Derek Thompson

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees business coverage for TheAtlantic.com. More

Thompson has written for Slate, BusinessWeek, and the Daily Beast. He has also appeared as a guest on radio and television networks, including NPR, the BBC, CNBC, and MSNBC.

AOL Is the Weirdest Successful Tech Company in America

It's a historic day for one of America's most confounding companies.

AOL ended an eight-year money-losing slump in 2012, the company announced this morning, as all of its divisions ended the year "quasi-profitable" for the first time under Tim Armstrong's reign as CEO.

AOL was dubbed by some the "hottest tech stock of 2012." You might question the use of the word "hottest" in that label, but it's kind of true. Here's a 12-month look at AOL shares (in light blue, at the top) followed by Netflix (dark blue), Yahoo (red), Google (green), Apple (yellow), and Microsoft (purple). Tim Armstrong is doing something right ...

Screen Shot 2013-02-08 at 10.50.16 AM.png

... but what is that, exactly?

The common refrain this morning on AOL's good day was that advertising is leading the company back. This is true, kind of. It is true that revenue at AOL sites (like HuffPo, AOL.com, and Moviefone) is up, but profit for AOL's online brands is actually down for the year by 34 percent. The new profit engine, not only for the quarter but also the year, has been advertising on AOL's third-party network, the company's ad market for other online publishers.

But it's the old profit engine that is still driving the company. AOL's subscription business (the evolution of that gargling symphony of squeaks and whistles from the 1990s) is still more profitable than AOL as a company.

This is good news and bad news, as Henry Blodget observes. It's good news because the profits from subscription services can be used to smooth AOL's transition to a modern media and advertising company, and subscription cancellations are slowing down. But it's also bad news because any company that relies on the inertia of septuagenarians who haven't figured out how to get Internet without paying AOL for the privilege does not sound like a magnet for the sort of talent that drives long-term growth.

"What exactly is AOL?" you might ask yourself. As a consumer product, it's a bunch of websites. As a business strategy, it's an ad company. As a growth business, it's a third-party digital advertising network. And as a profitable business, it's mostly none of those things but rather, overwhelmingly, an anachronistic online membership service. Great stock. Weird company.

More »

Is 3D Printing Overrated? Not at All, Says GE's Jeffrey Immelt

3D printing is "worth my time, attention, money, and effort," Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of GE, said at an Atlantic conference today on the future of manufacturing in Washington, D.C.

Also known as "additive manufacturing," 3D printing involves a machine using a digital model to design a solid, complex product from various materials, from a simple sculpture, to a shoe, to -- perhaps? -- an airplane turbine.

Immelt said he understood the difference between "a cartoon" and an idea that's "worth spending a lot of time on": and that 3D printing clearly fits in the latter category.

"3-D printing helps you make the product from the core up so you have less waste," he told Greg Ip, economics editor of The Economist. "The tool is cheaper, the time is faster. If all I thought 3-D printing could do was shoes, I wouldn't be talking about it."

He predicted that manufacturing employment would rise, not only in nominal terms, but also, perhaps, as a share of the economy. One wonders how that might change with the rise of artisan machines.

Here's What It Takes to Work for GE in the U.S. Today, According to Jeffrey Immelt

1) "You're going to have to know some computer skills."

2) "... and some artisan skills ... "

3) ("You don't have to be a programmer.")

4) But "you have to work in teams."

That's what it takes to work at GE in the United States today, Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, said at an Atlantic conference today on the future of manufacturing in Washington, D.C.

But does America have enough of those workers, Greg Ip, economics editor of The Economist, asked. "Not yet," Immelt responded.

Due to the rising labor costs in China and the growing cost of oil and materials used to move goods around the world, GE has famously moved thousands of jobs back to the United States, as The Atlantic reported last year. But after shedding more than 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade, the U.S. has added only about half a million manufacturing jobs since the bottom of the recession. Is that a dead-cat bounce, or the mark of a renaissance?

Immelt said American manufacturing was more competitive than it had been in many years. "The future has a chance to be different than the past," he said, predicting that manufacturing jobs would continue to grow, even as a share of total employment, even if it didn't get anywhere close to its 20th century highs.

He also suggested that the outsourcing frenzy that took hold in the 1990s and 2000s was a reasonable principle taken too far. "Globalization is not a bad thing," he said. We want to be close to the markets we sell into." But "the record is mixed" for outsourcing. "Some has worked, a lot of it hasn't work."

"We are a global company, I'm not going to apologize for that," he said.

Netflix, 'House of Cards,' and the Golden Age of Television

TV is replacing movies as elite entertainment, because players like Netflix, HBO, and AMC are in an arms race for lush, high-quality shows

615 house of cards spacey.jpg
Reuters

"The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

And there was Netflix's strategy, in one sentence, as revealed to GQ by Ted Sarandos, chief content officer, on the eve of the company's new exclusive series, House of Cards. It sounds like a straightforward threat to the entire pay-TV model: The streaming upstart taking on the premium cable darling in the hopes of convincing millions of subscribers that you don't need a set-top box to get great original television; you just need an Internet connection and a few bucks a month for Netflix.

Netflix's original-programming move is competition for cable. Our attention is finite, as is time. The more time we spend with Netflix, the less time we spend on cable, the less valuable cable is, blah blah blah, this argument is familiar to all of you. But for now, don't consider the Netflix Effect -- and, in particular, its foray into exclusive shows -- a turning point in cord-cutting wars. Consider it instead simply a great moment for great television. The market for super-deluxe-high-quality TV programming is getting deeper.*

WELCOME TO THE GOLDEN AGE (OF TV. NOT FILM.)

To explain why Netflix's new obsession with original programming is great for lovers of great TV, we have to go on a brief detour. In 2010, when Netflix streaming was still in its infancy, Edward Jay Epstein, the excellent chronicler of the business of Hollywood, wrote a little column answering a big question: Why is TV replacing movies as elite entertainment?

His old-school answer: Follow the money.

Hollywood is technically in the story-telling business. But it's really in the franchise-building business. The top 40 movies of all time are practically all sequels, adaptations, and reboots. Most of them have fight scenes and explosions. In a global industry where the top-grossing films make about two-thirds of their revenue outside of the U.S., and marketing budgets stretch into the tens of millions, the surest way to build profit for a studio is to make or buy a franchise. Then you sell sequels and merchandise and TV rights and never ever stop until you can go home after watching Fast and the Furious 6 at the multiplex to lay on your Fast and the Furious bed sheets, and play with your 2 Fast 2 Furious action figures while watching Five Fast on TNT ... in Beijing.

As Hollywood has gone global and mass-mass-market, different incentives for select television networks have helped to fill the void in quality entertainment. Here is Epstein explaining the rise of HBO as an original programming powerhouse:

HBO executives [created their] own original programming designed to appeal to the head of the house. Here it had several advantages over Hollywood. It did not need to produce a huge audience since it carries no advertising and gets paid the same fee whether or not subscribers tune in. Nor did it have to restrict edgier content to get films approved by a ratings board (there is no censorship of Pay-TV). And it did not have to structure the movie to maximize foreign sales since, unlike Hollywood, its earnings come mainly from America. As a result, HBO and the two other pay-channels, Showtime and Starz, were able to create sophisticated character-driven series such as The Wire, Sex and the City, The L Word, and The Sopranos. As this only succeeded in retaining subscribers and also achieved critical acclaim, advertising-supported cable and over-the-air network had little choice but to follow suit to avoid losing market share. The result of this competitive race to the top is the elevation of television.
Now consider "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad." Neither is making AMC a billion dollars in Asia, but both helped the network find an even more dependable money-hose: cable. AMC used these shows with small but clingy followings to demand that cable providers carry their network and pay 40 cents a month for each subscriber. Today, both have audiences in the low single-digit millions. If they were movies, they would be flops. Instead, they make AMC a cable staple for tens of millions of pay-TV households who indirectly pay AMC more than $360 million a year in cable fees.

Networks love the cable bundle for the same reason that viewers hate it: It's a relentless (i.e. dependable) transfer of money from households to networks, regardless of what television or how much television we watch. "Basic-cable channels have to broadcast shows that are so good that audiences will go nuts when denied them," Adam Davidson wrote in the New York Times. "Pay-TV channels, which kick-started this economic model, are compelled to make shows that are even better." Thus, television has seen a race to the top while Hollywood has experienced an ostensible race to the middle-bottom.

Back to Netflix. The company's business decision to chase exclusive TV rights was not an act of charity for TV fans; it was a business decision. Netflix has two things going for it: its deep library and its wonderful streaming technology. Keeping the library of quality titles deep is getting very expensive very quickly. And Showtime and HBO can compete with Netflix on streaming tech, even if they're also tethered to the cable bundle. So, Netflix needs to increase its value in the eyes of the 120 million households who aren't Netflix subscribers. Following in the footsteps of HBO and Showtime by going after original titles is the smart next step.

And it means there's even more money in the market for lavish television. For every "House of Cards" auction, there is another bidder. For every auteur, there is another hand shaking money in her face. Yes, programming costs will continue to rise, and yes, you might have to get used to paying a little bit more for Netflix as it turns into an independently-owned HBO. But the good news is that the golden age of television was built by a group of niche networks chasing TV fanatics with programming that was better than we knew to expect from TV. And that group is getting bigger.
____

*Even if you think "House of Cards" is occasionally over-the-top, as I do, it's not controversial to say the production values and talent roster are clearly of a cinematic quality. Both lead actors, Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, have been nominated for Oscars (Spacey has won), and the cinematography has that same shadowy, lacquered quality of David Fincher's best movies.

LeBron James Is Underpaid—and That Might Just Make Him Richer

Super-star economics in a salary-cap world

615 lebron james.jpg
Reuters

Is it possible to be underpaid when your base salary is more than $17 million? It is when your name is LeBron James.

Yes, that is more money than 99 percent of families make in a lifetime. Yes, James is already the world's highest-earning athlete in any team sport. But that's not the question we're answering. The question we're answering is whether LeBron James' salary reflects his economic value, and the answer is ... almost certainly not.

"At the end of the day, I don't think my value on the floor can really be compensated for, anyways, because of the (collective bargaining agreement)," James said Friday. "If you want the truth. If this was baseball, it'd be up, I mean way up there."

Economist James is right. In the NBA, there are limits to how much a basketball team can pay its players, collectively, and there are limits to how much a team can pay one player, singular. These salary caps, negotiated and tweaked every few years between the owners and players, accomplish a variety of goals. They prevent an arms race between rich owners. They aim to give small-market teams the same chance at sustained success as big-market clubs. And they limit the amount the best players make to protect the salaries of average NBA players. LeBron James is the most talented basketball player in the world. It's logical that he has the most to lose from a rule that caps rewards to talent.

But you shouldn't feel sorry for LeBron (and not just because he's ridiculously rich). There are three reasons why a higher salary could make him poorer.

First, as long as the salary cap is in place, LeBron James' worldwide marketing value is based on his global popular appeal. The fact that LeBron makes as much money from Nike as he does from the NBA is a testament to superstar economics at work: Even people that can't watch his games can still buy his merchandise. This patina of marketability is exquisitely sensitive to perceived success -- which is to say, championships. (LeBron's endorsements rose 10 percent after making the finals in 2011.) So it's in LeBron's interest to share his millions with star role-players who improve his odds of winning a title.

Second, if LeBron sought higher annual pay in an overseas league like Turkey, he might make a higher annual salary, but his endorsement deals (which clearly account for the majority of his income) would decline because rich markets don't care about Turkish basketball, and they still wouldn't care to watch the weird freak-show of The King beating up on a bunch of fourth-tier European and Western Asian players.

That raises a third argument, which is that the NBA's appeal is rooted in its egalitarian principles, which increase each market's chance of winning the championship and makes the game more appealing to a wider audience. NPR's Planet Money makes the case elegantly:

The salary cap makes it impossible for rich teams to hire all the superstars. That means even teams in smaller markets have a shot at greatness, which draws more fans to support those teams. More fans means more revenue for the league as a whole -- and that means bigger paychecks for the players.

And this, Grier says, is why Lebron James has a reason to support the system. Playing in a more competitive league helps him make more money in other ways.

I want to believe this is true as an economic argument -- that the salary cap makes basketball, and in particular its stars, more valuable in the aggregate. But, as an NBA fan, it's a harder case to make. The small number of players on the court leads to a handful of superstars dominating the game anyway. In the 1990s, Chicago and Houston won eight out of ten titles; in the 2000s, LA and San Antonio represented the West in nine out of ten championships. Individuals can dominate a five-on-five game, and a savvy owner in a big market without a salary cap would be crazy to not pay James something like $50 million a year, which is already about as much as he makes in salary and endorsements combined. Any team comprised of professional basketball players that includes LeBron is going to compete for a championship every year, so a rule allowing owners to pay him whatever they want wouldn't change the competitive landscape of the NBA, but it would make James much richer.

In short, LeBron James is right twice. First, he's right that he's underpaid in a salary-capped NBA. Second, in electing to sacrifice salary to play with other superstars, he understands exactly how much being underpaid in a salary-capped NBA can potentially pay off.

Predictions Are Hard: CBO and the Art of Forecasting the Future of America

The Congressional Budget Office has a glamorous job (at least among Washington wonks), which is also an exceedingly difficult job (for anybody).

Every year, it's required to project the next decade in federal budgets. This year, that means it must construct a tableau of the American economy in 2023 -- the year when Justin Bieber turns 29, George Clooney qualifies for early Social Security benefits, and a child born in the W. Bush administration can legally drink. To determine tax revenue, the CBO must project such mysterious figures as the share of national income that will go to labor and share of employers who will drop their health plans. To determine spending levels, it must project everything from the future of consumer price inflation to the rate of unemployment and retirement.

These reports (their charts, in particular) are often presented and quoted with sort of Delphic reverence. But to me, the most interesting part of their projections are the moments where the CBO says whoops! -- where the office revises past predictions, not because Congress passed a new law, but because the country changed in a way they didn't expect.

So follow me as I scroll, scroll, scroll down to page 56 in the belly of Appendix A, and you'll find this paragraph (underlined sentences are my emphasis) ...

Medicaid and Medicare. "In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. (For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.) In response to that slowdown, over the past several years, CBO has made a series of downward technical adjustments to projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. From the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, such technical revisions have lowered estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billion--by $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program."
In other words: Whoops!

To CBO's great surprise, the growth of health care spending has slowed. Maybe it's the recession. Maybe it's something more. Either way, it's big. Cutting $200 billion from Medicare and Medicaid is "about double the revenue the government would generate by raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67," as Sarah Kliff points out. Medical inflation, heal thyself.

The least responsible of the deficit hawks are occasionally fond of pointing out that America's "real debt" isn't our $14 trillion in actual debt, but our $87 trillion in "unfunded liabilities" to Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions. It's true that if you add up all projected spending and projected revenue for these programs over the next 75 years, the gap is ungodly. But, as I've said, this shortfall is exquisitely sensitive to just about every demographic trend you can imagine, plus many trends in the future of economics and health care that we cannot imagine. The fact that the government's top number-crunchers are obliged to report figures from the future doesn't make them oracles. It just makes them dutiful forecasters, using present-day trends to make useful, but ultimately impossible, predictions about the future of the country.

The further out you see budget projections, the more you should question their veracity. Instead, repeat to yourself seven simple words. Everything can change, and it usually does.

What Your Signature Size Says About You: You're a Narcissist and You'd Be a Bad CEO

Chief executives with bigger signatures make more money ... but only for themselves.

That's the conclusion from a new study on executive narcissism from UNC, which used the size of personal signatures in SEC filings as a proxy for self-importance. Since the 1970s, psychological studies have tied signature size to narcissistic characteristics.

Narcissistic CEOs spend more on capital -- offices, robots, software -- and acquisitions and also perform most poorly in competitive industries during uncertain times. From the report:

We find that CEO signature size is positively associated with a number of proxies for overinvestment, and that abnormal investment by narcissists destroys firm value via reduced sales growth and future revenues. Signature size is also negatively associated with current return on assets, especially for firms in early life-cycle stages (i.e. smaller, younger, more R&D intensive firms) where a CEO's strategic decisions are most likely to impact the firm's future value. Despite the negative relationship between CEO narcissism and firm performance, narcissistic CEOs enjoy higher absolute and relative compensation.

So, executive narcissism is positively related to over-investment in the short-term. Feel free to speculate in the comment section what that means in Washington.

[via The Awl]

More »

How to Freak Out Responsibly About the Rise of the Robots

It's fun to imagine an economy where machines are smarter than humans. But we don't need  an artificial crisis over artificial intelligence.

615 robot reuters 1.jpg
Reuters

It's become very fashionable very quickly to talk about robots and their insatiable appetite for your job. Industrial machines can and do replace human beings in car factories, electronics plans, and food manufacturing centers. But the editorial rage against the machines is messy, and the automatons might not have as much to do with our current jobs crisis as the volume of robot reportage might suggest.

Let's say it upfront: Technology can replace jobs and (at least temporarily) increase income inequality. From the spinning jenny to those massive mechanical arms flying wildly around car assembly lines, technology raises productivity by helping workers accomplish more in less time (i.e.: put a power drill in a human hand) and by replacing workers altogether (i.e.: build a power-drilling bot).

Some worry that AI is getting so smart that we're making workers replaceable at an accelerating rate -- not just with car assembly bots, but also with big data and software that do white-collar work. Technology of the robot and non-robot variety has been replacing people for decades. ATM machines and airport kiosks tellers and simple office software does the work of thousands of tellers, and attendants, and office assistants better than humans ever could. But we had many of these technologies in the 1990s when unemployment was about 4 percent. So what's changed?

ROBOT PRESENT

The robot fascination is leading some to think we are living through a particularly disruptive Age of Robots right now, and that it might even be contributing to the slow recovery. Maybe, but the case is far from clear. In the Financial Times, the super-sharp Edward Luce advances some frightening thinking about the future of robots shoving workers out their office chairs under the admonishing headline (which he might not have written, himself) "Obama must face the rise of the robots." 

Must he, though? Where is the evidence that the Obama recovery has been slowed by a recent acceleration of industrial bots, as Luce suggests? In fact, Obama's so-called jobless recovery has been significantly more "jobful" than the recovery we had in 2001 when you compare the pace of private sector jobs created. The labor recovery has been only slightly worse than our pace following the early '90s slowdown.

Screen Shot 2012-08-03 at 7.14.25 AM.pngYou might respond that all of these recoveries have been stamped out by accelerating technology. And that might be true. But if it is true, you would expect two things to be true, as well. First, you would expect GDP to grow considerably faster than jobs, as technology added to productivity without adding to payrolls. Second, it should be easy to make the case the technology is replacing workers on a massive scale because the most technologically advanced sectors should be performing the worst.

Real GDP growth in 2011 and 2012 barely kissed 2 percent, which is almost fine for a healthy economy and really not at all fine for a recovery. In that time, we added a similarly fine but not especially remarkable 180,000 jobs per month. This doesn't look to me like an AI nightmare. It looks more like an old-fashioned demand-starved economy.

When you tab over to the sector-by-sector breakdown of jobs lost and gained between 2008 and 2012, you find construction and manufacturing scraping the bottom. Let's draw a bright white line between these two. Construction, which is clearly the economy's worst-performance industry, hasn't had much productivity growth, according to the analysis from the McKinsey Global Institute, and its miserable performance reflects a simple truth that has nothing to do with robots. Nobody's buying houses.

Manufacturing employment in the United States has been eaten alive by those twin forces of globalization and technological innovation. The ascendance of developing economies in Asia and the mastery of mechanized manufacturing let the U.S. make much more with less. That's precisely the productivity revolution the robot crowd fears will sweep over the entire economy. But has there really been a mass adoption of industrial robots recently? As a share of the population, we're about as "automated" as Spain, considerably behind Germany, and less than half as automated as South Korea and Japan, according to the International Federation of Robotics. And yet, there's little suggestion that Spain's unemployment crisis is fundamentally a robot crisis, and the countries severely more automated than us all have lower unemployment rates.

What ails us today isn't a surplus of robots, but a deficit of demand. Yes, we have a manufacturing industry undergoing a sensational, but job-killing, productivity revolution -- very much like the one that took farm employment from 40 percent in 1900 to less than 5 percent today. But the other nine-tenths of the economy are basically going through an old-fashioned weak-but-steady recovery, the kind that hundreds of years of financial crises would predict.

ROBOT FUTURE

Just because robots aren't the most important force in our current economic malaise doesn't mean we shouldn't talk or worry about robots. Indeed, The Atlantic has talked and worried about them, a lot. "The threat of technological unemployment is real," Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee wrote in their great book Race Against the Machine, excerpted at The Atlantic here, here and here. Economist Noah Smith designed a safety net for workers in an automated world here.

As robots move off the factory floor in the next 20 years, the effect on well-being and income will be complicated and impossible to predict. On the one hand, we should root for more automation. More robotics in the hospital, for example, could make surgeries cheaper and safer. But the mass-market depends on our workers also being our consumers. What does it mean when more work is done by machines that don't consume anything? Where does the money go, if not to the lucky owners of the robots themselves? If tomorrow's robots are smarter than people -- not just high-school graduates, but also college graduates -- what happens to the incentive to invest in education? Should we respond by giving each new born a check? ... a stock portfolio!? ... a robot of her own?!

These are fun and scary ideas, and they're fun and scary to think about. But let's calm our warm-blooded nerves by remembering that the current stock of humanoid robots is still remarkably primitive, as Brynjolfsson and McAfee acknowledge themselves. They look creepy. They struggle with people skills. They fall down stairs. They're bad at problem-solving. They're not very creative.

This is where you say "40 years ago, AI couldn't do the work of retail managers and lawyers, and look now." That's right. And 40 years from now, grappling with the fallout of an automated economy might be the most important economic issue of our time Today, however, worrying about robots taking over the economy feels more like an intellectual exercise. There's no need for an artificial crisis over artificial intelligence.

How to Sell a Beer: The Economics of the New Budweiser Black Crown


Have you heard of Budweiser Black Crown, yet? Well, have you? Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, the coldly multi-syllabic beer conglomerate that is also the world's biggest brewer, is very much hoping so. The company behind Bud Light and Stella Artois spent millions of dollars coordinating a massive ad campaign around the Super Bowl to launch its new higher-alcohol Budweiser beer.

Why? Because beer drinking is in outright decline in the U.S., and drinkers are asking for one simple thing. More alcohol, please.

Going by amount of liquid consumed, beer is still the most popular alcoholic beverage in America. But tastes are changing. Per capita beer consumption has declined steadily since 1990. The volume of mass-produced beer has fallen in every year since the recession hit. Since 2001, America's beer consumption is down a hardy 11 percent.

Screen Shot 2013-01-14 at 1.09.03 PM.png

Think of cheap beer sales as a health marker for the blue-collar middle class man. When the recession struck, the hardest hit major industries were construction and manufacturing, which disproportionately employ blue-collar middle class guys. Sales of cheap beer collapsed. As Joe Sixpack goes, so go sixpacks.

Well, most sixpacks, that is. In the last few years, heavier beers and craft beers (think Blue Moon and microbreweries, respectively) are have posted double-digit growth even in the face of a recession. This has been the most important trend in the beer business. It explains why Anheuser-Busch bought Goose Island, used last year's Super Bowl to launch Bud Light Platinum, and used this year's Super Bowl to launch another heavy brew.

Bud Light might still be the most heavily-consumed beer in the country, but the country's tastes are fleeing to higher-alcohol liquids. Liquor and wine consumption is up 20 percent since the turn of the century, and richer craft beers are leading the measured comeback in American beer. Black Crown isn't trying to start a trend. It's trying to catch up. Booze hounds of America, this Bud's for you.

Why Amazon Is Special and Apple Is Not—in 1 Paragraph

A week ago, Apple announced the most profitable quarter in the history of the company and the stock plunged 12 percent. A few days later, Amazon announced a 45 percent annual fall in profits, and its stock went up. What the what?

It's not just the past week. It's the past decade. Why is Wall Street so punishing toward Apple, the most profitable tech company in the world, and so forgiving of Amazon, which can barely turn a profit? This remarkably clear-eyed post by Eugene Wei, "Amazon, Apple, and the beauty of low margins," is the most elegant answer to the question I've read yet. Here is the money paragraph on competitive risk:

An incumbent with high margins, especially in technology, is like a deer that wears a bullseye on its flank. Assuming a company doesn't have a monopoly, its high margin structure screams for a competitor to come in and compete on price, if nothing else, and it also hints at potential complacency. If the company is public, how willing will they be to lower their own margins and take a beating on their public valuation?

Apple's core business is something that practically everybody wants to do (and can do): making phones and tablets. Amazon's core business is something that practically nobody wants to do (or can do): build a massive online database and offline infrastructure to transport boxes from warehouses to hundreds of millions of doorsteps. Seen in that light, Amazon's low-margin game isn't a weakness. It's arguably a strength, like a treacherous castle moat discouraging even the most swashbuckling entrepreneurs from daring to encroach on their turf.

For a deeper dive into how Bezos has house-broken investors to buy into his long game, read Justin Fox

Update: Seconds after this post went up, Peter Misek, managing director at Jefferies & Company, calls and assents: "There is a view that in e-commerce, Amazon is, if not a true a monopoly, at least has a cushion, and a secure position that is unassailable whereas Apple's revenue is far more cyclical, based on products and innovation. I agree with some of the market [conventional wisdom] but not all of it. Apple is an ecosystem. I'm an iPhone user. The chances I leave are minimal because I have all my music and photos and such on the phone. The inertia or friction of moving is fairly high. But that might not hold for everyone."

A Case for College: The Unemployment Rate for Bachelor's-Degree Holders Is 3.7 Percent

I like to make this chart of unemployment rates by education attainment every few months. And it's been a few months, so:

Screen Shot 2013-02-01 at 11.08.24 AM.png
Here's what this graph does not say. It doesn't say that college is guaranteed to get you a job, especially right out of school. It also doesn't say that college drop-outs are destined to be unemployed. There are 150 million people working or trying to find work right now. That's a lot of data points, and, without context, one or several of those data points can help you make just about any argument you want to make about the worthlessness, or primacy, of higher education.

But here is what this graph really does tell us. People who don't go to college have an unemployment rate well above the national average. People who complete a four-year degree have an unemployment rate that's less than half of the national average. Those who graduate from college are more likely to have a job, more likely to earn a higher wage, and more likely to have the skills and experience that employers go to the labor market to buy.

Brilliant engineers and superstar artists and other assorted geniuses will be fine without a college degree precisely because they're brilliant superstar geniuses, and it's sort of insane to mount an argument against college based on the experience of 0.00-...-01% of the population.

Bachelor's degrees correlate with more, better-paid jobs, and three out of five workers today don't have one. It's hard to see why we should beg that number to fall.

Screen Shot 2013-02-01 at 11.20.33 AM.png

Good News: The Recovery Has Been Even More Recovery-y Than We Thought

And high-five to employers who laughed off the fiscal cliff and accelerated their hiring

Screen Shot 2013-02-01 at 10.29.42 AM.png

Why is this jobs report different from most other jobs reports? On most first-Fridays, we get estimates of jobs created in the previous month. On this Friday, we also get a revision of jobs created in the previous years. Good news: We're recovering faster than we thought. (Bad news: The pace of the recovery is still only fast enough to slowly bring down our high unemployment rate.)

The story we thought we knew was that the economy had added about 150,000 jobs per month over the previous two years. This would have put this morning's report for January -- 157,000 new jobs; unemployment rate up a tick -- perfectly in line. But today's revisions showed employers added more like 180,000 jobs per month in 2011 and 2012. Even better, we averaged something like 200,000 new jobs in the last three months when the country was supposedly frozen in fear, dangling at the edge of calamity.

Three quick takeaways:

(1) For the last 24 months, job creation in the real world has been 20 percent better than what the Bureau of Labor Statistics initially thought. Cool.

(2) The people re-branding the fiscal cliff "the fiscal slope" apparently won the metaphor debate in the minds of employers. Facing a purported swan-dive into oblivion, firms didn't pull back their hiring. They accelerated it. Awesome.

(3) Don't get too excited from any one job report. This morning's revision is a bit like thinking you're running a mediocre marathon time and checking the clock mid-way through to realize you're running just a little faster than you thought. There is still quite a lot of pace to be picked up.

Super Bowl Ads Are Still Super Cheap: $4 Million for 30 Seconds Is a Bargain

Advertising is so ubiquitous that much of it is worth nothing. But for one night, crowded rooms huddle together, shushed before a TV, to watch and discuss ads. That's truly scarce. And nearly priceless.

Screen Shot 2013-01-30 at 6.32.13 PM.pngInflation adjusted Super Bowl ad prices via Brent Cox, The Awl

The typical conversation about Super Bowl ads and their sticker-price begins with a statistic and ends with tremendous skepticism. "$4 million for no more than half a minute of TV time, are you kidding me?" And then every year, companies make it clear that they are not kidding you, by buying every last spot many weeks before the big game, at a higher price, over and over again.*

It's been well documented that Super Bowl ads are quantitatively different from normal TV ads. And every other form of advertising you see in magazines, on billboards, or on your computer. In fact, here's a graph of digital ad prices, in dollars, versus the price of a single Super Bowl spot (data via Digiday):

Screen Shot 2013-01-29 at 10.51.46 AM.png

And here's a graph of Super Bowl ad spots compared to the 30-second ad rates of the most-watched and most-notable shows on television:

superbowlad.png

The quantitative argument for Super Bowl ads being reasonably priced would proceed with some simple math. More than 100 million people watch the Super Bowl. Compare that to 20 million people, on average, watching Sunday Night Football in 2012; or 12 million watching The X-Factor; or 4 million watching 30 Rock. On a per-person, per-30-second basis, those numbers suggest that a Super Bowl viewer is worth twice as much as somebody watching The X-Factor or 30 Rock (which can be DVR'd, so the ads can be skipped) -- or 33 percent more valuable than somebody watching a Sunday Night Football game.

But the quantitative approach isn't sufficient to reveal the true value of Super Bowl advertising, because Super Bowl ads are qualitatively different from practically every other advertising event on your computer screen or television screen. To understand why, go back to the first sentence of this article: "The typical conversation about Super Bowl ads..." Stop right there. Appreciate how amazing it is that you didn't flinch when you read that phrase.

Despite marketers' best intentions, the fundamental relationship between consumers and ads is the act of ignoring. But people actually talk about Super Bowl ads, on purpose. They discuss them, analyze them, rank them. The New York Times, The Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly, The Huffington Post ... sites that hardly mention Madison Avenue 364 days of the year suddenly transform, for one morning, into Ad Week and give drooling close-up coverage to Super Bowl ads.

When else do advertisements get their own advertisements?

Measuring the effectiveness of advertising is devilishly difficult, because it's practically impossible to pin-point the moment that millions of very different people made up their mind to buy something. It's easier to measure attention. And the attention bestowed on Super Bowl ads -- their art, their message, their brand-y-ness -- is qualitatively different from every other standard ad spot. By designating the Super Bowl as the Super Bowl of advertising, Madison Avenue has created something utterly unique: A national media event where people beg the room to quiet down so they can hear branded messages brought to them by multinational corporations.

At $4 million, that's not a rip-off. It's a steal.

____

*While the average price for an ad fell in the $3.8 million range, CBS CEO Les Moonves said many spots sold for more than $4 million ... and that he was willing to accept as much as $6 million for late-entries.

More »

The Fog of Austerity: This Smoke Cloud Is the Ultimate Symbol of Greece's Depression

You don't need any statistics to fully grasp the depth of Greece's economic crisis. You only need to know about the smoke.

athens-winter-smog.jpg

Utility bills are now so expensive for Greek families that some have taken to burning wood to stay warm. The result is an eerie fog of smoke looming above the city. (Yannis Larios)

A specter is haunting Greece. It leers over rooftops, invades lungs, and nearly glows in the night. It's smoke. Smoke from fire used to warm the homes of Greek families too poor to afford heat any other way. Cut from the mountains surrounding Athens, charred in the stoves and fireplaces of middle class homes, and blown through their chimneys, the unnatural cloud hovering over the capital city has become a bleak metaphor for one of the worst economic depressions in modern European history.

It is the smog of austerity. Greece is literally breathing in the fumes of its recession.

When the country discovered soon after the global financial crisis that it would not be able to pay back its debts, Greece threw itself at the mercy of Europe. In exchange for bailouts, the country agreed to cut its deficit from both ends. Government spending went down. And taxes went up -- on income, on property, and on utilities. Combined with the higher cost of oil, these tax hikes pushed up heating costs by more than 40 percent at the start of Greece's coldest month.

Greek unemployment is the highest in the developed world. The country's GDP faces the worst peacetime contraction of any non-communist European country since the 19th century. Even workers with jobs often have to deal with delayed payments, furloughs, and lower take-home pay due to higher taxes. So, many families have made an understandable calculus: From now on, we'll make out our own heat with wood, a match, and a fireplace.

A BREATH OF AUSTERITY

615 athens fog1.jpgA cloud of smoke looms over Athens with the Olympic stadium (R) as seen from northern suburbs (Reuters)

Summer smog is common in Athens, when vehicle fumes collect in the hot, still air over the city. But this is the first incidence in recent memory of "winter smog" from families lighting fires to keep warm in January, when the temperature at night can drop into the low 40s.

"It is present everywhere in the wider area of Athens," said Alexia Tsaroucha, an English teacher in Athens, in an email exchange. "The problem became particularly evident this year, since the number of people using stoves has increased dramatically."

The phenomenon is reportedly worst in big cities like Athens, with more than four million inhabitants, and Thessaloniki to the North. But the "smog phenomenon," as they're calling it, has been also recorded in smaller Greek cities, as austerity has enacted its revenge on every corner of the country.

"The atmosphere has never been worse," said Marianna Filipopoulou, a social-anthropologist who has lived in Athens for four years. "It's getting more and more difficult to breathe. Even our eyes hurt because of the smog." She said the blame lies, not with families, but with their deplorable circumstances: "There is no other way given the scarcity of money."

A blogger for the site KeepTalkingGreece.com, who asked to remain anonymous, described to me the sensation of breathing in the smoke this way:

"First time, the penetrating smell hit me right in the face was late November 2012. I had just opened the balcony door in the evening when I felt thousands of unknown and invisible particles entering my nostrils and my lungs. An unpleasant smell of gasoline and something else. A pressure on my chest

...

"Since the start of the phenomenon, there have been times that I could not open the balcony door at night even to bring my own firewood inside. Worst was the smog over the city, during the holiday season, when families and friends got together to celebrate Christmas and New Year, when temperatures were low and fireplaces and stoves were working in full power. I personally had felt like I was having a stone sitting on my chest and gauze was blocking my nose."

BURN EVERYTHING

The Greek environmental ministry has warned families to not use their fireplaces as furnaces, but "families have lost workers and can barely make ends meet," said Tsaroucha, who has lived in Athens since she was born. "The increase in the price of heating oil ... and the increased amount of taxes that each household has to pay" have contributed to families' decision to heat their homes with old-fashioned fire from practically anything that will burn -- not only wood, but also lacquered furniture and old doors.

The second symbol of the economic crisis in Greece, after the smog, might be the denuded forests. Greece's environmental ministry estimates more than 13,000 tons of wood was harvested illegally in 2012. The environment ministry has reportedly seized "more than 13,000 tons of illegally cut trees" as families scramble to find something, anything, that will make a fire and heat a room.

"This new plague appears to be democratic," Greek commenter Nikos Konstandaras wrote, "but the veneer of universality is thin -- again it is the poor who suffer most: They live on lower floors, where the toxins congregate, they are forced to burn whatever they find, huddling around open fires and buckets of embers."

615 chopping wood man athens.jpgA worker chops firewood at a wood storage warehouse in Chalandri suburb north of Athens (Reuters)

Perhaps you've heard of the "Environmental Kuznets Curve." It's the basic theory that, although the initial burst of industrialization often degrades the environment (look at Beijing), the wealthiest societies tend to have the healthiest environments, as they develop sustainable living and cleaner, more expensive technologies (look at San Francisco).

But "Greece is regressing," said Iain Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As it becomes poorer, its environment suffers more." Between 1961 and 1998, the concentration of particulates in London fell from an average of 160 micrograms per cubic meter to less than 20. That's what coming down the curve looks like. "The current levels in Greece are reaching 300 micrograms per cubic meter," Murray wrote. That's what going back up the curve looks like.

One Greek blogger compared the scene in Athens to a passage from Charles Dickens' Bleak House, dramatizing the fact that Greece faces a truly pre-industrial crisis in post-industrial country: "Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snow-flakes -- gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun ... Fog everywhere ..."

Tsaroucha says families feel they have no choice but to harvest trees, tear wood from their walls, and throw furniture into their fires to burn it into the sky. They face the dilemma of "either saving the environment or keeping their households warm," she said.

In January, the Wall Street Journal reported a familiar scene in the woods surrounding the Greek capital. An environmentalist named Grigoris Gourdomichalis had caught an unemployed father of four illegally hacking away at a tree in the mountains. They had a confrontation. The property was government-owned, as Gourdomichalis told reporters Nektaria Stamouli and Stelios Bouras. But finally, the environmentalist relented. After the father began to cry, he let him walk back to his house to burn the wood from the tree.

More »

The 11 Most Interesting Facts From the New Mega-Survey of American Media

Here is the survey, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And here's what I found interesting:

(1)
The hand-off between print and online publishing hasn't followed as smooth a trajectory as you might think. Software publishing jobs (e.g. developers, computer programmers) have grown by 174 percent since 1990 -- but by less than 1 percent since 2001. Newspaper, book, and directory publishing jobs have declined 36 percent since 1990 -- but there was practically no decline in this category until 2001.

(2) The typical reporter made $35,000 in 2011. The typical editor made $52,000.

oes_emp_wages_b.png
(3) Boom times for ... photographers? "Over the 2010-2020 period, the number of photographers is projected to increase by 17,500, the largest increase among media-related occupations."

(4) Union membership is in decline across every media category, from movies to publishing and telecommunications. Even though less than one in ten information workers belongs to a union, they are still 50 percent more likely to be union members than the typical private sector worker.

(5) The BLS's measure of labor productivity (that is, output per hours worked) has come under considerable scrutiny by some economists, but this stat is a good reminder of the divergence of technological reform within the media industry. Productivity in the newspaper, magazine, and book publishing sector has grown 11 percent since 1990. Wireless telecom productivity has increased by 966 percent in that time.

(6) Is TV cheap? Depends on what you mean by TV. The consumer price index for television sets has fallen 91 percent since 1998. The CPI for cable and satellite television subscriptions has increased by 61 percent over the same time. In human speak: You can pay much less for better TVs today, while paying more to access live programming on that flat-screen.

(7) The real price of books basically hasn't changed since the late 1990s. The real price of newspapers and magazines, as a category, is up 40 percent in that time. 

(8) Total spending-per-person on newspapers and magazines has fallen 47 percent since 1999. Total spending-per-person on Internet has increased by 550 percent over the same time.

cex_internet.png(9) The typical person who watches TV sits in front of the tube for three and a half hours every day -- the time equivalent of watching all of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, each day, forever.

(10) 15 out of 16 Americans said they don't answer personal email on a typical day away from work. 6 out of 7 Americans said they don't use a computer for leisure outside of work hours. [I was skeptical of these numbers and called an economist from the BLS Time Use Survey. The explanation was that people might have under-reported computer use outside of work, because they weren't counting breaks from actual salaried work that lasted less than 15 minutes.]

(11) Thirty- and fortysomethings spend the most on entertainment. Sixtysomethings spend the most on books, magazines, and newspapers.


The NCAA vs. Student Athletes: The End of the 'the Best Business Model in the World'?

College sports is a multi-billion-dollar business. Do its workers deserve to be paid?

It's a simple question taking a convoluted journey through our legal system. But student-athletes are closer to getting their day in court, since a judge ruled yesterday that NCAA athletes can legally pursue a cut of the billions of dollars flowing to college sports through TV deals.

In 2011, civil-rights historian Taylor Branch made a monster case for paying college athletes in The Atlantic. He predicted that law suits like this could could destroy the business model of the NCAA. To dig into the economics of paying college athletes, I called up Dave Berri, a sports economist with Southern Utah University and the author of The Wages of Wins, who cheekily called the NCAA's rule against paying its own athletes "the best business model in the world." A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows:

THOMPSON: A judge has have given the green light to a class-action lawsuit brought by former college players to compel the NCAA to pay student athletes out of its TV revenue. Big deal? Or no big deal?

BERRI: It definitely means something. The NCAA has been opposed to the idea of sharing its revenue with its players for about 100 years.

Make the economic case for why college athletes ought to be paid.

The players are the workers who generate the money.

The NCAA is producing an enormous amount of revenue. The players are producing that revenue. It's ridiculous that we're not paying them. It's ridiculous what the NCAA does with respect to its players. They were selling [former Auburn quarterback and current NFL star] Cam Newton jerseys and Newton didn't get any money. At Michigan [basketball], the Fab Five used to say, 'We're walking down the street with no money, and you're selling our jerseys for profit.'

Okay, make the economic case for why the NCAA is right to not pay its athletes.

I don't have one, besides: They would like more money. And they don't want to share.

Right now, the big money is going to the coaches. What might happen if they have to pay the players is that the coaches and athletic directors will have to earn less, and you would stop investing in state-of-the-art facilities. Most schools really don't need an indoor practice facility.

What's preventing one renegade school from saying, 'These kids are working, they are producing real money, they deserve a cut of the revenue'?

NCAA teams are not allowed to pay the players. They passed a rule saying: We can't pay you. It's the best business model in the world. "I'm working hard, can I have some money?" "Sorry, I can't pay you, I don't want to break the rule."

The NCAA says we need these rules for balance. But there is no competitive balance. Alabama wins [the college football championship] every year. If they pay their players ... they'll still win every year!

Why are the players going after the TV money as opposed to revenue at the gate of each stadium?

Broadcast revenue is just the biggest pot of money. You would think the players would want a cut of all of the revenue. But it's the NCAA that negotiates the broadcast contracts, so if you're bringing a class action lawsuit, you sue the NCAA. You'd have to sue every team individually for gate revenue.

Okay, so let's say the players win. They get a cut of the TV money. Then what? 

If the court rules in the players favor, it's going to be difficult to figure out damages. I don't know how you decide that. I study wins and wages at the NBA level. The question we've asked is: How many wins does a player produce, and then we link that up to revenues. Once you know how many wins a player produces, you can say how much the wins are worth. But broadcast revenue is shared. It's not tied to players. So how will the courts decide who deserves how much money? And the answer is I don't know. Clearly the number is greater than zero.

The Economy Just Shrank, but This Is the Best Negative GDP Report You Will Ever Read

What kind of economy might we have if Washington weren't dead-set on building an obstacle course for the recovery?

615 metal worker recovery.jpg
Reuters

The economy surprisingly shrank by the smallest of margins -- a tenth of a percent -- in the last three months of 2012, as volatile defense spending took a tremendous 22 percent hit and companies pulled back on inventories.

As the president might say, let me be clear: This is bad economic report. The economy is still weak, unemployment is still high, consumer and corporate nerves are still frayed, and growth Just. Stopped.

On the bright side, this is probably the best bad economic report you will ever, ever read. And here's why. Underneath the headline figure of negative-0.1 percent, the news about the private sector is sturdy, even -- dare I say it? -- promising.

Compared to the previous three months, personal consumption accelerated last quarter. Personal consumption of durable goods? That's growing faster, too. Services? Growing faster. Equipment and software investment? Growing faster. And the all-important category of residential spending (houses)? Clearly accelerating.

You probably want to see that news in graphs for yourself, so here are two. First up, a look at percent-growth of three important categories of the economy: Personal consumption, which is a super-category, durable goods (which is one of its key components), and residential investment, which is clutch if we're going to have anything approximating a housing recovery. As you can see, the fourth quarter of 2012 doesn't exactly look like a nightmare ...

Screen Shot 2013-01-30 at 10.15.09 AM.pngThe Bureau of Economic Analysis weights these components to show how much they're actually contributing to total growth. Since personal consumption is a super-category, I've replaced it with another key sub-category: nonresidential investment (which is like new factories and offices, as opposed to new houses). Here's that picture.

Screen Shot 2013-01-30 at 10.41.37 AM.png Slightly different data, same bottom line: In the private sector, the last quarter of 2012 wasn't a disaster. In some ways, it was arguably our strongest three-month period in two years.

Here's where you say: Derek, stop it, you're comparing weak growth in the last quarter to weak growth in the previous two years and trying to pass it off like it's great news, but it only means we're bouncing higher than a dropped dead cat. And here's where I say you're right. I think of our private sector like a recently crippled fellow in physical training. But the insane trainers at the Government Rehabilitation Center insist on complicating the recovery by throwing pointless obstacles at our guy. Oh, you're standing now? We're going to kick out your crutch of state aid. Walking, huh? Here's a debt ceiling showdown. And here's another, because whatever. Nice jogging effort! Now please leap over these several sequester and budget crisis hurdles.

It makes you wonder: What kind of economy might we have if Washington weren't dead-set on building an obstacle course for the recovery?

Hire My Friend! The Easy Logic (and Hidden Dangers) of Employee Referrals

The downside of a very useful short-cut

600 hire me 2 REUTERS Mark Blinch.jpg

Reuters

If you're unemployed, this will come as either great news or terrible news -- depending on how much you envy your friends' jobs.

The New York Times reports that referrals from employees make up a growing number of hires at some large companies that face the daunting task of wading through thousands of applications to fill a single position. At the accounting and consulting powerhouse Ernst & Young, nearly half of advanced hires these days were recommended by the company's own workers. (That's up from 28 percent in 2010, and the company's goal is to surpass 50 percent internal-referral rate.) In the what you know vs. who you know tug-of-war, personal connections are pulling stronger. 

It's both utterly predictable for companies and quietly dangerous for workers.

Companies like referrals because they're cost-saving, energy-saving, and people-saving. Picking through hundreds of resumes and cover letters is a tremendous investment of time, money, and human resources labor. Giving weight to internal referrals might not be the most comprehensive way to evaluate potential hires, but it's a not-entirely-crazy short-cut. As much as old-school economics likes to pretend that rational beings relish infinite choices, the research suggests people tend to be overwhelmed by them. What we really relish is taking short-cuts to prune our options. Exhaustive evaluation can be, quite literally, exhausting.

Like any short-cut, this one can lead companies astray. It's conceivable that if you rope off a majority of your hires for internal referrals, you're willfully ignoring applicants who could be superior employees, but happen to lack the arbitrary quality of "knowing Carl from Accounts Receivable." Still, in many companies, the culture-fit factor can matter as much or more than the strategic-fit factor. In other words: It's important to hire people who get along. Friends do count for something.

The greater danger would be to the broader economy. There are nearly 5 million Americans who have been out of work more than six months. These wannabe-workers are more likely to suffer from depleted networks of office buddies and other professional connections. "The more you've been out of the work force, the weaker your connections are," Mara Swan, executive vice president for global strategy and talent at Manpower Group, told the Times.

As more companies turn away from public applicant pools to private worker recommendations for leads on new hires, the long-term unemployed will be even less likely to get interviews, and even more likely to remain unemployed. The Ernst & Young's of the world are well within their legal rights to trust the judgment of their own salaried workers. But an insular professional class, turned inward against the ranks of long-term unemployed Americans, could create a permanently poorer class of Americans whose lost productivity and reliance on government will all of us poorer in the long run.

Fishing, Logging, Flying an Airplane: Here Are America's Deadliest Jobs

Working in the United States has practically never been safer. Still, more than 4,500 people died on the job in 2011, the latest year the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported their most grim report.

Here are some of the jobs with the highest rate of work-related deaths: In other words, the most dangerous occupations in America (via Planet Money).

Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 5.10.03 PM.png

That's right: Firemen are less likely to die on the job than the average U.S. worker.

There is no more dangerous mainstream job in the United States than being a fisherman, where the most common way to die is drowning. But there's good news: fishing deaths are down by half since 2009. Fascinatingly, Planet Money reports that "most pilots who die on the job are flying propeller-driven planes" and "the typical pilot killed in the line of duty is someone flying a crop duster, not a commercial jet."

People who do die at work are ...

1) MORE LIKELY TO BE DRIVING: Driving sales workers and truck drivers accounted for 16% of all work-related deaths. In general, transportation incidents account for two out of five work-related deaths in the U.S.

Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 3.43.35 PM.png

2) MORE LIKELY TO BE OLD: Workers who are 65 and older are almost five times more likely to die on the job than workers in their 20s.

3) MORE LIKELY TO BE MEN: Men account for 57 percent of the hours worked in the U.S. but 92 percent of on-the-job deaths.



Homepage image: Lucas Jackson (Reuters)

More »

Today, Apple Stock Lost More Than the Market Value of Nike or Starbucks

Apple's stock fell 12 percent today, its worst tumble in four years. Nobody knows if this is the beginning of the end, or a lull between two glorious chapters of market dominance.

What we do know is that Apple lost an eighth of its market cap today, or $52 billion in stock value. That's more than the market cap of some very big, very famous companies (h/t Rebecca Jarvis for the first comparisons) ...

Screen Shot 2013-01-24 at 4.33.13 PM.png

Big picture: This says as much about the monstrous size of Apple (which just "disappointed" with $54 billion in revenue last quarter) as it does about the size of today's sell off.

More »

The Biggest Story in Photos

Early Monsoon Rains Flood Northern India

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)