid of pre-attack photography? The Tsarnaev brothers had just one gun, a 9mm pistol. They were on and off Welfare. It seems unlikely that they owned an extensive Canon EOS or Nikon DSLR system. Has there been any suggestion that they went to the bombing locations prior to the day of the Marathon and took photos? If so, with what kind of camera? The Wikipedia article on the 1993 World Trade Center bombing does not say anything about Ramzi Yousef having a camera. His mentor, Omar Abdel Rahman, was blind (i.e., not a very likely photographer).

If the answer to the latter question is “Hardly any” then I would submit that we are seeing the streetlight effect.

Our law enforcement services spent a lot of time with Ramzi Yousef (Wikipedia describes a 72-hour detention and interrogation) and failed to discover any terrorist intent. Lots of government bureaucrats and law enforcement officials spent time with the Tsarnaev brothers, e.g., during the process by which they were granted citizenship and/or permanent residency, following the older brother’s arrest for domestic violence, following the Russian government’s tip that the older brother was a terrorist, and presumably during various interviews regarding their eligibility to collect welfare. At no time were any dark mental thoughts uncovered.

Given the difficulty of using conversation to see into another person’s private thoughts, especially when that other person is not a native speaker of English, is it fair to say that looking for terrorist thoughts inside the heads of potential terrorists is like looking for one’s keys in the dark park?

What’s under the streetlight then? A middle-aged tourist in a 4XL red parrot-print Hawaiian shirt is shouldering a $2000 digital SLR with a $2000 telephoto zoom lens attached. A cumbersome camera bag hangs from the other shoulder, filled with additional lenses. It is high noon on a weekday. The tourist raises the monster camera to his eye. Instead of trying to find an interpreter to talk to one of the non-English speakers from a violence-plagued part of the world to whom we have recently granted political asylum, let’s hassle the fat tourist and demand to know what he is doing with his $10,000 camera system.

What do readers think? Has a Canon 5D or Nikon D600 been a useful tool for terrorists? If not, why does carrying one get our government security apparatus so excited?

[Update: On about the same day that I wrote the above posting on our government security forces occupying themselves with hassling tourists and camera buffs, a story broke about how Chinese hackers had downloaded the designs for America’s newest and fanciest military hardware, including the F-35 fighter jet (USA Today). The only silver lining in that story is that they also got the design for the V-22 Osprey so maybe they will bankrupt themselves before they can attack us (the Osprey was initially budgeted at $2.5 billion and is now on track to cost something like $50 billion; TIME says it costs $83,256/hour to fly, which is more than a C-5 cargo plane that holds as much as a Boeing 747, but half the $163,485 that it costs to fly President Obama on his B747; a former Marine Corps officer dedicates a whole page to the shortcomings of the Osprey)). Apparently finding a guy in Hawaiian shirt with a Canon L lens is a lot easier than keeping the Chinese from outsmarting us.]

Full post, including comments

Economists: Homeownership leads to unemployment

An economics professor friend, knowing that I like to tell everyone to rent rather than buy, and that back in August 2011 I asked the question Does homeownership lead to longer unemployment? sent me this recent (May 2013) paper from NBER. Unfortunately the full text is not available for free online. Here’s the abstract:

We explore the hypothesis that high home-ownership damages the labor market. Our results are relevant to, and may be worrying for, a range of policy-makers and researchers. We find that rises in the home-ownership rate in a U.S. state are a precursor to eventual sharp rises in unemployment in that state. The elasticity exceeds unity: a doubling of the rate of home-ownership in a U.S. state is followed in the long-run by more than a doubling of the later unemployment rate. What mechanism might explain this? We show that rises in home-ownership lead to three problems: (i) lower levels of labor mobility, (ii) greater commuting times, and (iii) fewer new businesses. Our argument is not that owners themselves are disproportionately unemployed. The evidence suggests, instead, that the housing market can produce negative ‘externalities’ upon the labor market. The time lags are long. That gradualness may explain why these important patterns are so little-known.

Shorter summary: One answer to my August 2011 question is “yes” (but let’s always keep in mind that John Ioannidis would predict that a subsequent paper will find a different answer)

Additional elated older postings on this blog:

Full post, including comments