Tag: posts

‘Checks for All’ Prioritized Over Unemployment Benefits in Latest COVID-19 Relief Bill

MitchMcConnell

Congress is inching closer to an agreement on a compromise COVID-19 relief package that will include renewed federal unemployment benefits and another round of checks being sent to all Americans.

On Wednesday, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) urged his Republican colleagues to pass a relief bill that includes one-time checks of either $600 or $700, in part to shore up public support for GOP candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R–Ga.) and David Perdue (R–Ga.) in Georgia’s January runoff election, reports The New York Times.

A vote on this package could come as early as Friday. That’s the same day that Congress will have to pass a funding bill for federal agencies in order to avoid a government shutdown. The final price tag for this second relief bill is currently estimated at $908 billion.

In order to cover the cost of relief checks—a policy goal that’s attracted support from as diverse a duo as Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—lawmakers have decided to go with a less generous extension of federal unemployment benefits.

HuffPost reports that the new bill will provide jobless workers with an additional $300 a week in expanded federal unemployment benefits for three months, instead of the four months included in a bipartisan relief bill from earlier this week that’s serving as the basis for negotiations.

That $300 a week amount would equate to your average out-of-work person making roughly the same as if they were still working.

Trimming back unemployment benefits in favor of relief checks for the gainfully employed has sparked criticism in some quarters. “There’s no reason whatsoever to pay for relief checks by cutting the incomes of jobless workers,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) told HuffPost.

Meanwhile, some progressives in Congress are pretty miffed that these relief payments will only be $600 or $700, not the $1,200 that had passed as part of the CARES Act back in March. The Washington Post reports that Sanders could potentially grind the whole deal over the reduced checks.

Also included in this latest relief package is another $300 billion in aid to small businesses, $25 billion in assistance to emergency housing assistance, and a month-long extension of the federal eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That mortarium expires at the end of the year.

FREE MARKETS

The ever-pernicious Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared Abbott Laboratories’ rapid COVID-19 test, which costs $5 and can deliver results in minutes, for at-home use. That would be great news but for all the strings the FDA has attached to this approval.

Patients will still need to get a prescription for these at-home tests. They’ll also have to pay an additional $20 for a virtual appointment with a doctor who will supervise them administering the test.

Neither of those conditions makes any sense whatsoever, as the Cato Institute’s Jeffrey A. Singer wrote in November:

Forcing people to get a prescription for the at‐​home COVID test burdens them with the expense in time and money of going to a doctor’s office to get the prescription when they don’t even need the doctor to perform the test. It also subjects them to the risk of contracting COVID, if they don’t already have it, from other patients in the waiting room or lobby. In short, it erases many advantages of an at‐​home test.

The added cost and hassle of actually using these at-home tests will inevitably dissuade some people from getting tested altogether. That means more uninfected folks will needlessly isolate themselves, or people who unknowingly have the virus will go about their business as usual. Neither outcome is great for those who are eager to safely and quickly return to normal life.

LOCKDOWNS

The state government in Victoria, Australia imposed some of the most draconian lockdown restrictions in the developed world. A new state government report has criticized that harsh policy for violating the rights of public housing residents.

Reports The New York Times:

The sudden lockdown this summer of nine public housing towers in Melbourne that left 3,000 people without adequate food and medication and access to fresh air during the city’s second coronavirus wave breached human rights laws, an investigation found.

The report, released on Thursday by the ombudsman in the state of Victoria, of which Melbourne is the capital, said that the residents had been effectively placed under house arrest for 14 days in July without warning.

QUICK HITS

  • Greg Braxton of the Los Angeles Times is concerned that not enough Christmas movies this year are about the deadly pandemic we’ve suffered through for the past nine months.
  • Are airports romantic? The Washington Post says yes.
  • The Irish government is planning to criminalize sharing very vaguely defined “hate speech” on social media.

  • Regulations are preventing Portland’s food carts from reopening during the pandemic.
  • Sheep have taken control of a city hall in Nevsehir, Turkey. Let’s hope they don’t ram through baaaad legislation that fleeces taxpayers.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3p4VIHJ
via IFTTT

Motion to Seal the Saudi Crown Prince’s WhatsApp Number

There’s something you don’t see every day; looks reasonable to me as a legal matter, but struck me as worth noting. The underlying case is Oueiss v. Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, No. 1:20-cv-25022 (S.D. Fla.), a case in which plaintiff, an Al Jazeera anchor, alleges a conspiracy to hack, libel, and more. From Bloomberg:

An Al Jazeera news anchor sued the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for allegedly hacking into her phone and stealing and doctoring images to disparage and intimidate her on social media.

Ghada Oueiss claims she was a target of the harassment because of her reporting on human rights abuses, according to her complaint filed on Wednesday [Dec. 9, 2020] in Miami federal court. Her suit names Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the UAE as defendants, as well as other officials and agents of those nations….

Here’s an excerpt from the motion to seal:

Given the anticipated difficulties of effecting service on certain Defendants, … Plaintiff has filed the Ex Parte Motion, in which Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to serve MBS [Mohammed Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud], MBZ, al Bannai, Al Qahtani, Al-Asaker, DarkMatter, MiSK, Zeinab, al Otaibi, Al Menaia, Al-Owerde (together, the “Foreign Defendants”) via alternative means pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).

In support of the Ex Parte Motion, and for the Court’s ease of reference, Plaintiff
intends to file Exhibit “K” to the Declaration of Daniel Rashbaum [D.E. 5-1], which is a chart containing the relevant addresses (physical, email, social media) at which Plaintiff proposes she be permitted to serve each of the Foreign Defendants.

Among the alternative means proposed in the Ex Parte Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to serve MBS via WhatsApp, and Plaintiff therefore intends to include MBS’s WhatsApp number in Exhibit “K.”

Given that MBS is the current Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however, his WhatsApp telephone number is highly sensitive information that is not in the public domain….

Plaintiff requests that she be permitted to preserve the confidentiality of MBS’s WhatsApp telephone number by filing Exhibit “K” under seal.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38cSfQr
via IFTTT

Motion to Seal the Saudi Crown Prince’s WhatsApp Number

There’s something you don’t see every day; looks reasonable to me as a legal matter, but struck me as worth noting. The underlying case is Oueiss v. Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, No. 1:20-cv-25022 (S.D. Fla.), a case in which plaintiff, an Al Jazeera anchor, alleges a conspiracy to hack, libel, and more. From Bloomberg:

An Al Jazeera news anchor sued the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for allegedly hacking into her phone and stealing and doctoring images to disparage and intimidate her on social media.

Ghada Oueiss claims she was a target of the harassment because of her reporting on human rights abuses, according to her complaint filed on Wednesday [Dec. 9, 2020] in Miami federal court. Her suit names Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the UAE as defendants, as well as other officials and agents of those nations….

Here’s an excerpt from the motion to seal:

Given the anticipated difficulties of effecting service on certain Defendants, … Plaintiff has filed the Ex Parte Motion, in which Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to serve MBS [Mohammed Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud], MBZ, al Bannai, Al Qahtani, Al-Asaker, DarkMatter, MiSK, Zeinab, al Otaibi, Al Menaia, Al-Owerde (together, the “Foreign Defendants”) via alternative means pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).

In support of the Ex Parte Motion, and for the Court’s ease of reference, Plaintiff
intends to file Exhibit “K” to the Declaration of Daniel Rashbaum [D.E. 5-1], which is a chart containing the relevant addresses (physical, email, social media) at which Plaintiff proposes she be permitted to serve each of the Foreign Defendants.

Among the alternative means proposed in the Ex Parte Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to serve MBS via WhatsApp, and Plaintiff therefore intends to include MBS’s WhatsApp number in Exhibit “K.”

Given that MBS is the current Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however, his WhatsApp telephone number is highly sensitive information that is not in the public domain….

Plaintiff requests that she be permitted to preserve the confidentiality of MBS’s WhatsApp telephone number by filing Exhibit “K” under seal.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38cSfQr
via IFTTT

Lawyers: Happier but More Prone to Alcohol Abuse Than We Thought?

In our last post, we explained how previous ad hoc studies of lawyer mental health are flawed and how the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the “trusted gold standard” of public health data, measures prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse more accurately. In this post and our article, we explore what the NHIS sample tells us about lawyers’ mental health and alcohol abuse.

Mental Health

The NHIS measures mental health with the Kessler 6 screening scale (K6). The K6 score has been extensively validated as a reliable indicator of acute mental illness. Participants are asked six questions about their mental health, and their responses to each question are given a value from zero to four and then summed. A total K6 score equal to or above five indicates that the respondent is suffering from moderate or serious mental illness, while a K6 score equal to or above 13 indicates serious mental illness. Here, “serious mental illness” means meeting the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder (other than a substance use disorder) within the last year and suffering serious impairment (defined using the Global Assessment of Functioning scale). Those with moderate mental illness do not meet the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder but report other worrisome characteristics, such as life impairment and increased visits to a mental health care professional.

A cursory look at the NHIS sample shows that lawyers reported much lower incidences of mental illness, both moderate and serious, than the entire sample. Although 3.7 percent of the entire sample reported serious mental illness, only 0.7 percent of lawyers did so. Similarly, 12.8 percent of the entire sample reported moderate or serious mental illness, compared to 6.4 percent for lawyers. These differences are statistically significant. Further, reported mental illness among lawyers was no worse than that of medical professionals.

Figure 1. Serious mental illness among population with BA or less, medical professionals, and lawyers.

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 2. Moderate or serious mental illness among population with BA or less, medical professionals, and lawyers.

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Other studies, including the one relied upon by the ABA National Task Force on Lawyer Well Being, “found that younger lawyers in the first ten years of practice and those working in private firms experience the highest rates of . . . depression.” The NHIS data suggest otherwise: differences in mental illness between lawyers younger than 40 and their older peers were not significant, nor were differences between lawyers working in private firms and those working in-house or for the government.

Many have argued that lawyers in large law firms are particularly prone to mental illness. To probe this hypothesis, we broke down incidences of mental illness among lawyers working at law firms of different sizes. We defined small firms as having fewer than 10 employees, mid-size firms as having between 10 and 99 employees, large firms having between 100 and 499 employees, and very-large firms having 500 or more employees. Lawyers at large or very-large firms reported a lower incidence of serious mental illness than their counterparts at smaller firms, significant at the 0.1 percent level. Differences in rates of moderate or serious illness were not significant. That said, at this level of granularity, sample sizes become so small that the results should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, no lawyers in the NHIS sample at large or very large firms reported K6 scores indicating serious mental illness.

Figure 3. Lawyers with serious mental illness by firm size

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 4. Lawyers with moderate or serious mental illness by firm size

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Relying on surveys of volunteer respondents with low response rates renders any analysis of time-trends in lawyer well-being tenuous. If we compare very different surveys conducted in different years, then any observed trends may be attributed to genuine trends or to differences in survey methodology or response rates. It is therefore not surprising that longitudinal analysis of lawyer well-being is exceedingly rare. Relying on the NHIS data to study lawyer well-being, by contrast, allows us to study trends over time because the NHIS uses a common survey methodology over many years. Looking over time suggests that incidence of serious mental illness among lawyers declined slightly from 2004 to 2017, while the incidence of moderate or serious mental illness stayed relatively constant.

Figure 5. Fraction with serious mental illness over time

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

Figure 6. Fraction with moderate or serious mental illness over time

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

The NHIS data suggests that lawyers’ mental health is actually better than the general population’s, and no worse than that of medical professionals.

Alcohol Abuse

Problematic drinking data among lawyers presents a grimmer picture. Using a Center for Disease Control definition of excessive alcohol consumption—drinking five or more drinks on twelve or more days a year—reveals rampant alcohol abuse among lawyers in the NHIS sample compared to similarly educated professionals. Eleven percent of lawyers reported excessive alcohol consumption. Although only slightly higher than the overall NHIS population incidence, this figure is more than twice as much as the excess alcohol fraction reported by other similarly educated professionals such as doctors and dentists. This difference is significant at the 99% level.

Figure 7. Fraction Consuming Excess Alcohol

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

Demographic and firm data provide additional nuance. We found that lawyers at large (100-499 employee) and very large (500+ employee) firms reported much higher rates of problematic drinking than other lawyers, although the difference is not statistically significant at the 5% level due to small sample sizes.  Further, male lawyers reported problematic drinking at 1.5 times the rate of their female counterparts, a difference significant at the 5 percent level.

Figure 8. Fraction of lawyers consuming excess alcohol by firm size

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 9. Population consuming excess alcohol by gender

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Although lawyers consume excess amounts of alcohol at much greater rates than similarly educated non-lawyers, the rate reported in the NHIS (11%) falls far short of the rates derived from the ABA/Hazelden survey, which “found that between 21 and 36 percent [of lawyers] qualify as problem drinkers.” That said, this may reflect the different instruments used to observe problematic drinking. The ABA/Hazelden survey used the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, “a 10-item self-report instrument developed by the World Health Organization to screen for hazardous use, harmful use, and the potential for alcohol dependence.”

Time trends in lawyer alcohol abuse are similarly concerning. Problematic drinking rates among lawyers in the sample increased considerably from 2004 to 2017. By contrast, problematic drinking rates for other educational and professional categories show milder increases. Doctors, dentists, and veterinarians, for example, report a relatively steady problematic drinking rate throughout the period. The dramatic increase in problematic drinking rates for lawyers during this period thus represents a potentially troubling development that is particular to law, although standard errors remain high due to relatively small sample sizes. Identifying this previously unstudied trend is an excellent example of the possibilities unlocked by using annually repeated surveys such as the NHIS to study lawyer well-being in place of more ad hoc studies, even if those studies have larger sample sizes.

Figure 10. Fraction of population with excessive drinking over time

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

Overall, then, alcohol abuse appears to be a particular problem for lawyers, and one that has recently grown much worse. Reformers should evaluate the role of drinking within legal culture and consider ideas for reducing alcohol’s role.

Even though lawyers do not report extraordinary levels of mental illness, mental health should remain a priority for the legal profession alongside limiting substance abuse. However methodologically sound and reliable, the NHIS offers a single source of data on lawyer mental illness with only nine hundred seventy-eight lawyer-observations. Moreover, the high rates of alcohol abuse reported by lawyers may indicate underlying mental health problems in the profession that are not well captured by K6 scores. To build more robust conclusions about mental health in the profession, we would ideally have more sources of data, including a large randomized survey of lawyers with high response rates. For the moment, however, the NHIS data suggests that the conventional wisdom of extraordinary rates of mental illness in the legal profession may be unwarranted.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mr3GZR
via IFTTT

Lawyers: Happier but More Prone to Alcohol Abuse Than We Thought?

In our last post, we explained how previous ad hoc studies of lawyer mental health are flawed and how the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the “trusted gold standard” of public health data, measures prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse more accurately. In this post and our article, we explore what the NHIS sample tells us about lawyers’ mental health and alcohol abuse.

Mental Health

The NHIS measures mental health with the Kessler 6 screening scale (K6). The K6 score has been extensively validated as a reliable indicator of acute mental illness. Participants are asked six questions about their mental health, and their responses to each question are given a value from zero to four and then summed. A total K6 score equal to or above five indicates that the respondent is suffering from moderate or serious mental illness, while a K6 score equal to or above 13 indicates serious mental illness. Here, “serious mental illness” means meeting the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder (other than a substance use disorder) within the last year and suffering serious impairment (defined using the Global Assessment of Functioning scale). Those with moderate mental illness do not meet the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder but report other worrisome characteristics, such as life impairment and increased visits to a mental health care professional.

A cursory look at the NHIS sample shows that lawyers reported much lower incidences of mental illness, both moderate and serious, than the entire sample. Although 3.7 percent of the entire sample reported serious mental illness, only 0.7 percent of lawyers did so. Similarly, 12.8 percent of the entire sample reported moderate or serious mental illness, compared to 6.4 percent for lawyers. These differences are statistically significant. Further, reported mental illness among lawyers was no worse than that of medical professionals.

Figure 1. Serious mental illness among population with BA or less, medical professionals, and lawyers.

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 2. Moderate or serious mental illness among population with BA or less, medical professionals, and lawyers.

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Other studies, including the one relied upon by the ABA National Task Force on Lawyer Well Being, “found that younger lawyers in the first ten years of practice and those working in private firms experience the highest rates of . . . depression.” The NHIS data suggest otherwise: differences in mental illness between lawyers younger than 40 and their older peers were not significant, nor were differences between lawyers working in private firms and those working in-house or for the government.

Many have argued that lawyers in large law firms are particularly prone to mental illness. To probe this hypothesis, we broke down incidences of mental illness among lawyers working at law firms of different sizes. We defined small firms as having fewer than 10 employees, mid-size firms as having between 10 and 99 employees, large firms having between 100 and 499 employees, and very-large firms having 500 or more employees. Lawyers at large or very-large firms reported a lower incidence of serious mental illness than their counterparts at smaller firms, significant at the 0.1 percent level. Differences in rates of moderate or serious illness were not significant. That said, at this level of granularity, sample sizes become so small that the results should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, no lawyers in the NHIS sample at large or very large firms reported K6 scores indicating serious mental illness.

Figure 3. Lawyers with serious mental illness by firm size

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 4. Lawyers with moderate or serious mental illness by firm size

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Relying on surveys of volunteer respondents with low response rates renders any analysis of time-trends in lawyer well-being tenuous. If we compare very different surveys conducted in different years, then any observed trends may be attributed to genuine trends or to differences in survey methodology or response rates. It is therefore not surprising that longitudinal analysis of lawyer well-being is exceedingly rare. Relying on the NHIS data to study lawyer well-being, by contrast, allows us to study trends over time because the NHIS uses a common survey methodology over many years. Looking over time suggests that incidence of serious mental illness among lawyers declined slightly from 2004 to 2017, while the incidence of moderate or serious mental illness stayed relatively constant.

Figure 5. Fraction with serious mental illness over time

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

Figure 6. Fraction with moderate or serious mental illness over time

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

The NHIS data suggests that lawyers’ mental health is actually better than the general population’s, and no worse than that of medical professionals.

Alcohol Abuse

Problematic drinking data among lawyers presents a grimmer picture. Using a Center for Disease Control definition of excessive alcohol consumption—drinking five or more drinks on twelve or more days a year—reveals rampant alcohol abuse among lawyers in the NHIS sample compared to similarly educated professionals. Eleven percent of lawyers reported excessive alcohol consumption. Although only slightly higher than the overall NHIS population incidence, this figure is more than twice as much as the excess alcohol fraction reported by other similarly educated professionals such as doctors and dentists. This difference is significant at the 99% level.

Figure 7. Fraction Consuming Excess Alcohol

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

Demographic and firm data provide additional nuance. We found that lawyers at large (100-499 employee) and very large (500+ employee) firms reported much higher rates of problematic drinking than other lawyers, although the difference is not statistically significant at the 5% level due to small sample sizes.  Further, male lawyers reported problematic drinking at 1.5 times the rate of their female counterparts, a difference significant at the 5 percent level.

Figure 8. Fraction of lawyers consuming excess alcohol by firm size

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 9. Population consuming excess alcohol by gender

Notes: With 95 percent confidence intervals.

Although lawyers consume excess amounts of alcohol at much greater rates than similarly educated non-lawyers, the rate reported in the NHIS (11%) falls far short of the rates derived from the ABA/Hazelden survey, which “found that between 21 and 36 percent [of lawyers] qualify as problem drinkers.” That said, this may reflect the different instruments used to observe problematic drinking. The ABA/Hazelden survey used the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, “a 10-item self-report instrument developed by the World Health Organization to screen for hazardous use, harmful use, and the potential for alcohol dependence.”

Time trends in lawyer alcohol abuse are similarly concerning. Problematic drinking rates among lawyers in the sample increased considerably from 2004 to 2017. By contrast, problematic drinking rates for other educational and professional categories show milder increases. Doctors, dentists, and veterinarians, for example, report a relatively steady problematic drinking rate throughout the period. The dramatic increase in problematic drinking rates for lawyers during this period thus represents a potentially troubling development that is particular to law, although standard errors remain high due to relatively small sample sizes. Identifying this previously unstudied trend is an excellent example of the possibilities unlocked by using annually repeated surveys such as the NHIS to study lawyer well-being in place of more ad hoc studies, even if those studies have larger sample sizes.

Figure 10. Fraction of population with excessive drinking over time

Notes: Three year moving averages, 2004-2017.

Overall, then, alcohol abuse appears to be a particular problem for lawyers, and one that has recently grown much worse. Reformers should evaluate the role of drinking within legal culture and consider ideas for reducing alcohol’s role.

Even though lawyers do not report extraordinary levels of mental illness, mental health should remain a priority for the legal profession alongside limiting substance abuse. However methodologically sound and reliable, the NHIS offers a single source of data on lawyer mental illness with only nine hundred seventy-eight lawyer-observations. Moreover, the high rates of alcohol abuse reported by lawyers may indicate underlying mental health problems in the profession that are not well captured by K6 scores. To build more robust conclusions about mental health in the profession, we would ideally have more sources of data, including a large randomized survey of lawyers with high response rates. For the moment, however, the NHIS data suggests that the conventional wisdom of extraordinary rates of mental illness in the legal profession may be unwarranted.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mr3GZR
via IFTTT

Dodd-Frank Is Driving the Wrong Kind of Innovation

topicsregulation

As the federal government responded to the 2008 mortgage crisis by piling new regulations on the financial system, a new study reports, lower-skilled finance employees were replaced by workers with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Christos Makridis and Alberto Rossi, researchers with George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, found evidence that “financial services firms may have sought to ‘escape’ regulatory exposure by hiring STEM workers who could automate more tasks and pursue activities outside the scope of existing regulation.” The influx of STEM workers and ensuing automation following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act may have “productivity-enhancing effects,” they note. But “this has come at the expense of low- and middle-skilled workers in the sector.”

The tradeoff has not necessarily helped consumers. “It’s just raising the costs,” Makridis says.

According to the paper, the financial services sector saw a 50 percent increase in federal regulation from 2008 to 2017. For every 10 percent increase in regulation, STEM employment increased by 5.3 percent. Makridis and Rossi also reported that “a 10 percent rise in regulatory restrictions is associated with an 8.69 percent rise in employment among compliance officer occupations (even after controlling for STEM workers).”

The study found that increases in federal regulation caused average wages to increase as financial firms hired fewer people and paid them higher salaries, which implies that lower-skilled workers were squeezed out of the job market. Whether or not the banking system is more secure, a lot of former workers in the industry probably aren’t.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r4yinn
via IFTTT