In The Washington Post Peter Whoriskey reports that there are, in fact, a lot of jobs available that employers are desperately trying to fill. However they can’t find the employees because these are not the jobs that Americans want to take. Highlights of the report include:

• Some of the work requires familiarity with machines and high-tech equipment. A lot of the people who were laid off were those who had expertise in things that machines can now do. Thus people don’t have the skills necessary to fulfill the available jobs.
• As the baby-boomer generation retires, a new generation of younger workers must be enticed into the workplace. However this generation doesn’t seem to be willing to work in factories and in uniforms that might get dirty. They instead prefer to work in offices and on computers – even though the pay is often significantly lower.
• Employers could try raising wages even further, but if they did so, it’d become even more appealing to outsource the job to other countries – permanently removing those jobs from the United States.

To read more about some of the innovative ways that employers have tried to work around this problem, what G81Z-.829R.1F28. means and the implications for Boeing, click here.

Source: The Washington Post

Via: Newmark’s Door

In an article that raises privacy concerns about video game consoles that gather data about human movements, what really stands out is Jeremy Bailenson discussion of some of the things that the Kinect is capable of determining about you:

• Based on about ten behavioural cues during a period of learning, it is possible to predict how well students will do on a test of the material that they learnt. The cues include shoulder and elbow movements.
• The Kinect can detect with ~84% accuracy what behavior you’re engaging in – whether its brushing your teeth of cooking a meal.
• The Kinect might also be able to detect a pre-accident face – your facial expression before you engage in risky driving behavior. Car manufacturers might be able to use this to tighten your seatbelt or ‘prime’ the airbags because of the higher likelihood of an accident.

To read the privacy concerns this raises, what this means for insurance companies, and details of the studies outlined above, click here.

Source: Slate

In Slate Ray Fisman reported on a study that might provide insight into what a world run by women will look like:

• In 2006 the Norwegian government required all companies listed on its stock exchange to increase the fraction of women on the board of directors to a minimum of 40% within two years.
• Compared to companies that weren’t listed on the stock exchange and thus did not have to comply with the ruling, the publicly traded companies saw a decline in both profits and the number of people laid off.
• The authors conclude that women are less likely to lay-off workers, and that this leads to short term declines in profit. However it is possible that over the long run this actually improves corporate performance by ensuring labour loyalty. Since it’s only been four years since the ruling went into effect it’s too early to say.

To read more about the gender differences between men and women, the details of the study, and what this means for the United States, click here.

Source: Slate

Natalie Wolchover met with the organizer of the Rock-Paper-Scissor World Championship (no, really, it’s a thing) to find out what strategies you can use to win at the game:

• Inexperienced players have a tendency to play ‘stone’
• If a player has repeated the same move twice, they’re unlikely to do it a third time.
• In pre-game discussions use your hands to subtly gesture the move you want your opponent to play. You should be able to prime them into doing so.
• Announce what move you’re going to play and then…play it. It’ll throw your opponents off.

To read about how to deal with more experienced players, other strategies to win at the game, and a really cheap strategy for those who are “willing to sacrifice honour and integrity” click here.

Source: Yahoo News

Via: Newmark’s Door

Rajiv (L), Sonia (R), and Rahul (M) Gandhi: India’s past, present and (potentially) future leaders in a family photograph

A fair amount of attention is directed towards income inequality. But what about dynastic-political inequality? Ronald U Mendoza took a look at family dynasties in democracies. Highlights include:

• Some notable examples of dynasties in democracies include the Bush family in the United States, the Gandhis in India, and the Shinwatras in Thailand. Argentina, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and the Philippines also have ruling family dynasties.
• In India and Myanmar the sons and daughters of former state leaders are being groomed to take over the reins of power in the near-future.
• The amount of this inequality varies by democracy. In the United States just 6% of legislators and parliamentarians have dynastic links. In the Philippines it’s as high as 70%.
• Daughters are unlikely to continue family dynasties. Even when a woman is in power it is generally their sons or their husbands who take over after them.
• Those who come from political dynasties normally win elections by larger margins. Evidence also suggests that they normally increase their wealth by more than the returns from the country’s stock index.
• Political dynasties are more likely to be located in poorer regions. It is unclear if poor people are more likely to vote for political dynasties, or if political dynasties deliberately keep people poor.

To read case studies on the experience of The Philippines, Singapore and Japan with political dynasties, as well as key statistics behind the phenomenon click here.

Source: Vox

Via: The Economist

Researchers analyzed if there were particular times of day when people were more likely to be creative. PsyBlog reported on the (surprising) results:

• “Morning-People” were better at coming up with creative solutions in the evening. “Evening-People” did their best creating thinking in the morning.
• The potential explanation for this counter-intuitive result is that creativity requires a certain amount of dissociation from reality, which only drowsiness can bring.
• On the flip side though just because an idea is creative doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good. Morning people might laugh at the ideas they produced in the evening when viewed in the harsh light of the (morning) sun.

To read the methodology of the study and how a parachute for a sandwich fits into all of this click here.

Source: PsyBlog

Via: Freakonomics

Ticket scalpers make their money by purchasing tickets for shows when the tickets are first released, and then reselling them to individuals at a higher price. Ray Waddell had the opportunity to interview one of them. Highlights include:

• The business involves gambling. A scalper has to buy the tickets in advance before knowing whether or not there will be demand for the show. This might mean that the scalper ends up with tickets that never sell.
• A scalper can make up to $300,000 in profit for a summer with a lot of high-demand shows. But scalpers also lose about $100,000 by betting on shows for which there is ultimately no demand.
• At times ticket sources requires scalpers to buy tickets for shows that they know won’t sell well, in exchange for allowing the scalpers to buy tickets for high-demand events.
• In recent times there has been the rise of speculative selling – scalpers selling tickets that they don’t actually have.
• The use of automated computer bots to buy and sell tickets is likely to attract the attention of regulators, ultimately shutting the industry down.

To read more about how scalpers deal with ticket-less systems, what happened to fan-clubs, and where scalpers get their tickets from, click here.

Source: Billboard

Via: Marginal Revolution

Stephen Gordon argues that in the future everything will become a glorified coffee shop. Examples and the reasoning for this include:

• Universities. In a world where MIT is offering courses online for free, who needs to go to university for classes? Instead university will be about networking, tutoring and socializing – essentially a giant coffee shop.
• Bookstores. You can purchase all your books and store them in your pocket through devices like Kindles. In the future you’re more likely to go to Barnes and Nobel for the coffee rather than the books.
• Retailers. You can do all your shopping online through your laptop while you sip on coffee. Wouldn’t you rather do that than go to Walmart?
• Offices. As office equipment became more sophisticated it was necessary to centralize tasks in an office, where one machine could serve the needs of many. But as hardware has become cheaper and cheaper all you really need is a place your clients can reach you and your employees can get work done. A coffee-shop type establishment sounds ideal.
• Places of worship. It’ll take time, but they are already building coffee shops within them.

To read more about why each of these things are likely to happen (the part on office spaces is particularly interesting), as well as the role that 3-D printing will have to play in all this, click here.

Source: The Speculist

Via: Kottke

It seems that even the beloved Watson has found a job for himself in this economy. Beth Jinks reports that Watson, of jeopardy fame, will soon be making billions of dollars, although he’s unlikely to have the opportunity to keep any of it. Instead the revenue will go straight into the pocket of its owner, IBM:

• Watson’s ability to process natural language and comb through large datasets gives it a wide variety of applications in the business world.
• Health care providers have already been taking advantage of Watson’s services. Citigroup is the first financial services firm to do so.
• IBM believes that Watson is currently suited to manage portfolio risk. It monitors sources of information including conventional news sources but also sites like Facebook.
• Watson is expected to earn $2.65 billion in 2015.

To read more about some of Watson’s competitors, areas where the software still lags, and other applications for the loveable computer system click here.

Source: Bloomberg

Via: Marginal Revolution

The Hunger Games, a series of books that has been compared to both Harry Potter and Twilight, premieres a movie by the same name on March 23^rd. The Wall Street Journal looked at some of the considerations involved in marketing the film.

• The book series is more popular with females, but male moviegoers drive blockbuster openings and ticketing sales. Lionsgate’s challenge then is to attract male viewers without alienating the female fanbase.
• The fear is that males will not want to be seen going into movie theaters with a primarily female audience.
• The film makers have partly dealt with this problem by focusing more on the heroic parts of the book rather than the relationship aspects of it.
• The advertising campaign for the books and movies have also tried to focus on male oriented things such as video games and promotions during the Supwerbowl
• The publisher of the book series, Scholastic, have themselves dealt with this problem by having a gold symbol of a bird on the cover rather than a picture of the female protagonist.

To read what it means for The Hunger Games to be a four quadrant movie, why people might be yelling “Teem Peeta” in the theaters, and why older males might be the next wave click here.

Interested in the struggles of Katniss Everdeen? Take a look at our analysis of the population of Panem here and check back next week for multiple articles on Centives’ analysis of The Economics of The Hunger Games.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Via: Marginal Revolution