Union jobs are great, but try to pick the right union

Continuing the Happy Labor Day theme…

At a social gathering that included musicians from America’s top symphony orchestras, I learned from a Los Angeles Philharmonic member that Gustavo Dudamel‘s star power is earned (“he’s inspiring”), though Esa-Pekka Salonen was more technically accomplished. A New York Philharmonic member described a project in which the 160 union musicians received “slightly less” total cash than the 5 stagehands required. (The stagehands set up the chairs, music stands, etc.) “The senior stagehands make $550,000 a year,” he explained.

Were the musicians envious of the stagehands’ higher compensation? No. “They should get as much as they can,” said one. The musicians did not see themselves as being in competition with the stagehands for slices of their orchestras’ total income (ticket revenue, charitable donations, etc.).

Full post, including comments

Awesome New York Times day for computer-helicopter nerds

Yesterday was a great one, unlikely to be repeated, for computer and helicopter nerds. The front page of the New York Times carried

I would have been able to die happy if they’d also run a Canon versus Nikon piece…

Full post, including comments

How to get out of jury duty in Massachusetts

Happy Labor Day!

What if you’ve been called to jury duty and want to labor instead, like a friend’s busy MD/PhD wife? The husband’s advice: “Told her to wear a Trump shirt there.”

Is that permissible? The rules:

Is there a dress code for jury duty?
Performing jury duty is a serious obligation, and people reporting for jury duty should dress in a manner that indicates respect for the court and the people who are relying on the jury to resolve their disputes. While there is no specific dress code, in general you should avoid clothing that is excessively casual, revealing, or in bad condition when you report for jury service. If you are impaneled on a case, the judge may give you additional guidance on appropriate dress for a sitting juror.

Readers: Would it work? And Happy Labor Day! If you do have jury duty next week, I hope that it is an interesting case.

Related:

  • How to escape participation in a Gay Pride parade? Say that you support the cause, but want to be on a Gays for Trump float. (NBC)
Full post, including comments

Labor until you are at least 70

I told my friend Mark about MIT giving us 1982ers a lecture on Social Security (see Social Security: How do you run a retirement system for people who spend like drug dealers?) and he said “You have to read Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security

I’ll try to write a little more about this book, but for this Labor Day Weekend, let me summarize the message: Keep laboring until you’re at least 70.

Some excerpts:

Social Security is, far and away, Americans’ most important retirement asset. And that’s true not only for people of modest means. Middle-income and upper-income households actually have the most to gain, in total amounts, from getting Social Security right. Toting up lifetime benefits, even low-earning couples may be Social Security millionaires.

In the longevity sphere, the worst-case scenario is, to reiterate, living too long—living to your maximum possible age of life, and, as a result, outliving your savings and income. Social Security provides insurance against this worst-case scenario. This insurance is safe against inflation and against default. It’s also dirt cheap. There is no close substitute for it in the market.

The three of us were taken aback by the numbers in the far right-hand column of this table. A minuscule 1 to 3 percent of people wait until 70 to take their Social Security retirement benefit—when it’s 76 percent larger than at 62 and 32 percent larger than at 66.

Our point is simply this: if you haven’t saved enough by the time you approach retirement, voluntary or in voluntary, the last thing you should do is claim early, thereby depriving your future self of even more savings for old age. We repeat the key number from the last chapter: the difference between taking your benefits at age 62 and waiting until 70 for a couple can be worth as much as $400,000 in savings.

By being patient and taking your Social Security retirement benefit at age 70, you get guaranteed benefits that are 76 percent higher than those at age 62. (This deal’s not quite as good for those born after 1954.)

The bad news is that the system overall is more complex than Americans can understand:

At the surface level, Social Security is complex because it has so many seemingly crazy rules. At a deeper level, its complexity reflects social policy that, when translated into practice, produces results that often defy common sense. An example is paying survivor benefits, based on the work records of ex-spouses, to the divorced who remarry, but only if they remarry after reaching age 60. Get remarried at 59 and 364 days and you’re out of luck. Another perversity is paying benefits to mothers (or fathers) of young children if their spouse is collecting retirement benefits, but only if the parents are married. If the parents are divorced and under 62, too bad. The result is a government retirement system that few if any can decipher without the kind of help provided here.

You can pay Social Security taxes on every penny you earn and end up with no more benefits than someone who never worked a lick. Thanks to Social Security’s spousal and survivor benefits, spouses who don’t work and never did can receive benefits—reasonably large ones, even—based purely on their living or dead or ex-spouse’s earnings record. Yet if you’re a spouse or ex-spouse who did work and paid Social Security taxes year after year, you may end up with no extra benefits than had you never worked at all.

Employees of the Social Security Administration themselves cannot understand the laws and regulations:

[from one author] Our Social Security system is a disgrace, not in its objectives or in the tremendous help it has provided older people over the years, but in the way it’s been designed and the way it’s been financed. Its complexity is beyond belief. The formula for the Social Security benefits of a married spouse involves ten complex mathematical functions, one of which is in four dimensions! It leads all kinds of people to make all kinds of mistakes in deciding when to take benefits and what benefits to take. And the good folks at Social Security will far too often tell you things that are one hundred percent untrue with one hundred and fifty percent conviction.

Even if you ask Social Security to do things that are perfectly legal, you may run into a brick wall. One lady, whom we’ll call Johanna, took her retirement benefit at 63. When Johanna, who never married, turned 66 in 2015, she called Social Security’s 800 number five times and spoke to five different staffers. Each time she told them that she wanted to suspend her retirement benefit and restart it at 70. Each time she was told that she wasn’t allowed to do so. A couple of the staffers told her she would have been able to do so had she requested a suspension at 66 back when she filed for her early retirement benefit at 63. Johanna was perfectly within her rights to request a retirement benefit suspension upon reaching FRA. The law could not be plainer on this point. Nor is there anything in the law remotely suggesting one needs to request benefit suspension before reaching FRA. And now for the rest of the story. Johanna contacted Larry, who asked her to go to her local office. (He also let a very senior official at Social Security know they should send a notice to all staff about her right to suspend. He has no idea if that happened.) In any case, Johanna went to her local office and the staffer (we’ll call him Ed) with whom she met told her she couldn’t suspend. She showed Ed our book, pointing out the section that discussed suspending your retirement benefit. Ed looked at the book, handed it back, and said, no, she couldn’t suspend. Johanna asked Ed how long he’d worked at Social Security. Six months was the answer. Was Ed sure about his information? Yes, he was sure. Johanna insisted Ed check with his supervisor. Ed went to the back of the office, spent a few minutes, returned, and told Johanna that he, Ed, was right. She couldn’t suspend. Johanna asked to speak to the supervisor. The supervisor, whom we’ll call Gloria, came over and also told Johanna, this time very firmly, that she could not suspend. Johanna asked for her name and phone number, left the office, and then reconnected with Larry. Larry was aghast. “This is seven people in a row who didn’t know about suspending retirement benefits. Unbelievable!” It was Friday evening, but Larry called the number and left a message on Gloria’s answering machine that he’d like to talk with her before his column appeared on Monday—a column that was going to recount Johanna’s experience at their office. Lo and behold, Larry received a call Saturday morning from the office’s director, whom we’ll call Stan. They had a nice chat. Stan said he’d worked for Social Security for 30 years and had never heard about suspending benefits. But, he said, he’d check and call Larry back. Larry said great, but asked why he was working on Saturday. Stan said they were understaffed and swamped. Two hours later, Stan called back, and said his office had made a mistake. Johanna could, indeed, suspend and they had called her and were going to do the paperwork with her on Monday. Larry thanked Stan. But Stan was the eighth person in a row who had known nothing—or the wrong thing—about suspending benefits. The lesson here is that you need to tell Social Security what to do, not ask them. And if they deny you your legal rights, shop around for a Social Security staffer who knows her stuff.

So… even if you’re young, I’ll agree with my friend Mark: “You have to read Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security

Related:

Full post, including comments

Happy Labor Day Weekend: maybe it is better to refrain from labor

“Is Any Job Really Better Than No Job? Being out of work seems to hurt health, but so do jobs that are stressful and unrewarding.” (Atlantic) suggests that Americans who choose a lifetime of welfare (means-tested housing, means-tested health insurance, food stamps, Obamaphone, etc.) are likely rational.

So Happy Labor Day Weekend, but a lot of us should not be working!

Related:

Full post, including comments

Preschool Application Questions

Happy Back to School!

A Brooklyn-dwelling friend with a 2-year-old sent me these preschool application questions, from three different schools:

Why are you interested in Brooklyn *** School for your child and what benefits do you[?] expect to gain from this educational experience?

Is there any other information you would like us to know in order to fully understand your child or family?

Please describe your child’s physical, cognitive, and social development.

How did you come to apply to Brooklyn *** School and how do you see our program meeting your family’s needs?

What are the qualities that you believe to be essential in a good education? How do these qualities encourage your child to engage in the learning process?

In your understanding of your child’s temperament and interests, briefly describe the school setting in which you feel your child would function most effectively. Is there anything about your child that you would like to see the teachers thinking about?

Describe your child’s social life (i.e. playdates, park, playground, family, etc.).

Please tell us what you are looking for in a school

He didn’t say to what extent the 2-year-old contributed to the essay answers…

Full post, including comments

Dying without self-pity at age 39

“The Bright Hour: A Memoir of Living and Dying” was published posthumously by Nina Riggs, a woman who died at 39. Her genetic legacy included writing talent:

My great-grandparents on my dad’s side are Emersons, and [Ralph Waldo Emerson] is my great-great-great grandfather.

It also included what can only be called “white privilege,” e.g., the closely-knit extended family of aunts, uncles, and cousins who’d built successful lives, the multi-million dollar family beachfront retreat on Cape Cod, etc. But the heritage is not all positive:

“My paternal grandfather had breast cancer.” That tends to make whoever is charting my medical history look up. “He had a radical mastectomy in the 1970s. And his sister had it, too—she died in her fifties. And one of his nieces. And his daughter—my aunt.” I’m sitting in the genetic counselor’s office as she madly sketches out my family tree on a sheet of paper. There are squares and circles, the cancer victims marked with X’s. Lots of X’s. On my mom’s side: cancer in both her parents, although not breast. An early melanoma in her sister. And less than six months after this conversation, my mom herself will be dead from a blood cancer called multiple myeloma.

Her son also carries some unfortunate genes:

“I really wish I didn’t have to say this, so try not to freak out.” “Okay,” I say again. “I think Freddy has developed diabetes.” John has been a type-one diabetic for nearly twenty years. They said it’s not genetic. . . . “Okay.” I absolutely cannot think of one other thing to say. “I noticed he was drinking a lot from the water fountain at the library, and it reminded me of when I was diagnosed. So I tested his blood sugar on my meter. It’s off the charts.”

If you want to know how a nation can spend nearly 20 percent of its GDP on health care…

First ultrasound ever: I’m sixteen weeks pregnant. The darkened room, John standing at my side. We’re watching the tech—then a doctor who enters from another room, then another doctor—wade again and again into the ocean of my belly, find our growing boy there—his spine curving like driftwood, his thunderous heart. It’s the strangest thing we’ve ever seen. We can’t stop watching the screen/ ocean. Him. But they’re taking too many pictures. Too many measurements. His feet. His legs. His brain. His heart. His feet again. No one is talking at all, until suddenly someone says, “Well, I guess by now you know something is not quite right.”

Talipes equinovarus, they tell us after the scan—club foot.

Later at home, John bans me from obsessing on the Internet, but agrees to read me a list of people he finds born with club feet. It turns out it’s not just obscure, misanthropic rulers. There are athletes on the list: Troy Aikman. Kristi Yamaguchi. Mia Hamm. Freddy Sanchez—who won the batting title in 2006 for John’s hometown team, the Pittsburgh Pirates, and for whom the shapes in the ultrasound-verse will soon be named. Eight years later—leg casts, orthotic brace, surgery—we watch him round the bases, slide into third.

[Regarding the author’s mother] Eight years of cancer. They told her she had five years when she was first diagnosed. New drugs keep coming though, and some of them have worked—for a time. A stem cell transplant. Chemo. She got to see my brother get married and watch my kids grow. Multiple hospitalizations, endless courses of steroids, blood and platelet transfusions, five bone marrow biopsies, daily debilitating nausea and diarrhea, three failed clinical trials. She’s been keeping track: five days of not feeling well to every two where she’s basically okay.

Those of us whose health problems are minor are a significant annoyance:

My friend Ginny who lives down in Charleston has the same kind of breast cancer as I do, and we like to text each other with ideas for a line of morbid prefab cancer patient thank-you cards to real and imaginary people that Ginny calls the “casserole bitches.” She’s a trust and estates lawyer, so she’s an expert in casserole bitches and their eyelash batting.

I text Ginny: “You are fully entitled to slap the next person who tells you that God only gives us what we can handle.”

One day Ginny texts: “Here’s a new card for our collection [thank-you cards for helpful female friends and neighbors]: Thanks so much for coming to visit and fucking my husband. I needed a divorce to keep my mind off cancer.” The visitor in question is one of her close friends from college who has come to help take care of her during chemo. A new level of casserole bitch. She catches them in the living room one night when she gets up to get a glass of water. Ginny goes into lawyer-warrior mode. She makes them sign affidavits before they even get up from the fold-out sofa. [reference: South Carolina family law]

[after the author’s mother dies from her cancer] Ginny writes: “It’s such bullshit that there are plenty of Joan Crawfords and assholes like my husband running around among us and your mom is not.”

On being a dying parent:

Downstairs, the boys gaze at a screen on the old futon in the playroom. We will figure out what to do about them soon enough. They probably already know what’s up and are waiting for us to figure out how to say it. Their very existence is the one dark piece I cannot get right within all this. I can let go of a lot of things: plans, friends, career goals, places in the world I want to see, maybe even the love of my life. But I cannot figure out how to let go of mothering them.

A retired rabbi—the friend of a friend—writes me an email out of the blue about how he lost his mother when he was nine years old. In the message, he lists all the things he remembers about his mom and all the ways she remains in his life: her favorite flower, the books she read him, her sense of humor. “She is far from a hole in my life. She is an enormous presence that can never be replaced.” His words are a gift that I pull out some nights and let swirl through the room, brush over my skin like a tincture.

In the book, but off-topic: Don’t open your home to pit bull mixes:

Charlie and Amelia have just arrived in town. They’ve decided to escape the Western Mass winter and come live down here for a little while at my dad’s house while Charlie works on finishing his dissertation. They have a new dog—Luna—a young, bouncy pit mix that likes to get in the middle of everything. She hardly ever stops moving, and she’s still recovering from a run-in over the summer in the woods with a skunk. Charlie and Amelia can barely control her. The second night after they move into town, Luna and my Dad’s geriatric fat beagle Clyde get into a nasty fight over some food, and Luna rips Clyde’s face up pretty badly: chunks of flesh torn from his snout. [Clyde has to be euthanized.]

What do we share with cancer patients?

I am reminded of an image that one of my cousins—a woman who lost her husband to a swift and brutal cancer last year—suggested to me recently over email: that living with a terminal disease is like walking on a tightrope over an insanely scary abyss. But that living without disease is also like walking on a tightrope over an insanely scary abyss, only with some fog or cloud cover obscuring the depths a bit more—sometimes the wind blowing it off a little, sometimes a nice dense cover.

A tough philosophy to embrace, but perhaps necessary:

It’s past midnight, and we’re lying in bed. “I just can’t wait for things to get back to normal,” says John from his side of the moon. “I can’t handle you saying that,” I say after a silence, even though I know he isn’t trying to fight. “Thinking that way kind of invalidates my whole life right now. I have to love these days in the same way I love any other. There might not be a ‘normal’ from here on out.”

More: Read “The Bright Hour: A Memoir of Living and Dying”.

Full post, including comments

Did my lens die at Burning Man?

I’m trying to figure out if a Sony 16-70/4 zoom lens died during Douchebags in the Desert (a.k.a. “Burning Man”). I used it to take most of the photos linked from http://philip.greenspun.com/travel/burning-man and then had a local camera repair shop take it apart to clean out the dust.

Since then I’ve occasionally noticed some hard-to-explain softness in some images. I did some brick wall test images (you can download the full res) wide open at f/4 and also one stop down at f/5.6, both with a sufficiently high shutter speed to ensure no camera shake.

What’s a good way to test this suspect system?

Full post, including comments

What can we do to help Houstonians?

None of my friends or even friends of friends in Houston have suffered significant home damage from the flooding, but the situation there is obviously about as bad as the worst-case predictions (see this ArsTechnica article).

Back in 2011 I wrote Japan Relief: Idea #1 (buy a knife):

The Japanese are an organized, skilled, reasonably rich, and generous people, so I don’t think that they need more in the way of donations to recover from the tsunami. What can we do for the Japanese then? Buy their exports. Over the next year or so, I’m going to suggest some things that we might ordinarily buy from other sources that we can instead buy from Japanese companies.

I’m wondering if the same reasoning can apply to Houston.

The Wikipedia list of companies headquartered in Houston suggests that most of us are probably already consuming products from Houston and that it wouldn’t be possible to consume more without wasting fossil fuels. Still, perhaps we could preferentially buy gasoline from Phillips 66, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Citgo (owned by Venezuela and a donor to President Trump’s inauguration!). We could throw ourselves into the waters off the U.K. and let search-and-rescue contractor Bristow pick us up. When booking flights (maybe not for next week) we could choose to connect through Houston. We can buy our next car from a Group 1 Automotive dealer. We can eat at a Luby’s, Fuddruckers, or Cheeseburger in Paradise restaurant or, if touched by the gourmet spirit, at a Pappas restaurant. Top executive somewhere? Outsource a bunch of stuff to Aon Hewitt. Or get some enterprise software from BMC.

Readers: Other ideas? What can we do to help Houston recover?

A sad situation, but being sad and “sending positive vibes” via Facebook doesn’t seem as likely to help as being a customer.

Full post, including comments