Open offices bad for women?

A Facebook friend posted “Why open plan offices are like a nudist beach” (Washington Post):

In the #MeToo era, an open-office environment might seem like the perfect solution for fixing the sexual harassment that can take place behind closed office doors. If there are glass walls everywhere, and no one has doors or even plastic partitions to reserve any sense of privacy, groping and sexual advances might be harder to get away with.

But that hardly means it’s an office arrangement women love. Research has already shown that women tend to be more sensitive than men to the noise generated in open-plan offices, and take more long sick leaves when they work in them. Now a recently published study of a British government office showed that open-plan offices may be tougher for women in different ways — leaving them feeling more scrutinized for their appearance, subject to staring by male peers and more self-conscious about their status in the organization.

Silicon Valley women express their unhappiness:

“A couple jobs ago, I was basically a zoo animal. Incessant staring and comments on my clothes, makeup, jewelry, conversations, personal habits, food, facial expressions, everything. One guy would even stare between the monitors all day and comment while I worked.”

(Why was she wearing makeup and jewelry if she wanted to keep the lowest possible profile?)

Another reader, named only Veronica G., wrote Fast Company to say “my own office was a glass box and my desk did not have a facade – which meant, because I always wear skirts or dresses instead of pants, I had to sit with my knees together all the time to look ‘proper’ because I was visible from all angles.”

(Why not get some pants at Costco for $20? Or shop for rompers? (I learned recently from a 3rd grader that “rompers” look like a dress on top, but are divided into pants on the bottom))

What was interesting about this was the ensuing discussion:

Married-with-kids male engineer (“mengineer”?): Journalism in 2018: Pick a situation or practice. Say that women (or minorities) are disproportionately affected. Collect thunderous applause.

Male-named college undergraduate: Man, isn’t exposing the rampant sexism/racism in America just the worst? what a drag.

Engineer: In America, in the midst of rampant sexism and racism. I just spent two days in an open office environment. These women stared at me constantly and just JUDGED. I could feel it.

Undergrad: I’m confused, are you claiming to be a victim of sexism?

Engineer: I certainly am. Why not? Are you questioning a victim’s testimony?

Wag: You are not a “victim”; You are a “survivor”

Undergrad (to Wag): way to trivialize the various traumas that sexual assault survivors endure on a regular basis. It’s like you playing a game of paintball and calling yourself a war veteran afterwards.

Undergrad: Not at all, I’m sure you felt judged. But let’s take a survey. Who are your coworkers? are you in a male dominated field? you certainly were at MIT. Is your boss male? what about their boss? and, Since we know you live in the US, where the power structure (both in government and on local social levels) is incredibly male dominated, you did not experience sexism. This isn’t to say that the women in your work place made you feel uncomfortable, but while you still exist in a society that favors men over women (which is, again, certainly the case in STEM careers), sexism really ain’t your problem

Engineer: I won’t allow myself to be reduced to a data point to be compared to other data points in a heartless statistical argument. My experience and feelings are valid and incredibly important in and of themselves and it is the society’s full responsibility to ensure that I and men like me don’t ever feel judged again.

Undergrad: Yes, agreed, we should do all we can do ensure we have a safe and comfortable for all. But while you’re getting “judged” which, again, must be rough, Women are being paid less, harassed, and assaulted, all on top of being judged. But until some of these numbers are evened out, I’d say its appropriate to focus on women. NPR article with harassment data: “A New Survey Finds 81 Percent Of Women Have Experienced Sexual Harassment”

I pointed out that the article betrayed cisgender-normative prejudice by the journalists at the Post. The article was published on May 16 and a May 7 Twitter entry from Tracy Chou was cited along with a comment from “Hayley Anderson” about makeup and jewelry. Although Hayley never says “I identify as a woman,” or refers to him/herself with a female pronoun, Hayley is described as “a woman”. Why assume that someone who wears makeup and jewelry identifies as a “woman”? And even if Hayley identified as a woman on May 7, how do the folks at the Post know that she continued to identify as a woman through May 16?

I also pointed out that the “nudist beach” analogy in the headline was questionable given that a typical nude beach in the U.S., at least, is all-male. I asked “wouldn’t it be a better analogy to compare the open office to South Beach in Miami, for example, where fashionable swimwear is often displayed?”

Here are some ideas for correcting the injustice:

Should women in tech companies all be given private offices while the herd of male nerds is left to toil in an open pit? If it is tough to pay women more, for whatever reason, companies could get them closer to their fair market compensation (higher than a similarly skilled and productive man) by giving them a more comfortable working environment.

Or maybe there could be a separate parking lot, entrance, and floor for employees identifying as female?

(my favorite, due to requirement for advanced tech!) Or workers identifying as female could work in the open office, but workers identifying as male would wear special electronic glasses that turned opaque as soon as a female-identifying employee was in the field of view? If a woman spoke to a man, however, the glasses could (at her option) temporarily go transparent or translucent.

Readers: What do you think?

Full post, including comments

Once you have a big enough welfare state you have to centrally plan the middle class economy as well?

“Of course US birth rates are falling – this is a harsh place to have a family” (Guardian, Amy Westervelt):

The reality is, for all its pro-family rhetoric, the US is a remarkably harsh place for families, and particularly for mothers. It’s a well-known fact, but one that bears repeating in this context, that the US is one of only four countries in the world with no government-subsidized maternity leave

Have we really built a “harsh place … for mothers”? A mother who has never worked can get a free apartment in San Francisco, Manhattan, Boston, or Cambridge, free health care for herself and her children, free food (SNAP), and a free phone. This could be regarded as a “government-subsidized maternity leave” of at least 18 years and, in most cases, a lifetime (since the entitlement to public housing doesn’t go away once the kids are grown up). See Book Review: The Redistribution Recession for how eagerly Americans have adjustd their behavior to qualify for this government offer.

I think what Ms. Westervelt means is that the U.S. is a harsh place for mothers who work at middle-income jobs. The definition of “harsh” is that their incomes may yield a spending power and lifestyle that is actually inferior to what welfare mothers obtain (see Table 4 in The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off for a calculation by state; here in Massachusetts welfare pays 118 percent of the median salary, whereas in New York it is 110 percent and in California only 96.5 percent).

(Americans who choose their sex partners and sex location carefully can do a lot better than what the government provides. See “Child Support Litigation without a Marriage” for the cash flow that can result from having sex with higher-than-median earners. Also the Massachusetts chapter for the example of a custody and child support plaintiff with an Ivy League degree who out-earns Penn classmates by 3.2X via providing part-time care for one child.)

A friend’s wife is the author of “Paying Nannies Under the Table Is the Norm” (Slate):

After I interviewed over 60 potential nannies, and despite my offering paid benefits and overtime, a surprising number declined because being paid ‘over the table’ would affect their ability to qualify for government subsidies.

(i.e., she is surprised that in a country running a $1 trillion welfare state, some people want to keep receiving welfare benefits.)

Tax supports to help families pay for this child care are woefully inadequate, and caregivers’ pay seldom reflects their vital role in our economy. Yet the costs of child care, housing, and healthcare have risen sharply for both parties.

We need to recognize and cultivate talented professional caregivers, by transforming care into a financially viable, long-term career option for the millions of women who choose it.

“We have both devalued work that is historically associated with women, and continue to devalue the lives of the women of color who do the work. Until we as a society value care work, and make sure that all workers are protected by our laws, we will continue to see inequities and crises in the industry as a whole,” said Poo.

The husband proudly posted this article as a Facebook status. Some responses:

Me: What would be awesome is if every childless American would work 90 hours/week to subsidize those of us who have chosen to have kids, but don’t want to take care of them personally.

The author: Women are sole, primary or co-breadwinners in 2/3 of American households. The overwhelming majority of our workforce, that fuels and drives our economy that benefits all who live here, have the need for childcare to be able to work. It’s an economic imperative to make childcare affordable and accessible. … And 80% of women have children.

The author: There’s another side to this argument, it’s not just about the working families but the caregivers that are currently relying on subsidies in many cases to afford basic life-support (housing, healthcare, etc.) Those subsidies come from tax dollars. Nearly half of the domestic workers are immigrants, and working under the table perpetuates the generational cycle of poverty. When domestic workers age and don’t have enough savings in their elder years nor have they amassed social security benefits (despite how small that is) to qualify for social security offsets to medicare plans, their adult children (whether or not they have children of their own) and/or other social safety nets (i.e. welfare) pick up the tab to support their need to live.

Me: I am sure that you are right, but if people with children overall pay less for something, doesn’t that mean people without children will be the ones who have to subsidize them? Where else does money come from ?

The author: … As a whole, our society needs high rates of employment to function. High rates of employment are threatened when the population can’t afford childcare which enables them to work – or if caregivers can’t afford to be caregivers if that makes sense. This disproportionately affects women’s ability to succeed and ascend in the workforce and also on the caregiver side disproportionately affects women and minorities. …

Deplorable: [gently suggests that maybe the real problem is that not working in Massachusetts can pay up to $100,000 per year, tax-free]

The author: Although I understand your point, I don’t believe that the government is doing a ‘good job’ of subsidizing the needy. And frankly, people who work demanding full-time jobs plus overtime hours, should be able to afford to live in or near the cities they work in. The market rates for childcare givers, like jobs in almost every other industry, haven’t moved up to address inflation. Many of us (myself included) make salaries that haven’t changed much while the cost of living has gone up dramatically. This makes the availability of a subsidy not just attractive for some but essential (especially if they have themselves or a family member with a serious illness/requiring heavy health care needs.) It’s complicated, messy & really not serving anyone (or society for that matter) the way it exists today.

The part that I put into bold face ties into the recent Seattle homeless housing plan posting. As the U.S. heads for a population of 400 million and does not build any new cities where people want to live, there has to be a lot of competition for apartments located in walkable pleasant neighborhoods. If government central planners fill up one third of these apartments with people who don’t work then the remaining supply is going to be out of reach for workers like the journalist (since those apartments will be snapped up by people who work in more lucrative fields, such as health care and finance).

The Europeans have dealt with this by limiting housing subsidies for welfare recipients. The result is that they can afford apartments only in undesirable suburbs. Anyone who wants to live in a prime center-city neighborhood in Europe has to work or be married to someone who works (the UK is an exception; a brief marriage or having sex with a high-income partner can lead to child support and/or divorce profits that will enable a non-working citizen to enjoy central London; see this chapter on International family law).

I’m wondering if this drumbeat of articles about how working mothers don’t get enough government cash is an example of how the middle-class portion of the U.S. economy needs to be centrally planned as well. The focus seems to be on “mothers” rather than “women”. This would make sense if the above hypothesis is true because it is “mothers” who can most easily benefit from welfare programs. For example, a woman with no children who applies for a free government-provided house may be placed on a 10-year waiting list.

So if we accept the following assumptions:

  • a woman, regardless of income, wealth, or any other factors, should be able to have as many children as she desires
  • no child should live in poverty
  • every child should live with his or her mother
  • people on welfare as equally entitled to live in America’s most sought-after neighborhoods

then a woman will derive essentially no economic benefit from working at a medium-income job. All that she will do is suffer a loss of leisure time. Therefore, though she would likely never phrase it this way, she will demand to have a spending power and quality of life that exceeds what her non-working welfare counterpart enjoys. Because she is competing with the government to buy or rent an apartment in a desirable neighborhood, the only way that “fairness” can be restored is if the government somehow gives her extra cash. Because it is primarily women with children who can get welfare, the extra government cash should somehow be tied to her status as having custody of children.

Readers: What do you think? Is this a middle-class anti-welfare rebellion in disguise? Instead of the expected revolt against paying higher taxes to fund more lavish welfare, though, what we’re seeing is middle-class Americans saying “I also want to be on welfare”?

[Separately, maybe the observed decline in birth rate is due to the higher population density of the U.S.? “Population Density Key Factor in Declining Human Fertility” says “we find a consistent and significant negative relationship between human fertility and population density. Moreover, we find that individual fertility preferences also decline with population density”]

Full post, including comments

Teenage Cocktail plot acted out in real life

Gulled by Rotten Tomatoes, I recently watched a movie that started with teenagers using the Internet to turn their bodies into cash that ultimately ending up in violence (see Teenage Cocktail movie proves that “and they’re gay” is to plots as “in bed” is to fortunes?).

“Girl, 15, shoots would-be Beaverton sugar daddy, authorities say” (The Oregonian) is almost the same story, minus the same-sex romance:

A Vancouver teen is suspected of shooting a Beaverton man she targeted on a dating website where “sugar daddies” lavish young love interests with cash and other gifts in exchange for companionship, according to Washington County authorities.

Raelyn Domingo, 15, faces first-degree assault and robbery charges after investigators say she arrived at Thomas Licata’s suburban home last week, got high with her host and then fired a single bullet into his belly.

Licata, a married 56-year-old, said he recently met the teen on the Seeking Arrangement website, which boasts its “Sugar Babies and Sugar Daddies … both get what they want, when they want it,” according to a probable cause affidavit.

What if the 15-year-old had gotten pregnant with a high-income user of SeekingArrangement.com?

Full post, including comments

The (two-week) sexless marriage

We were asked for opinions regarding a friend of a friend’s situation.

Background on the friend of friend and his wife:

  • 40ish (both)
  • fancy degrees (both)
  • married with kids
  • wife earns more than 2X what the husband earns
  • living under California family law (so if one sues the other the likely result is a 50 percent parenting time schedule for the kids plus child support and alimony profits for the man (with his Ivy League professional degree and way-above-median-income he will be the “dependent spouse”))

The husband was incompetently managing some home renovations and cost the family unit a little less than a week of after-tax (don’t forgot those 50 percent total tax rates in California!) income.

From the friend (edited to remove, um, some color):

His punishment will be two weeks of no sex. Apparently his wife uses that as means of control. I was wondering how common is the witholding as a training approach. For me this is so non-negotiable that I didn’t even know about it until like 10 years ago when my buddies began to get married.

A married-with-kids female’s answer:

He shouldn’t do anything. That would escalate the situation. He might end up divorced and that would be bad for the kids.

A married-for-decades man’s answer:

He should divorce her. If she doesn’t want to have sex, she’s a friend without benefits, not a wife.

I pointed out that she wasn’t refusing to have sex ever again and therefore the divorce lawsuit wouldn’t be proportional. Wouldn’t a proportional reponse be the following: move into a nearby hotel room in a fun neighborhood for two weeks and enjoy a bachelor’s carefree existence (perhaps punctuated with some kid sports events)? He eventually agreed that this would be a reasonable alternative.

I tested this independently with another married-for-decades man:

He should divorce her immediately. It is only going to get worse if this is the kind of thing that she does.

What if she just lost interest in sex for two weeks?

That’s different. That wouldn’t be an affirmative policy decision by the wife.

A divorced female physician:

You know it isn’t really about the money. This sounds like good material for counseling, but nobody ever goes until it is too late.

(I.e., consistent with her peers in medicine, she was curious to find out how the situation had developed, but had no actionable advice.)

We tested the physician’s it-is-all-about-the-feelings hypothesis by asking if the husband would object to the no-sex-with-wife plan if he could be sleeping with a friendly 22-year-old to whom he had no serious intellectual or emotional connection. Based on the friend’s discussions with the husband, the answer turned out to be “no objection in that case.”

Readers: What do you think?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Tesla has designed the perfect car for California

Consumer Reports has tested the Tesla 3 and the results sound pretty bad at first:

The Tesla’s stopping distance of 152 feet from 60 mph was far worse than any contemporary car we’ve tested and about 7 feet longer than the stopping distance of a Ford F-150 full-sized pickup.

Another major factor that compromised the Model 3’s road-test score was its controls. This car places almost all its controls and displays on a center touch screen, with no gauges on the dash, and few buttons inside the car.

This layout forces drivers to take multiple steps to accomplish simple tasks. Our testers found that everything from adjusting the mirrors to changing the direction of the airflow from the air-conditioning vents required using the touch screen.

The Model 3’s stiff ride, unsupportive rear seat and excessive wind noise at highway speeds also hurt its road-test score. In the compact luxury sedan class, most competitors deliver a more comfortable ride and rear seat.

Let’s think about Tesla’s home in the Bay Area, though. Population and accompanying traffic congestion have grown to the point where exceeding a speed of 20 mph is usually only a dream for Silicon Valley or Bay Bridge commuters. Why over-build the brakes to sports sedan standards when the car will usually be driven so slowly that the driver could simply drag a sneaker on the ground to stop?

Related:

  • Honda Clarity versus Accord test drive (the painful annoyance of one missing knob)
  • Business Insider piece comparing Tesla with the Reslas: “The four old-school companies I follow closely — General Motors, Ford, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, and Ferrari — are awash in cash and profits and have been raking it in for literally years. One salient statistic: GM and Tesla staged initial public offerings in 2010, but since then Tesla has never posted an annual profit, while GM has made over $70 billion.” (what a beautiful thing it is to have taxpayers fund all prior pension commitments!)
Full post, including comments

Europeans are serious about electric-powered airplanes (news from AERO)

Some excerpts from the AOPA coverage of AERO, the big European aviation event:

Magnus Aircraft eFusion: This is a joint effort between Hungarian airframer Magnus Aircraft Corp. and Germany’s industrial giant Siemens, which provides its SSP-55D, 75-horsepower electric motor. The eFusion’s lithium-ion battery can power the airplane for 40 minutes of flight and needs an hour to fully recharge. This experimental, 110-knot two-seat design—which made its first public flight at AERO—is but one offering on display.

ΦNIX: This Czech-built motorglider uses a 60-kilowatt/80-hp electric motor for self-launches as well as other phases of flight, and under power can cruise at 108 knots and fly as long as 2.5 hours on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery. Maximum glide ratio is 1:32. It can be ordered with wingspans of 11 or 15 meters.

Antares E2: This is not a true general aviation airplane, but its features are noteworthy. Built by Germany’s Lange Research GmbH, this six-motor design has a 75-foot wingspan, can cruise at 135 knots, and has a 40-hour endurance. Intended for use in surveillance roles, the E2 uses six methanol-powered fuel cells and dual batteries in a hybrid propulsion setup that generates enough power to provide ice protection of leading edges and enough energy to drive radars and other high-end surveillance gear. It has a 3,638-lb max takeoff weight, can hold 660 pounds of methanol in two underwing pods, and carry a payload of 440 pounds.

(The last one would be an awesome replacement for the Predator; see “The Predator drone is not an ambi-turner” for how the lack of anti-icing was one reason that the U.S. military abandoned the machine.)

Of course the least exciting news is always about aircraft that are real and flying:

Pipistrel Alpha Electro: This two-seat trainer is powered by a 60 kW/80-hp electric motor and can fly for an hour on a single charge of its lithium ion battery. Six airplanes have recently been exported to the United States. Four of these will serve as trainers under the CALSTART program for disadvantaged and unemployed youth at the Mendota and Reedley, California airports, and the other two are owned by Tomorrow’s Aeronautical Museum in Los Angeles. … these Alpha Electros have been signed off to legally fly, even though the FAA’s light sport airplane (LSA) rules don’t quite yet endorse electrically powered flight. “Procedural changes to LSA rules allowing electrically powered aircraft have already been made internally by the FAA,” Coates said. “And now the new rules are on the way to being published.” Coates says 50 percent of the cost of the CALSTART airplanes is being funded by pollution penalties paid to the California government by Volkswagen. The terms of a Volkswagen illegal-emissions settlement require that more than $1 billion be invested in a California “green fund” to benefit environmentally friendly projects. Price of the Alpha Electro is $118,000, which includes a charger. Six more are on the way to California customers.

The students flying these world’s-most-advanced training aircraft are currently “unemployed.” In other words, they are young Americans who can’t get organized, in one of the tightest labor markets in U.S. history, to walk down to McDonald’s at 3 pm and start an evening shift. The California officials, however, have decided to train them for a job that requires getting up at 4:30 am.

Another interesting bit of news is that Piper will be making a diesel-powered version of its venerable Seminole twin trainer. These will be powered by an engine design that started life as a Mercedes car engine and was adapted for aviation by Thielert, which was bought out of bankruptcy by Continental. It is an obviously great idea that has never made any money. Keep this in mind (and your checkbook closed) if you ever hear an aviation business idea pitch!

Full post, including comments

New Age Exploitation

“Do You Know Where Your Healing Crystals Come From?” (New Republic):

After three record-breaking hurricanes hammered America last year, the influential spiritual healer Heather Askinosie wrote a blog post for the Earth. “The recent barrage of megastorms we’ve witnessed has inspired some sobering reflections on the effects we are having on our planet,” she wrote on Mindbodygreen.com, a lifestyle site with millions of followers. “So what can we do to show our love and appreciation for the role that Earth plays in our lives?”

The answer, she wrote, can be found in healing crystals.

Askinosie cited three naturally occurring minerals to help readers “connect to the Earth you’re fighting to protect.” Jasper can “help you gain a broader awareness of your personal impact.” Clear quartz is a “perfect crystal for plotting out new beginnings.” And bloodstone—which is a dark green with red splatters—“helps you to see how essential the fate of the earth is, and take your intention seriously.”

I tried to track down the sources of crystals sold on popular websites. I found that some were mined in countries with notoriously lax labor and environmental regulations, and some came from large-scale U.S. mines that have contaminated ecosystems and drinking water.

Crystal sellers don’t want to talk about where their products come from. Goop, actress Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle company, didn’t respond to requests for comment about the eight small healing crystals in its $85 “medicine bag” or its $84 water bottle containing “an obelisk-like amethyst crystal to infuse water with positive energy.”

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, children as young as seven work the mines, and cobalt and copper mines in the country’s Katanga region are rich in minerals like tourmaline, amethyst, citrine, blue and smoky quartz—all coveted by healing crystal sellers.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Economics lesson from McKinsey regarding the homeless in Seattle

From the Seattle Times:

Seattle and King County could make the homelessness services system run like a fined-tuned machine, but without dramatically increasing the region’s supply of affordable housing options, solving the region’s homelessness crisis is all but impossible.

That is the central finding of a new, independent analysis of King County’s homelessness crisis by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, which produced the report pro bono for the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

The report estimates King County is short up to 14,000 units affordable for people experiencing homelessness. Because of the gap, and the rising numbers of people who are homeless, annual spending — public, private or both — needs to double to $410 million if the problem is to be solved, according to the report.

And that’s only if the annual rate of people becoming homeless doesn’t increase.

“This is a supply-side issue,” said Dilip Wagle, a McKinsey senior partner based in Seattle. “We are just running out of affordable housing units.”

So the great minds behind Enron have come up with a system in which they will offer free housing in one of the world’s most desirable places to live. World and U.S. population will continue to boom, yet the $410 million per year in free housing isn’t likely to be oversubscribed:

Some corporations keen to alleviate homelessness in their local communities already fund emergency shelters. These are crucial. But they are not a long-term solution. Affordable housing is.

The McKinsey geniuses don’t answer the question that always strikes me when I’m in Seattle and I see homeless folks camping in the cold rain: Since these unfortunate souls don’t have a job or a house, why don’t most of them move to Santa Monica and camp in a warm dry climate?

(I don’t think the answer is “Washington State provides more generous welfare benefits than California”; CATO Institute’s Work v. Welfare analysis in 2013 found that collecting welfare in California was worth 96.5 percent of the state’s median salary while in Washington State it was worth only 72 percent (see Table 4).)

Seattle does have a new “head tax” on companies such as Amazon that use office buildings within the city limits. This is supposed to be what funds the new construction of apartments for the currently “homeless.” Most of heads being taxed, presumably, commute in from the suburbs because they can’t afford prime urban residential real estate in a walkable neighborhood. This commute will have them spending 1-2 hours every day in some of the nation’s worst traffic. By contrast, people who haven’t worked for years or decades will be living in the desirable central city. Once this situation is fully developed, I would love to see the commuting suburban wage slaves call themselves smarter than the newly-housed urban “homeless”!

Full post, including comments

Who watched the royal wedding?

Readers whose TV choices are not constrained by the viewing demands of toddlers: Did you watch the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? If so, what happened?

The Wikipedia page on Ms. Markle is revealing of American attitudes. Regarding Ms. Markle’s first marriage, it says “[she and Trevor Engelson] divorced in August 2013,” implying that it was a mutual decision and action. Or perhaps it was a natural phenomenon, like a rain shower, that affected them both. Here’s a Reuters/nytimes example: “In 2011, she married film producer Trevor Engelson but they divorced two years later.” Buzzfeed: They filed for divorce citing ‘irreconcilable differences’ in August 2013.”

In fact, it seems that Ms. Markle sued her husband. See, for example, “Is THIS the real reason Meghan Markle divorced her first husband Trevor Engelson?” (Express):

MEGHAN Markle became so addicted to fame that when she finally hit the big time as an actress on Suits, she divorced her first husband and sent him the wedding ring back in the post, according to a bombshell report.

Mr Engelson’s uncle, Mickey Miles Felton, 73, said the family knows the reason behind her decision to divorce Mr Engelson, but they do not want to disclose it.

The bombshell story paints Meghan, 36, as a social climber determined to get to the top no matter what.

When the royal bride-to-be met Mr Engelson, the then 28-year-old was already a film producer and agent while she was a 23-year-old actress fresh out of theatre school. … They quickly moved in together in Los Angeles and she started getting more parts and auditions.

At the time of the lawsuit it seems that Ms. Markle was more successful financially than her husband/defendant. Thus the divorce petition (a “complaint” in more traditional states) does not ask for alimony (see RADAR and also California family law). Had the decision been mutual, presumably the not-so-happy couple would have filed a California form FL-800, Joint Petition for Summary Dissolution.

What can we make of this choice of bride? The Prince is 33 and presumably will want to have children. The American divorce court veteran is 36, nearing the end of her fertility. Let’s say that the newlyweds enjoy a two-year infant-free honeymoon. Now the Princess is 38. Will my jet-owning fertility doctor friends be practicing the London City Airport steep approach in the sim and then flying over to practice their trade?

Folks expect the marriage to endure under the theory that “She sued the first husband so she would never do that again to a second husband”? Both Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are children of divorced parents and, statistically, such children are at least 1.5X more likely to get divorced than children from intact homes (PyschCentral).

Related:

  • Real World Divorce on UK law, which does not enforce prenuptial agreements and allows a plaintiff to collect a 50 percent share of premarital property after only a year or two of marriage
Full post, including comments

Metropolitan Opera is finished financially?

“Met Opera Accuses James Levine of Decades of Sexual Misconduct” (nytimes) is a twist on the usual sex-at-work litigation:

Two months ago, the conductor James Levine, having been fired by the Metropolitan Opera for sexual misconduct, sued the company for breach of contract and defamation. Now the Met is suing him back, arguing in court papers filed on Friday that Mr. Levine harmed the company, and detailing previously unreported accusations of sexual harassment and abuse against him.

The filing paints the clearest picture yet of the investigation that led the Met to dismiss Mr. Levine, its longtime music director and its artistic backbone for more than four decades. The company says it found credible evidence that Mr. Levine had “used his reputation and position of power to prey upon and abuse artists,” citing examples of sexual misconduct that it says occurred from the 1970s through 1999, but does not name the victims.

The Met’s suit says that the company “has and will continue to incur significant reputational and economic harm as a result of the publicity associated with Levine’s misconduct.” The company was already in a difficult financial position before the scandal broke, battling the high costs of putting on grand opera amid a box office slump.

On Friday, Moody’s Investors Service Inc., the credit rating agency, downgraded the Met’s bonds to Baa2 from Baa1, citing its “thin liquidity and the fact that it has not yet been able to reach its endowment fund-raising targets combined with ongoing labor costs pressures and capital needs.” One of the Met’s strengths, it noted, was its strong donor support, which the company relies on.

Why would anyone give the Met money now? If Michigan State had to pay out $500 million recently (see Michigan State settlement means that we will start to see inflation from #MeToo?) and the Met has only $200 million in net assets, isn’t the enterprise already insolvent? A donation today will simply go to a plaintiff who says that he was abused by James Levine and the management knew or should have known about it. (Or maybe the management is being careful not to investigate anything that happened unless the statute of limitations has run?)

Is it possible that this opera company will actually die before its audience does? Or can they go Chapter 11 and ditch their pension obligations (pension for a $310,000/year stagehand cannot be cheap!) as well as the long tail of sex-related liability?

Related:

Full post, including comments