Sam Ball's lecture was established to provide the avenue for highlighting and celebrating work for the tradition of Sam Ball. Sam is well known in the room, so I will not bore you with the long history of his vital contributions to the foundation and development of this department. Yet that history is well told in the department's biography, written by a colleague Don Katzner. A few things about Sam. Three. One, Sam's very career, as you all know, and his historical move to UMass from Harvard, is a testimony that our profession, the academia, is highly idealizing. There is no other way to explain how a premier research institution like Harvard University would deny tenured to a to a previous political and dynamic writer, one of the very best in his generation. It is only because he was advancing methods and ideas and interrogating acquired social and political beliefs in ways that challenge the mainstream. Second, Sam is a living example of a true man of principles. He remained true to his beliefs, even when it meant losing a pushy job at Harvard University. UMass became the lucky beneficiary. Many of us will not be standing here today, if it wasn't for Sam's dedication to pursuing honest and critical inquiry into economics as a socially relevant discipline. Third, Sam is the symbol of a true intellectual. He was and still continues to engage with the mainstream, even if he disagrees with its methods and teachings. As human beings, faced with adversity, the natural instinct is to retreat inward and only engage with folks who think and act like us. But social change and progress in knowledge only comes from productive and positive confrontation of diverging ideas. It takes courage to be a true thought leader. Finally, Sam as a teacher, even in his retirement, Sam continues to offer his landmark course in economics. It's called the Economics of Competition, Coordination and Cooperation and Conflicts for Seasons, which we very much appreciate. Only he knows when he gets the energy to keep functioning at such high intellectual and physical level, serving not one, not two, but three institutions, UMass, Santa Fe and the University of Seattle. Testimonies from his current past students tell the story of a caring and delicate teacher. And today we have the privilege of hearing from one of Sam's first international students, Nancy Holbrook. Nancy was born and raised in Texas. She earned her bachelor's degree in philosophy and her master's in Latin American studies at the University of Texas, attracted by the nice four colors of New England. She decided to move up north for her graduate studies enrolled at UMass where she earned her PhD in economics. In 1984, Nancy became the very first UMass economics graduate to be hired as a tenure system faculty in her home department, an extremely high bar in the tradition of the department. That was a testimony of her excellence, but most importantly, the department saw in her a prospective thought leader and change agent. Time has now proven that the department's decision was indeed wise and that it now sits on the right side of history. Nancy has had an illustrious career as a researcher, teacher, community intellectual and activist. Nancy is currently known nationally and worldwide as a leader in the intellectual movement that challenges conventional approaches to economic analysis that focuses solely on the market economy, leaving aside a major part of human activity that is so critical to the well-being of society, namely the clear economy. To illustrate the reach of Nancy's work on clear economy, I will draw from one of her recent papers with which I have a personal connection. Here personal in the sense that I actually saw the paper from its creation. The first time Nancy told me that she was retiring, we were both sitting on a plane heading to Arusha, Tanzania. For a meeting of the African Economic Research Consortium, she was, she had been invited to present a paper on the clear economy in Africa, subsistence production and unpaid care, which was later published in the Journal of African Economics, one of the premier journals that published on Africa. In this paper, Nancy restates the importance of what has become a prominent paradigm in the profession, the clear economy paradigm. She says, the clear economy paradigm calls attention to bargaining, property rights, and in the parties based on gender and age, rather than taking families as a given and treating households as undifferentiated units of analysis. In the same paper, Shila mentions that the clear economy has been involved in the measurement of economic activity with detrimental consequences for economic analysis. She says, because mainstream theory shaped the assumptions embedded in national census and income accounts, it also influenced data collection. As a result, little official effort was made to collect data relevant to the measurement of unpaid work. The absence of data in turn contributed to the underdevelopment of economic analysis. Nancy has written extensively, publishing dozens of books and a multitude of academic journal articles. Just on one publication, the abstract of one of her books, which is called Green, Last and Gender, A History of Economic Ideas. It says, the history of Western economic ideas shows that men have given themselves more cultural permission than women for the pursuit of both economic and sexual self-interest. Feminists have long contested the boundaries of this permission, demanding more than mere freedom to act more like men. Women have gradually gained the power to revise our conceptual and moral maps and to insist on a better and less gendered balance between self-interest and care for others. Two things strike me with this statement. One is that it is a moral question. Indeed, society has tremendously suffered from excessive, irresponsible cultural permission of men, especially those in power. The financial crisis of 2008 was a major testimony to this. But I'm actually glad that women are demanding more freedom to change the world by not being more like men, rather by playing a role in redirecting society's moral contacts. Second is the fundamental equity problem. Societies that tolerate gender—this is me now—societies that tolerate gender inequality and gender discrimination are most likely to tolerate inequality and discrimination along other dimensions, including race, religion, moral beliefs, and others. I see the gender equity agenda as an agenda for a complete overhaul of social and political norms towards a broadly more egalitarian society along all those dimensions. To conclude, this afternoon I was talking to a senior colleague and I thought I would remind him about the Sam Bowles lecture. He said, of course I know. That is why I came today. Nancy always has something deep and interesting to say. Colleagues and guests, please help me welcome her. Thank you so much. It's a great honor and a privilege to be here to deliver the Bowles lecture. I did begin this journey in 1978 as a student of Sam's, and a lot of the themes that I'm going to talk about today have sort of emerged piecemeal over those years. And many of them thanks to the patient skepticism and occasional enthusiasm of my students and colleagues, for which I'm very grateful. Both the process of kind of realizing this intellectual project and the experience of being here today makes me feel really good about our intellectual community and what we have accomplished, not to mention the art of the introduction. I feel like some people here have heard part of what I'm going to say, but I'm going to try and put it together in a kind of new and different way. And I'm choosing to focus on some theoretical issues that I think connect with your interests and the interests of the kind of research that many of us have engaged in collectively. So the basic question I want to ask is why some groups of workers earn more or less than others. And there's been a lot of attention on our profession to this question lately, especially to the top 1% and how, what kinds of explanations might serve to better understand why earnings themselves, not just income, have become increasingly concentrated. But of course, the same question kind of connects to a longstanding interest in workers at the bottom end of the wage spectrum earning less than others. And there's a lot of research on those aspects of inequality as well. But I think sometimes the relationship between more earnings and less earnings isn't as fully developed as it might be. And that's what I want to try to speak to today. So one basic question that often is asked as a starting point is just, are earnings unequal because of who people are or because of what they do? Is it the characteristics of individuals or the characteristics of jobs that are driving inequality? And more broadly, you could think of that as a tension between thinking about agents and agency and thinking about the structure of the economy as a whole. In the feminist problematic, this often comes up in looking at or contrasting views based on individual discrimination, like the discrimination of employers who are agents of discrimination, versus the structure of jobs and the fact that women are very concentrated in certain female dominated occupations. The earlier research on comparable worth is a really good example of an effort to look at jobs rather than individuals. And I want to emphasize that I don't think it makes sense actually to pose the question starkly as either or. The two things are interrelated. Individual characteristics sort people into jobs and jobs change the way the characteristics of individuals. But there's still a kind of difference in the way in which these two aspects of the determinants of earnings inequality are treated. And there's kind of an ideological force field that I think is particularly relevant to those of us who care about an agenda for progressive change. So neoclassical economists often argue that workers get either what they deserve or at least they kind of get what they want. And I'm just going to give you two quotes that I think dramatize that distinction. This is the first as a quote from Gregory Mankiw, author of the bestselling introductory economics text in the U.S. which I understand grosses millions in revenue. And he writes the rich earn higher incomes because they contribute more to society than others do. And actually I recommend this essay to you if you haven't read it defending the one percent because it's a very direct and frank articulation of a point of view that people are often reluctant to, you know, confess openly to. And, you know, honestly Mankiw chooses examples like movie stars or great basketball players.  Sometimes people who are outstanding and productive and make incredible contributions do earn a lot of money. But it's kind of a preposterous generalization in my view. Claudia Golden and Lawrence Katz are much more diplomatic and, you know, much more measured in their explanation of gender inequality. But this quote from them kind of boils it down. Employees differ in their demand for workplace flexibility and thus their willingness to pay for a translation. Women just like family friendly jobs and those jobs aren't as productive. So women are getting a compensating differential in return for their employment in these jobs. And that doesn't necessarily mean that we should be opposed to social policies that could make some good changes or to changing social norms. But these aren't really necessary or pressing problems because markets are working efficiently and evolving in ways that might, will likely give women the opportunity to perhaps minimize the cost of this extravagant preference for family care. So heterodox economists, I think most of us here would argue that workers, there's inequality among workers because partly at least, because workers face different forms of discrimination and they experience different forms of exploitation. But I think that this general proposition is not as coherent, as complete as it needs to be and I would like to advance the argument further. So one version that I think has had a particular, found a big audience in recent years is the argument about high earners being successful rent seekers. So here's a quote from Josh Bivens and Lawrence Michele. It's from that same issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives in which Gregory Mankiw defended the 1%. So this is the other side, right? And they argue high earners capture rents that cannot be explained simply as the outcome of functioning competitive markets rewarding skill or productivity based on marginal differences. And this idea that wages at the top reflect rents has been articulated by a lot of other empirical researchers including Jim Crotty whose work on the financial rainmaker firm offers additional, additional substantiation for this point. I'm not so happy with this particular formulation. I think the term rent is a little bit confusing in this context and it can explain why earners at the top earn more but it doesn't really explain why workers at the bottom earn less. In fact, if you look at this quote it sort of suggests that all wages are fair except those at the top who are able to capture rents. And by the way I think most people would argue that the effort to raise the minimum wage is a form of rent seeking. That's a form of rent seeking that seems to have many of us would support. So I'm not so sure that we want to base our critique of high earners on the notion that it's a result of interference with competitive forces. So I think a broader explanation of the earnings inequalities that we see is that relative earnings are shaped by differences in individual and collective bargaining power. But that just kicks the can down the road because the next question is well what are the factors that determine the bargaining power of workers? And what I want to persuade you today is that feminist research on care work and the care penalty can help explain the power premium at the very top of the earnings distribution in the U.S. and vice versa that the way in which economists have talked about that power premium at the top can help us understand why workers in care occupations and industries earn less than we might expect. I believe there is strong support from my view from an airline magazine ad that I've been seeing for like 30 years. Surely you have seen it as well. Chester Carras, it's quite expensive to sign up for this program. But if you do, you will get some skills to succeed in the business world. I like this distinction between getting what you deserve and getting what you negotiate. And that's pretty key to my argument. Okay, so now let me just lay out for you in very abbreviated form the kind of theoretical basis for arguing that there is a care penalty. It goes in a nutshell, this is the argument that women's specialization in care provision can offer efficiency gains for society as a whole but it reduces women's individual and collective bargaining power. And this is an argument that kind of grew out of initially efforts to understand inequality in the household and inequality in the family. In fact, I'm thinking back to the mid-1980s when Paula England and I were Paula England the sociologist with whom I've collaborated a great deal. We were arguing about or discussing trying to problematize this issue of inequality in the family and the household. And Paula and her colleague George Farkas wrote a really interesting and important book called Households Employment and Gender in which they explained why women are disadvantaged by not producing a good or a service over which they had property rights in which they could revoke access to or which they could easily withdraw. And this became a theme in our theoretical and also our empirical work that has evolved over the years in a number of different venues, research networks and also many collaborations. And the reasons here are related to... I want to kind of come back to agency and structure. They have to do with some characteristics of individuals, namely their preferences, their values, their commitments. So commitments to caring for others tend to increase dependency, especially if you're caring for people who rely on you, then you become in a sense hostage to their needs or their requirements. The term prisoner of love I think kind of captures it, but it's taken from a rock song. It's a love song. In fact, a lot of love songs are about being a prisoner of love, chains, chains, chains, etc. But it's... I think it's kind of poignant. It says something about the nature of human attachment and the fact that it is often very specific, very unique, and it's not fungible in the same sense that a lot of other decisions are. And then there's also kind of a structural point to accompany the point about agency. And the structural point is that care provision in general and child rearing in particular are creating especially public benefits that are difficult for providers themselves to capture. And that doesn't mean that many activities generate positive spillovers or public benefits. But the process of raising the next generation is a pretty powerful example. And if you think about the way discount rates work and the way in which we apply discount rates, you can see that the process of producing the next generation of citizens and workers and taxpayers is something that is basically paying... it involves a lot of paying forward rather than paying back is kind of a way to think about it. So this argument leads to kind of a different interpretation of... or a different explanation of gender inequality than one that I think remains pretty standard in both economics and sociology. Because it suggests that the problem is not that women's work is somehow devalued by women or merely discriminated against, but that there's something about specialization in care provision that creates gender disadvantage. Now, I mean, you could frame it as... it's of course kind of a circular process. Devaluation of women or discrimination against women lowers the valuation of care. That's one possible causal arrow. But it's also the causal arrow that I think I want to emphasize here that specializing in care tends to disempower those who engage in it and because those who engage in it are primarily women, it's women who experience the greatest effects of that. So if we're going to rest this theoretical argument on the characteristics of care work, we need to define it pretty carefully and there's now pretty big literature that tackles this issue with a ton of two competing definitions and it's worth paying attention to these because they are going to have relevance to some of the empirical issues that will come up in the context of explaining earnings. So the narrow definition or the narrow word definition of care work is very much based on agency or the labor process and sometimes it's called direct or nurturing care and it's work in which you think that concern for the well-being of recipients is likely to affect the quality of the services provided.  If they don't like your services, they can't easily exit and it's often hard to really observe the quality of care that is being provided. So when we look for somebody to provide care, we look for someone who's concerned, who has some intrinsic motivation for the well-being of the care recipient because that's kind of really key to being able to ensure that those services are of high quality. I regard that as literally a definitional aspect of the problem. It's more relevant, you know, it's not a binary. It's not that some people have no concern for the well-being of others and some people are totally consumed by it. It's kind of a spectrum, but I think what's distinctive about care is that that's a general feature of it. In fact, when I was talking about this in a class yesterday, I had a student who said he had actually gone to social work school for a couple of years before he switched to economics, perhaps recognizing that care is not a very economically rewarding profession. But he was explaining that in social work, and this is also true in nursing, there's actually a pretty serious effort to teach empathy, to improve people's skills, and to foster feelings of concern for others because that's seen as part of the professional identity and requirement of the job. But it's also true that a lot of this work is very personal. That is, it's done on a first name basis, it often involves touching, or if not kind of being on a first name basis. And I think many people would argue that even services that are purchased or sold, like the way we sell our services, are often enhanced by a personal connection and a personal engagement. Did you have a question about it? Okay. So there's also a broad definition, and the broad definition is more about the structure. That is, it's not about the people so much as it is about the nature of the product, the nature of the output. And this kind of work is kind of often designated indirect care, the sociologist Minyan Defi refers to it as reproductive care. So it might be called provision of services for those who can't care for themselves, or indirectly contributing to the development or maintenance of human capabilities. So here you might think of people who participate in a care industry, that is, they're employed in health, employed in education, employed in social services. They're not necessarily in an occupation. That's a hands-on care occupation. But the institution that they work for is in the care business. And a lot of institutions in the care business are non-profits and public institutions, not private-for-profit firms. Although we're seeing increasing expansion of for-profit provision in there. So how do we go about operationalizing paid care work in order to look at how this might affect the distribution of earnings? Well, most of the research today has focused on occupation, i.e. the nature of the labor process. And a lot of it is categorical. Like just listing, here's a care occupation, child care worker, elder care worker, nurse, teacher. Sometimes the divisions are really clear. There's always some fuzzy areas. Should college professors be considered care workers? Maybe not as much as elementary school teachers, but I would include them as being in a care occupation. An alternative to the categorical assignment of occupations to care and non-care is a continuous coding. And there are occupational characteristics. Since the ONAT database has a long list of characteristics of jobs that are based on interviews with workers about what are the qualities, what are the characteristics that are required in these jobs. And a lot of those questions can be kind of loaded into a factor analysis that gives you a way to code a high-care occupation or a low-care occupation with a ranking from, say, one to five. And there's one interesting paper that I know that does this, and I think it's a really promising approach. But another way to slice the labor force is in terms of industry. That is to use the structural type of product criteria. And by that criteria, all those who are employed in health, education and social services, regardless of occupation, might be considered as workers in care industries. And I think it's kind of an open question at this point, and I'll return to this at the end, which of these definitions is best and how we go about empirically kind of getting some traction on some of the causal arrows that might be involved. So, I have to say this is really, I want to review the research showing that workers in care occupations and industries do pay a care penalty. And this is really dear to my heart because in the 1980s, when I sat around with Paula Englund, we literally said to each other, well, if we think there's a penalty for this type of work and unpaid work, shouldn't there also be a penalty in paid work? And Paula, being a really skilled empirical researcher, collaborated with Michelle Budig is here today in one of the first analyses of the care penalty that looked at longitudinal data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in a fixed-effect model that is a pretty robust specification. That is, net of individual characteristics when people go from a care job to a non-care job, they experience a pay increase. And when they go from a non-pay care job to a care job, this is defined in terms of occupation, they experience a pay decrease. So it's a pretty strong indicator that you're controlling for unobserved as well as observed human capital characteristics in this. And with the help of Melissa Hodges, they've recently updated this analysis and further confirmed these results. So let me just remind you, these are controlling for gender. So these care penalties apply to men as well as women, as the argument suggests, because it's the type of work, not the characteristics of the individual that are driving it, but of course, we're trying to control for the characteristics of individuals. There are also some industry level effects, net of occupation, and this is work I've just begun doing with a sociologist, Kristin Smith, at the University of New Hampshire. And we've gotten some grant support from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth that I acknowledged on my kind of cover slide. And it's very much in process, but we've been really startled by seeing how significant the industry differences are. Women are very highly concentrated in health, education, and social services. And health, education, and social services are very concentrated in the public sector. And the distribution of occupations is very different across industries. If you look at financial services, managers are a larger percentage of all of those workers in that industry than in any other industry. It's very managerial intensive. In care services, in care industries, over 50% of workers are called professionals in care industries, partly because of nurses and teachers, but because care industries themselves involve a high degree of professionalization. So that is one indicator, I think, that industry and occupation are not really separate. They're very correlated. And I think understanding that correlation better, you know, that relationship is actually important to a lot of different empirical projects, not just this one. Okay, here's the really important question. How do we take this analysis and come back to the larger goal, which is to think about earnings in terms of individual and collective bargaining power? Well, let me start with a list of some standard determinants of bargaining power in the empirical literature. And there has been, in just the last five years, a tremendous efflorescence of work trying to puzzle out industry and firm-level effects on earnings. And a lot of it has kind of gained momentum from the availability of new data sets that link employer and employee data. So you're able to look at both the characteristics of the firm, which you can't in an individual database, and the characteristics of individuals, which you often can't do with an employed database. So I think this is a really, really interesting area of research. And I think there's a lot of agreement about what, you know, how these things affect bargaining power. So human capital in general, education and experience, we knew that already, has a positive effect on earnings. I guess I'm framing it as a kind of, in terms of bargaining power, rather than marginal productivity, but being a very productive worker gives you bargaining power with your employer. So you're able to look at the individuals, job tenure we know is both, can affect worker productivity and also the bargaining power that workers have with their employers about the threat of leaving. We know that demographic characteristics, including race and gender, and age are relevant. And there's also some growing interest in social identity, like what groups do you belong to, are you, does being a woman or a person of color, or a person with a, you know, Islamic sounding name affect your treatment in the labor market as kind of a function of that kind of social identity. And the list of factors for jobs, firms and industries is also pretty standard. Is it a rapidly growing industry? So there's demand for workers that helps workers and those industries are kind of in a buyer's market. Elasticity of demand, can you pass on wage increases to consumers? If so, the firm is more likely to pay higher wages if those wage increases can be passed on. Firm size and market power, a lot of new emphasis on increased monopoly power in the U.S. labor market, that might affect the elasticity of demand. Workers in monopoly industries can actually be in a good bargaining position because they can demand higher wages that can be passed on. On the other hand, monopsony in the labor market would work against them. Public versus private, I think that is pretty clear, levels of unionization, we know how that affects earnings. Credentialization is now getting more attention as unionization has diminished so drastically. Credentialization just means requiring a license or completion of an educational requirement in order to get the job. And there's a lot of evidence that suggests that that restricts supply and raises wages in credentialized jobs. Can you outsource it? Can you automate it? What's the ownership structure? The efficiency wage literature looks at the difficulty of monitoring effort. Okay, so do these factors really explain care penalties? Well, not really. They don't really explain it. I mean, some of them do. On the yes side, that is they do help explain care penalties. Most care workers are women and so they're facing some discrimination. They have less experience, less job tenure. They have higher levels of human capital in terms of quantity. That is more years of education. But there are people out there like Gregory Mankiw arguing that that quality of their human capital is lower English majors instead of engineering students. And then the large role of the public sector could also help explain why that's a structural factor that could help explain the care penalty. But on the other side of the ledger, there's a growing demand for care workers, nurses, childcare workers, elder care workers. Elder care in particular is projected to grow very rapidly. It's hard to automate care although who knows what kind of AI tools are going to emerge in the future. But some people argue that it's a better bet to specialize in care for that reason. At least some care occupations, nurses and teachers, pretty high unionization, high credentialization. There's a lot of licensing, there are a lot of licensing requirements in the care sector. And it's very difficult to monitor effort in the care sector. So maybe care workers should get an efficiency wage. I'm going to come to that in a minute. So I think here is where I want to bring in some of the specific characteristics of care that I outlined earlier and argue that they reduce bargaining power. So I think preferences, altruistic preferences or caring preferences or moral values, they don't have to be preferences. They can be commitments or obligations. Reduce bargaining power because if you feel committed to your clients, the people that you're taking care of, you're less willing to withdraw your services. It's kind of a nice scowl's finished last argument. Care work often involves person-specific skills. This is what I was emphasizing earlier about care penalties in the home and the family. So you can become very good. You can become very, very productive at taking care of a very specific small group of people. But once those children grow up or once that marriage ends, those skills are not really transferable and that is also relevant to some that lack of fungibility or transferability might be relevant to some paid care jobs. But the really interesting I think additions to the bargaining power framework come on the right-hand side, the characteristics of care industries. It's very difficult to define output. It's very difficult to measure individual contributions and it's very difficult to capture contributions. So, output and care is very multi-dimensional. Is our job to increase our student standardized test scores? That might be one component, but surely that's not the only one. You know, what is the doctor's how do you measure the output of a physician's services? Well, sometimes you can do it like rates or morbidity or mortality, but there are some long run benefits of health over the life cycle that are very hard to factor in to an analysis. It might be harder, for instance, to rate the output of a pediatrician who's protecting children against a lifetime of possible ill effects versus an orthopedic surgeon who is performing a very specific operation whose successor failure can be easily measured. Orthopedic surgeons earn three times about what pediatricians do. That's not the only reason, but it might be one reason. A lot of care work is teamwork. That is, it involves collaboration with other people, other teachers, doctors collaborate with nurses, with aids, etc. But what's really distinctive I think about care work is it often requires collaboration with the quote-unquote consumer. That is, if your student isn't doing the reading if your student isn't doing the homework if you can't persuade the student to work with you on teaching, that lowers your output. Big problem in healthcare is patients not taking their medication or not following orders. If the physician is unable to elicit full cooperation from the consumer, the output is lower even if you can measure it. And the difficulty of measuring individual contributions is I think beautifully dramatized by the growing field of sports economics. Because if you think about it, what Michael Lewis did in Moneyball in the story of the introduction of statistical methods in baseball was he basically dramatized the evolution of a methodology for looking at individual value added in a team sport. And it changed recruiting practices in the baseball industry. Some people argue that that wasn't such a good thing but I'm not a baseball expert so I can't really, I can't cover that. But since that became very popular in baseball it's been extended to the analysis of basketball and also hockey with some success. So now that you can sort of look at how individual performance contributes to the likelihood of team success. But there's one sport where it's proven very, very difficult to do this and I find this actually both gratifying and amusing. It's basically it's football not the offensive team not the offensive players. You can look at how a quarterback team success, but the defensive line plays a really important role in football and if you have a good foot, if you have a good quarterback but you don't have a good defensive line the quarterback isn't going to do you much good. And so far all of the efforts to measure the individual value added of a defensive player in that context have not been very successful. I think care work is a little bit like that defensive line. It's a it's a kind of defense it's a defense against against threats to the development of human capabilities and I think that I don't know, I just think that's a good illustration of of why how can you demand more for your contribution if it's if you really can't measure your individual contribution. So it's let me just give you a few more illustrations and then we'll be done. So I mentioned earlier the efficiency wage issue and the puzzle. Well, why is it why don't care workers get an efficiency wage because there's a really interesting connection with with Sam's work in particular well, I think in standard efficiency wage models there's there's one big information problem which is that the employer can't directly ascertain the workers' efforts and so the employer resorts to either expensive monitoring or paying a higher than market clearing wage in order to increase the cost of job loss and improve effort. But you know that wouldn't do any good unless consumers cared about price and quality of the services that they're getting right and it's employers have to control workers or have an incentive to pay an efficiency wage precisely because they know their bottom line will be affected by both the quantity and price. Well in paid care work there's another information problem it's not only difficult to observe effort, it's very very difficult for consumers to act on the price and quality of the services provided. Now not always you can shop around for your doctor I don't know how effective you think that is you could shop around for your health plan I personally don't feel very empowered by that process but but children can't choose their care providers or their teachers. People in nursing homes especially if they're being paid for by Medicaid they have absolutely no consumer sovereignty so there is no you know there is really no incentive for the employer in this context to ensure high quality and their pricing strategies are largely determined by kind of regulatory requirements rather than market requirements so I think you end up with a problem of low pay for both low quality and high quality work or kind of lemon acrolavian problem that might be part of it but I think maybe another illustration closer to home is to think about how universities solve this problem. One way we solve it is just through credentialization and tracking so we can't really observe who the better teachers are or better faculty members are so let's just have let's find a rootinized bureaucratic way of funneling some into tenure track positions and some into adjunct positions and we're going to use some criteria that we think are merit based to do that. Well in this process as I've heard in many faculty meetings in this department service work tends to be under rewarded because it's very, very difficult to assess. It's very hard to measure the contribution and the efficacy of it and as a result service is very dependent on intrinsic motivation and service tends to be economically penalized. I wish I had a solution to this problem don't ask me what the solution is I don't know I'm thinking about it but I think it's an illustration it just I just want to show you how these arguments I'm making relate to the environment that you are operating in. The fiduciary rule this was a regulatory requirement that the Obama administration introduced which is now basically stalled out as a result of the change in political control in Washington and if you look at the wording of the fiduciary rule it's incredibly telling it would require this would require financial advisors to act in the best interest of their clients why do they care it's it's actually kind of interesting like how would you define acting in the best interest well it turns out that there's a lot of evidence that financial advisors don't act in the best interest of their clients and there's a really great article by Cindal Mullanathan and some others they did an experimental study where they actually went and see financial advisors with different financial plans them to assess it and they found a tremendous problem that they estimated was costing American investors 17 billion dollars a year that had to do with basically self-dealing that is making investment decisions that benefited the firm for one reason or another and the tremendous resistance that the financial services industry has voiced against the fiduciary rule is I think very telling by the way even TIA which many of us have our nest eggs invested in lobbied very very heavily against this simple fiduciary rule and oh here's the best part the regulatory process required an open forum where people could express their their reactions online pro or con the fiduciary rule I don't know if you notice but in December the Wall Street Journal did some investigative reporting that found that 40% of all the comments registered on that site were bogus it was entirely I mean this was clearly an effort at spoofing is that spoofing or trolling I can't keep these terms straight but they basically they were fake fake news, fake comments so I ask you why would an industry you know what why would an industry push back so hard against a simple change in wording about a duty to care unless they believe that would be costly I think maybe that maybe that's a little anecdotal but here's where I bring in a heavy hitter to support my case a Nobel Prize winner Colmstrom his work I think really deserves more attention in this department than it has received he summarized his Nobel Prize literature his lecture is called pay for performance and beyond and it was published in the AER in 2017 and it's really relevant to this story because pay for performance is very common in financial services it's very common at the top 1% of the earnings distribution and it is very small and very very limited in the care sector some efforts to include it as a factor in teacher pay but quantitatively very very small and what Colmstrom points out is that if you richly reward efforts that can be easily measured what you will do is you will induce people to reallocate effort towards less measured outcomes this is exactly what we were talking about about university service but he goes into a considerable detail about malfeasance as a result of high powered incentives the scandals at Wells Fargo what happened to the Atlanta teachers who tried to cheat their way through the pay for performance system that was implemented there and so Colmstrom argues it's really efficient to sort workers into two groups those who get high powered incentives and those who get low powered incentives because if you don't sort them what will happen is those who get the high powered incentives will shirk the parts of their job that can't be measured so in jobs where output can be measured you want to give these high powered incentives and in jobs where it can't be rely on more intrinsic motivation or what do you call low powered incentives well if you think about that this is basically about market incentives versus non-market incentives this is kind of a point about capitalism as a system in fact workers are divided into these two groups men are disproportionately located in jobs with high powered incentives where output can be easily measured and women are disproportionately located the care sector, the family and the welfare state where their contributions cannot be easily measured so here's the final summary of the argument the care penalty arises in my view from the difficulty of organizing care provision on the basis of purely voluntary exchange and that includes voluntary exchange within families families are structured by very specific rules of family law hierarchy, social norms that vary over time but they have never relied on purely voluntary exchange for any significant group of people over any significant group of time and the care penalty is exacerbated in capitalist systems by the difficulty of successfully commodifying the personal emotional non-standard team base and public goods aspects of care provision so I think this kind of connects to the Marxian problematic of social reproduction and a crisis of social reproduction in the long run it's very clear that capitalist dynamics can penalize aspects of care provision that cannot be commodified and you know as we look around us we find ourselves asking or social democratic welfare states going to be able to withstand the effects of increased wealth concentration and intensified global competition I just think it's something we should add to the list of crises I think there's a parallel with environmental crisis both of them have some public goods aspects and some perverse incentives aspects and both of them concern the articulation between market, non-market easily privatized not easily privatized and so forth and so on so I sort of wanted to leave you to this broad theoretical conclusion but before I let you get away I just want to mention that there is an empirical research agenda here that I'm working on in particular in collaboration with Michelle and others trying to dig more deeply into this relationship between occupation and industry in the care sector how do they interact how can we better understand their effects I would also like to look more closely at the effects of specific values and preferences on job choice and earnings there's a lot of survey data out there that relates to economic outcomes and Nicole Fortin as a labor economist who's worked in this area and also I think it's really important to redefine the care penalty in broader terms a lot of the econometric work is trying to isolate a care penalty controlling for gender controlling for occupation controlling for industry controlling for public but all of these control factors are themselves influenced by the care penalty and I think we need to look at care penalty in a broader kind of lifetime a broader model of the lifetime risk of reduced economic security as a result of specialization in care provision there's I think it's actually raises some really interesting empirical and theoretical kind of modeling questions thank you so much for bearing with me on this time


Y dyrector general am y Tynnu Bwt's support group management council Abdul Munin Gibral has revealed that all Progressive Congress APC national leader Ashua Jubola Tynnu Bwll will contest next year's presidential election and would officially unveil his ambition at a later date. Speaking during an international press conference in Canw, Gibral said the issue of whether Tynnu Bwll will contest and not, especially when he has not come out publicly to declare his ambition does not count. I can confirm to you today he's going to contest the election. Ashua Jubola Tynnu Bwll is a proper national leader. He's a full-blown national leader. He doesn't have a ethnic, he's not ethnic bias, he's not a religious fanatic. He carries everybody along. He's humble. He goes everywhere, massive network. Oh! To capitol, he deserves it because he has worked for the party tirelessly. He has worked extensively for the party.  And I believe that these are some of the qualities that I saw and I made me decide on that.


14 games on tonight's main MLB DFS slate. We are going out with a bang, our final Q&A, at least on the baseball side of things, before the All-Star break. We will still have Q&As next week, I believe Monday through Friday. I won't be here Friday, but Tom Vecchio will have you for MLB on Friday next week. But either way, we're gonna be here talking some football. I know JJ Zacharias will be here on Monday. So we're still gonna have Q&As, just different ones for next week. But let's go out with a bang here and win some money tonight in MLB DFS. This is the FanDuel Live Q&A. That's right here on the FanDuel YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter channels. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for numberfire.com here to answer your questions for the next half an hour to get you set for tonight's slate of MLB DFS. As always, no matter where you are watching, you can get your questions in. We'll take questions from Twitch, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, we'll take them anywhere and we'll get you set for tonight's slate of MLB DFS. Let's start things off with Sarugi over on YouTube. Hello, Sarugi, welcome back. Is Valeka worth a shot? Pat Valeka, I wanted to play Leba, but he is not starting. So Domingo Leba, not in the lineup for the Orioles for today. They're facing Dallas Keichel. I am broadly open to the idea of using batters who are facing Dallas Keichel. So that's a good thing for Pat Valeka. And I believe I talked myself into Valeka, like two nights ago, whenever I tried second against Hunjun Ryu, and I don't think it worked very well, but let's dig in here and see what we got with Valeka. 157 plate appearances, 0-56 ISO. That's overall, let's check out the splits versus lefty specifically. Probably not gonna be enough to feel super great here, but hey, let's check it out anyway. Against lefty specifically, 0-86 ISO this year, things have been better in the past. Dallas hit a lot of fly balls, that's a good thing, but I feel like we'll probably try to avoid Valeka. I'm guessing it's because he's minimum salary. Yeah, so I would, let's try to find another mid-salary guy throughout the show for today, so we get to try to find someone else. I would not be searching for Valeka personally, just because the upside may not be there. Let's talk to Kyle on YouTube. How would you rank Philadelphia, the Dodgers, the Padres, and Houston for my stacking perspective for today? Philadelphia is number one. Love Philadelphia and a great spot here. With Gary Richards, who's really, really struggling with the new sticky stuff enforcement. So Philadelphia is one, Dodgers would be two. They're facing off with Taylor Weidner coming back today. He had one rehab start before coming back. It didn't go very well. He wins 62 pitches, so stretched out, but probably not in his best form at the moment. So Dodgers two there. The Astros are, doot, doot, doot, doot, doot, doot, doot. I can't read. They're facing Nestor Cortez, pretty good. I'm not sure how long Cortez will go. I think he would 59 in his first start. So, you know, it's long enough. They're great against lefties. So not totally off the map, but I'm not super eager to use batters facing Cortez. And then the, or the Padres are facing Kyle Freeland. Freeland's been okay this year, so I would be okay not being super high on them, especially because of not as good against lefties. So Philly won Dodgers two. I would go with, I would just probably go with those two for the most part. I think those would be the top two for me over there. Let's talk to Closso over on YouTube, Conrad. Happy Friday, Jim. Happy Friday, Conrad. How are you feeling about Zach Thompson? After the Braves have seen him a few times already, that's one concern I have with Thompson. The second concern is I don't know how long he will go. I spelled his name wrong. That's so mean. Okay, so it's an H, not a K. I forgot to change that. There we go. I don't know how long he'll go. The Marlins tend to be pretty conservative with their pitchers. He stretched out. Like that's not a concern, but even when he's been stretched out, 91 and 87 pitches over his past two starts, the Marlins, I think it's smart. I think it's smart the way they use their pitchers. So I'm not criticizing them. I think they're doing a smart thing, but it's not good for us in DFS. So I think that's the secondary concern. Obviously seeing the Braves for, I think it's a third time now, and them being in good offense, I'm okay being lower on him as a result of the length and the matchup, and as you said, the familiarity with him right now. Aaron, let's get this party started. Cheers. Indeed, Aaron. Cheers. Happy Friday to you. Let's talk to Tim over on Facebook. Are the Red Sox, Marlins and Cardinals good money line picks? Okay, so the Red Sox facing Vince Velazquez. Let me check out. I actually don't have the numbers up here. Let's find the Red Sox money line. Minus 132. No, I would not go there with Richards pitching personally. Marlins, you could potentially talk me into it. I think it'll be a pretty low scoring game. I wouldn't take them plus 106 just because Morton is so good. So I'd be avoiding that one as well. Cardinals are going up. Oh, the Cardinals are playing the early game, I think. I make that up. Yeah, I think they might already be playing. I think they're playing the Cubs, either way. So I wouldn't be into those personally, Tim. I think those two games are stayaways from me. Let's talk to DJ on Facebook. Wade Miley, Alex Cobb or Cole Irvin. So none of the above for me, preferably. I'm not super into any of those options just because they're low strikeout guys. I need strikeouts. They're not going to be the guys who are putting up, you know, I don't think it's 60 burgers in the range of outcomes, whereas there are some guys who could potentially do that. Irvin, 18% strikeout rate in his most relevant sample. Cobb is at 24%, which is fine. It did seem like he had a dip after the sticky stuff discussion began. 24% is not terrible, and he's been a good overall pitcher still in that time. But I'd like a little bit more juice for DFS. And then the other one is Wade Miley. Yeah, I probably won't be on Miley either. I think if I had to pick one of those people, it'd be Alex Cobb, decent matchup at the Mariners, still getting enough strikeouts to be in consideration, but personally, neither or none of them really on my list, but I would say Cobb is the highest consideration for me. Oh, and Alvin actually asked about Cobb too. So where do Cobb and Manoa rank as pitchers and San Diego as a stack? San Diego facing Kyle Freeland. Again, not super itchy to stack against Freeland. It's a, not a great park for hitting, although it's not terrible today, given the temperatures out East are a bit cooler. Freeland does a decent job of getting some ground balls and also the Padres much better versus writings in lefty. So I would say Luke Warm, not super into the Padres, they're not off the table, but not super high on my list either. I would put Manoa above Cobb. Manoa is very, very risky because he does let up a lot of fly balls and the raise, well, the numbers here are actually for, I copy, see, I cheated. I tried to try to make things easy myself. We had the Brew Baker Walker and Manoa all get pushed from yesterday and I copied and pasted their cells, but I copied and pasted his opponent info, which is the Orioles, not the Rays. So this is actually a lot tougher. The Rays versus righties have a, I think like 108, 107 WRC plus, 182 ISO. They do strike out. So that's why I think that Manoa is worth considering Alvin, but I would say that the risk is there because the match was pretty tough with the Rays. He's also on the road. So I would say that if I were ranking out pitchers, Manoa might wind up being fourth actually. So it's looking at like here, we've got Charlie Morton one probably for me. I like Taiwan Walker two. I would go Ken to my eight of three. Manoa is probably in that four consideration. I think he's in the same tier as those guys too. So probably about fourth for me. Cobb a bit lower, I won't get there personally for tonight. So he probably wound up being somewhere outside the top five if I had to guess. Ooh, I am behind on it in question. Sorry about that. Let's talk to Bethany over on YouTube. Hey Jim, not in MLB girl, but just wanted to say, hope you had a great birthday week. Thank you. I appreciate that Bethany. It was, we decided to actually do something on a Thursday night, which I don't usually do, which meant that I was very tired this morning and did a lot of podcasts. So it was a struggle, but we're here. It's Friday afternoon and I am going to bed early tonight. Let's talk to Julius best picture of the night. Okay. For me, the best picture is Charlie Morton. He has the same issue that Conrad was talking about with Zach Thompson, where there's a lot of familiarity because the Marlins faced Morton back on June 11th and I believe they faced him again last week or like over this weekend. So two recent starts against them. They scored four runs both times. I don't care about that part, but I still think that he's the top guy for me. 28% strike area for Morton over his past 10 starts. I kept it at 10 for him because he actually hasn't seen a massive movement, massive shift in his movement since the sticky stuff discussion. Really good bat at ball data, good park, good matchup. So I know that there are concerns with Morton. There are red flags, every picture on this slate though. So I would say that Morton is the number one picture for me. Let's talk to Alvin. Is it just me or is the White Sox lineup underwhelming? It is not just you. I agree. I had to go through like, that's why I have the White Sox tab pulled up over here. So I was like trying to dig deeper into them. So I was like, okay, Anderson fine. Lot of stolen base upside. Love Goodwin, love the power. Abreu, prefer him against lefties but fine against righties. Moncada, he has an injury. I wanna check out his numbers really quick. This is a tangent because I wanna look more at Adam Engel. But let me pull up Moncada and see what his bat at ball numbers look like recently because shoulders are scary for hitters. It can sometimes sap away power. So I do wanna look at the more recent numbers on him. Just come back to past two games. So only, let's see here about nine, seven balls in play. And of those seven balls in play, three even hard hits. That's actually not, that's not bad. I find that kind of interesting. It's getting some good exavilo on that. He is not putting the ball too much on the ground in those two games. It's a very small sample, but I think that Moncada's doing well enough in those two games where I feel okay putting him on the list. So all the top four are fine. And I, when I initially pulled up this lineup album, I was annoyed that Adam Engel was batting fifth. Cause I was like, okay, I don't really tend to use Adam Engel. But like, honestly, once I looked at his numbers since the start of last year, it looks a lot better. I'm gonna pull up his splits tool over on fan graphs because I think that I wanna group together his numbers versus righties both last year and this year and we'll go versus right hand of pitchers and we're gonna go from 2020 through 2021. And when we do that 77 plate appearances, 239 ISO is not bad, 24 or 25% strikeout rate. He has a 35% fly ball rate, enough hard contact and he does deal some bases too. So I was initially underwhelmed specifically because Engel was hitting fifth. I feel a lot better about it after looking at his numbers versus righties since the start of last year. He's minimum salary. So who were we talking to before about Valeka? Sarugi, I think that if you're looking for a min salary player, Adam Engel actually does enough for me to be there.  And that does make me feel better about the White Sox stack as a whole. I'm still not, I'm not gonna use Lyra Garcia. I don't want to use Andrew Vaughn versus righty. He's pretty rough in those situations. Gavin Sheets has been fine so far so you could dip down there. But I do think all the top five are definitely intriguing enough for me to get there. So it is underwhelming, yes, I agree. But I think there's still enough that there are for me to like them for stacking and specifically Engel, someone I'm very okay with for today. Mateo, do you like Morton pitching Miami or Maeda at home? Both, I like yes. The answer is yes, Mateo, I like both. I would say that to me, Morton is higher because he's been good this whole year whereas Maeda's more so been good recently. I do want to look at Kenta's numbers though because he's pretty interesting in what he's been doing since he came off the IL. And that's the reason why I am okay using him tonight. He's probably, I would say number three. I want to put Taiwan Walker above him because I think that Walker just, he makes a lot more sense against the Pirates but if we go to the movement here and look at his slider in the four starts since he came back I think a lot more horizontal movement on that slider. The vertical movement's actually been a bit different as well. So the velocity is down on that slider. You see here, whoopsies, wrong one. Yeah, it's down 81.6, 82.5 for the full season. So the velocity's down but it's getting more break. So I kind of think I haven't read anything about this. This could be totally off or I could just be making something up but I think he changed the way he's throwing his slider while he was on the injured list. And that's interesting because it's actually worked out pretty well. 14% swinging strike rate in those games, strikeout rate is at 28%. He's limiting hard contact. It's a 23% rate and all those starts were on the road. Now goes back home, good matchup for tonight. So I do think that that Kenta Maeda is someone I want to use for today. Tiger's not like a soft matchup anymore, I don't think. I think they're decent but they do still strike out. So I would say Kenta Maeda number three behind Morton and Walker for tonight but I think they're all really good options. So Mateo, yes, I like both for today. Let's talk to DJ. Yeah, Cardinals are playing right now against the Cubs. Okay, I thought I was losing my mind there. Good, thank you, appreciate it. Let's talk to you Brandon on Facebook, lock of the night, nothing because there is no such thing as a lock in baseball. It's a super volatile sport. So I can never say the word lock.  We'll phrase it that way because I think that's the most proper way to do so. The home run calls from this morning, I believe were Didi Gregorius against Garrett Richards and the Nelson Cruz against Matt Manning. I would say the twins stack is one I have a good amount of confidence in as the Phillies. If I had to go with one high confidence play, it would be the twins performing well against Matt Manning because a lot of the guys were targeting it and the Phillies are left-handed and Fenway is not a great park for lefties for power. So if I'm giving out my highest confidence pick for tonight, I think the twins against Matt Manning should perform pretty well. So we'll phrase it that way to navigate around the volatility of baseball. Patrick over on Facebook, Texas has played Oakland tough this year. What do you think about a Texas mini stack? Okay, let's go over here and check out the Rangers against Cole Irvin. Irvin's not someone we need to avoid. This is over his past six stars with a bit less movement on his foreseeing fastball, 18% strikeout rates, not the best bad at ball data either. So that's good for the Rangers. The reason I'm not super anxious to get there is that they're pretty bad against lefties but use phrases specifically as mini stack. So let's look at that because I think that could be more viable. That's one way to navigate around a team that's really bad against one-handedness is limiting your exposure. I still want a full stack because I want to have confidence that even if I don't have Andy Ibanez on my team that he can benefit the others by getting a base hit. So that's why I do still care about that. But I do think you could get away with a mini stack of Ibanez, Garcia. I mean, Gallows fine versus lefties too.  Yeah, John Hicks back in his Detroit days, I think was always like a lefty masher. So yeah, I think that's fine, Patrick. They're not super high on my list because of how bad they are versus lefties. But yeah, I think that works for sure. Specifically focusing on two, three, four, five within that lineup. Let's talk to Nick. Thoughts on Eric Lauer for the Brewers tonight. Eric Lauer, not a big strikeout guy. He is at 23%. This is over his six outings with last movement. There was one relief outing in there. Facing the Reds, 89 WRC plus versus lefties. Definitely a better team versus righties than lefties. I'm not gonna be there personally because I just don't think there's enough strikeout juice from Lauer, but I'm also not stacking against him in part because he does limit our contact, but also because the Reds not super great versus lefties. Okay, actually the related question turned to views. How do you feel about attacking Lauer with the Reds? For instance, Nicosianos is a one-off. Wouldn't be opposed to stacking with Suarez, India and Aquino. I'd be wary of Aquino because they're in a National League Park and he often leads for pinch hitters pretty early. So be wary of that with Aquino. I like him more when they're in the American League and he can DH and just stay in the whole game. I probably will not be stacking the Reds because of the hard contact we discussed because they're definitely not as good versus lefties. So I think to me it's a stay away where I don't want to use Lauer and I don't want to stack against him all that much. Let's see here. Tim, what are your three best money line, best three for money line picks? Like I've been grinding DFS stuff, so haven't had a chance and probably won't honestly at this point in the day. I was busy this morning so couldn't get to it then and things move by this time of day. So honestly, if I had to pick something, guessing the Dodgers are probably just outrageously. Yeah, they're minus 290, no thanks. Not quite getting there. I'll think on it Tim and I'll get back to you. So we'll come back to that for sure. Let's talk to DJ Adam Engel, Kevin Smith, Austin Hedges, Christian Arroyo, Engel for sure for me for tonight. Let's talk to Shane, best shortstop for tonight. Let's see here. Pull up a shortstop. Let's get rid of Engel there. His smiling face. See nose and we'll be using him for tonight. Okay, so Tatis is facing Freeland, I believe. I mean, if you could pick anyone, just probably pick Tatis I would assume. So I would say best overall shortstop, probably Tatis. If I'm looking at guys that I want to stack, it's Tim Anderson for the White Sox. I am gonna be using Jorge Polanco versus Matt Manning. Let's see, are there stacks or other shortstops I might want to be using as a result of the fact that I want to stack their teams? Didi, didi or Gourius, definitely will be on him for sure. I can get there. Let's play the main ones I would say. So looking at Tatis, if you got all the salary in the world chain and then Anderson, Polanco and Didi, if you want to save some salary for tonight. DJ likes Gavin Sheets. Gavin Sheets is the man. Yeah, I think he's interesting. He's batting eighth, which is kind of a buzzkill, but still okay with going there. Conrad or Closo over on YouTube, favorite possible under roster to overlook stacks. Let's go over here to the implied totals because again, that's kind of, if you want like a quick and dirty way to judge which team's really popular, check out the implied totals and see which teams have high marks there. So Boston will be popular, the twins will be popular, White Sox popular, Philly's popular, literally all five. Okay, cool. So it's literally all five I talked about this morning are going to be the more popular stacks. So let's try to deviate from that and find a stack that could potentially go overlooked. I think the Orioles are kind of interesting. Dallas Kaikal has been slipping 18% strikeout rates. Fly ball rate is, I believe up to 25%. I'm not sure if it's up but I think it's up to 25%. So I think you could stack the Orioles for sure. Is McKenna in the lineup? He's not. Okay, so I was going to go there but I think that the Orioles could be interesting. I could get behind that. They didn't work out well and I tried to stack them at a low roster rate earlier in the week, did not work but I think that you could give that one a shot once again. Other potential ones that could go a bit overlooked, the Royals are not off the map, I wouldn't say. McKenzie has a lot of issues with walks. He gets strikeouts too.  So that's the big concern but he lets up a lot of base runners, lets up hard contact. So if you're looking for overlooked stacks I would say the Royals are there and I would say the Orioles are there as well. Talk to DJ over on Facebook. Stack Tampa Bay, Cleveland or the Dodgers definitely gonna be the Dodgers for me. I think they're actually a pretty good stack against Weidner. Not just because of the issues he had in his rehab start but also because these are his numbers in the five starts he made, that's very stackable again. So the Dodgers to me, I think those top five we talked about are all in the same tier for tonight like the Phillies, Twins, Dodgers, all those teams are in the same tier for me tonight. So yeah, I think the Dodgers are a really good stack for today. Producer Cal, Cal and Theobald going with a National League East lineup going with Charlie Borden, the Mets and of course Brandon Gidula's Phillies. Okay, I like the Morton part, the Mets, we were gonna stack them yesterday against Brew Baker, that game got rained out. There might be, I think the rain looked okay for today. Yeah, they should be good to go there. They're not as high on my list because there are a bunch of good options but hey Cal, we can't miss a chance to stack the Mets and we missed that yesterday because of the rain. So as a middle finger to mother nature we can go and stack the Mets just trying to disturb what was intended with the Mets there, I love the Phillies. So I think that's a good lineup there for sure. Let's talk to Kyle, main targets may Phillies stack. Okey dokey, let's check out the Phillies lineup over here. Brad Miller, bad and fifth. Think he had, was it three home runs last night? What a guy. I'm annoyed he had those three home runs because he was like, oh cool, we're gonna get Brad Miller at like on no rosters and then he hits a triple dong the night before. So he's still a guy you wanna get. So we're gonna put him in there. Let's go over to Morton as our pitcher and see what we're working with. I want Harper in there. And who else is in this lineup for today? Okay, Segura, Romuto, we have McCutcheon, Reese Hoskins batting sixth. That's a little annoying, but whatever. All right, so I'm probably gonna want Reese if I had to guess. It does mean we have Miller, Romuto and Hoskins. So one thing I will say Kyle is that if you're thinking about this from a tournament perspective, there will be an edge today in using Hoskins and Romuto because I'm guessing people will gloss over them because Miller is there at minimum salary. So I will say from a tournament perspective, Hoskins and Romuto today extra enticing because I wouldn't, I mean, you can't use all three but also because I think we'll see a situation where one of them gets squeezed out as a result of Miller also being catcher slash first base eligible. So I think we're probably gonna want to being pretty high on Reese Hoskins for tournaments. He's batting sixth for $3,800. That's not like a process based recommendation. That's not the way you wanna play things but has a lot of power, you know, strikeout rate is manageable-ish. So I would say if you're playing for tournaments actively targets Reese Hoskins under the assumption he will be overlooked because people are going to Brad Miller. And then if they're going to another guy in this lineup probably going to Romuto higher in the order lower salary Hoskins a tremendous, tremendous tournament option for today in my eyes. Let's actually just put him in there because why not? I've got the salary to do so. And then we're deciding between like Cutch, Seguro and I guess it's probably gonna be those two. And Didi, oh Didi, of course. Okay, so Didi against Rainies, 213 ISO, sick. We're gonna do it. Okay, so we'll go back over here. This is the Philly stack for me for today. It does mean you are living in the bottom half of the order, but I don't care. I mean, like if we get Hoskins specifically at lower roster rate, sick, let's do it. So I love this stack for the Phillies for tournaments specifically.  You can bump up McCutcheon in that scenario. But for a tournament where I can just go crazy I think this is going to be a great stack for the Phillies in tournaments. And DJ just asked on Facebook, is Brad Miller someone to ride with at Fenway? Yes, I very much think so. Batting fifth, mint salary, lots of power. He'll be popular, but I don't care. He's great. So yes, I think he is awesome. DeFuse is asking about Cleveland for today. Cleveland facing Brad Keller. Yeah, I think that they work. Keller has been in a bit of a funk for sure. This is his past five stars of the last movement on his sinker, probably due to sticky stuff. 5.56 skill interactive ERA. The one thing we wanna check here is what Keller does versus lefties. I know we have Frommel Reyes back now. So there is a righty to consider on this team. And we do need to be mindful of that. But for the most part, Cleveland's a lot of lefties. So we do wanna check out what Keller does versus lefties. He has a 21% striker. It actually bit higher against lefties and righties. And he has a higher ground ball right versus lefties. So actually like that kind of is interesting for Frommel Reyes. So yeah, I think that Cleveland definitely is in play. I think they'd probably make, be like, I mentioned the top five stacks. They're probably right there. So yeah, I think that that's a good one to target for today. Mike, outside of Philly versus Boston Shock, how do you feel about the Dodgers, Bets, Muncie, et cetera? Yes, I think that they are very interesting. I'm not sure if they will be less popular, just because I believe they had the fifth highest implied total in people on the Dodgers, which they should. So I don't think they'll necessarily be like under the radar, but I am still on board with using them really healthy at this point. So yes, Will Smith $2,500. What in the world? Is he just on a strikeout binge or what's going on here?  Okay, strikeouts, yeah, strikeouts been a little bit high. So I guess I get it, but he's in a slump, but I'm still okay with him. So Will Smith, still a guy I would turn to for today. Diffuse, Red Sox and Cleveland Thoughts. Red Sox are high upside, but pretty volatile because it's Vinny V, so everything's volatile with him. So I think that they definitely work. I would expect them to be very popular and probably more popular than I'd want them to be for tonight just because their implied total is so high. Cleveland in a good spot, I'm okay with them, probably around six through so from a stacking perspective. Patrick, what do you think about an angel stack facing Marco Gonzalez? Gonzalez, he's velocity is up since he returned. So this is over his past five starts still letting up a lot of impactful contact. So I think the angel is probably better for one offs than a full stack because they don't have a lot of guys I like to use versus lefties. So I think they're in play for one offs, Patrick, more so than for stacking. Mike, I could see Otani and Stasi or Stasi coming in super low and have solid nights. Yeah, Stasi is one of the guys I would target. Really good versus lefties. Otani is good against anyone with a pulse or without a pulse, I guess. So yes, I think that those are good ones for sure. Diffuse, rank the Dodgers. So we don't have their lineup yet. I still think I want to go at Will Smith despite the fact that he's on in a pretty bad rut right now. So I'm probably gonna be high on him. That might be a mistake, but honestly, like whatever, I've made mistakes before. So, okay, let's look at the lineup there. Let's go over to the Dodgers. I know I'm running a little bit long. So sorry, we'll get to other questions here in a second. But we pull up their numbers versus righties. Okay, so to me, top priorities, Muncie. And then we're gonna go with Mookie. Will Smith, number three, due to the salary. Definitely like that. Actually, I'll go Mookie over Muncie. Maybe that's stupid, I don't know. I'll go Mookie over Muncie because why not? Mookie, Muncie, Smith, and then where does, AJ Pollock probably gonna bet seventh, they think. I can be on board with that from a salary saving perspective. Looking at Bellinger, Turner, Taylor. Okay, looking at them. Cody Bellinger, what are your numbers looking like right now? But 152 ISO versus righties, a lot of fly ball still though. So I can get behind that. I think that that definitely works. A little bit over salary, but that's okay. Could scare some people away. Taylor, not a guy I tend to use versus righties. So he's a bit lower on the list. And then Justin Turner, 159 ISO. I'd rank Bellinger highest that trio there for today. Alvin is asking for targets in a twin stack. Cruz, Kiriloff, Larnak, Polanco, Donaldson. This meat of the order, Max Kepler sitting for more power recently, so him too, he's a little bit over salary. But if you're looking for a Reese Hoskins type guy in the twins stack, it would be Kepler. But I think that two through six are the prime targets here for this twin stack. DJ, why are all the Rockies at a minimum of $2,500? They're the Rockies, they're bad. That's probably why. Most of the time. Oh, so if you mean that's their minimum salary, that's because at Coors Field, I think the stone minimum is $2,500. The minimum for guys who play is like 3,000 just based on general trends there. And I'm guessing that they don't get a huge bump when they go on the road. Let's talk to Jackie. Good afternoon, everyone else. A great call in the Haas home run. I was very happy about that. It did not save me because I had you Darvish Max Scherzer. So, hey, oh, wow. And then Jackie, I remember you mentioning Miller. He went off, yeah, three home runs. Hopefully can do the same tonight. Zach Thompson got scratched, pointed out. Okay, so let me pull up. I'm gonna go to Craig Mish's Twitter account because Craig is one of our friends over at Sports Grid. And let's see, Anthony Bass will open. So it looks like it's going to be a bullpen game for the Marlins for today. So, their bullpen's pretty good if I recall correctly. They did just have a bullpen game recently. That could lead to some bad stuff. So that bumps up the Braves, not like a high priority stack, but I would at least give them a long look because the Marlins bullpen is probably pretty spent. They might have called, if they called it Jordan Hollow, he just pitched. Either way, I would say check out the Braves depending on who starts and give them a consideration for today. Okay, so Tim is asking for, he's asking for three money lines. It's the last many years, so I'll give one. Let's give one money line that we like for today. I wanna check out, actually, scroll up here. Okay, no, no, no, no, no, okay. That's minus 210, that's a lot. That's tough to get to. No, no, what that? Okay, here we go. Toronto Blue Jays money line plus 110. I know it's on the road. I know Manoa's a youngster, but I think Toronto at plus 110, getting plus money on them, pretty enticing for me to clap a hand, getting stretched out a bit, but then his pitch count went back down. Last time out, as he's been stretched out, hasn't been as effective as he was earlier this year. So Blue Jays plus 110 for you, Tim. That is all that we have here for today here on the FanDuel Live Q&A. We'll be back with you next week, but not talking baseball, because it's the all-star break.  JJ Zach recently with you on Monday, breaking down your season-long NFL questions. So if you got season-long questions, I do, for sure, for JJ. So I'll be in the comments section with you on Monday, trying to get through JJ's brain. We will be talking about that on Mondays. Make sure you come back 4 p.m. Eastern, FanDuel YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter pages, and make sure you are subscribed on your platform of choice. If you have more questions for me, I am on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. Big thank you to Calvin Theobald, our video producer. Let's get that, I think it was Charlie Morton, the Morton, Mets and Phillies lineup. Let's get that going for Cal for tonight. Have a great weekend, everybody. We will talk to you once again next week. Have a great weekend. Enjoy the all-star break. This has been the FanDuel Live Q&A.


So now we've gotten through the top half of our worksheet and we're going to move on to the bottom half of the worksheet. Calculate the following quantities and then draw the graphical representations. So we have one which is a vector addition and one which is a vector subtraction. And again I'm going to zoom in a little bit here. We're going to focus on the vector addition first. Now it doesn't show up here on the screen but on your worksheet you can see what these equations are and I'm going to copy from a document where I've already formatted this and just paste it in here. So what you see was A was 3i hat plus 2j hat and C was 0i hat plus 3j hat. I like to write these vector additions like this because it's easier to see what's going on. When you do a vector addition you add the i components so 3 plus 0 equals 3 and then you add the j's 2 plus 3 equals 5. So our resultant vector and they use the r a lot for resultant not that you have to do that is 3i plus 5j. Now graphically I could just draw this now that I know what it is. Let's see I think I'll choose a nice purple color here. This means I go 3 to the right and 5 upwards. One two three to the right and one two three four five upwards. That's just drawing r. But I actually want you guys to go just a little bit further than that. See let's come back here and draw our A vector. That was going one two three and two. When you graphically add you start along one vector and then you continue along the next vector. And although I didn't count it out here this one went not left or right but just straight up one two three. So the vector addition of A plus C is the sum of those two vectors our resultant vector. So this is the way you show it graphically. So if you hadn't done all the math ahead of time you would have started with doing the A and B vector. That kind of moved the wrong thing there. Excuse me. There we go. You would have started by putting A and C and then realized you could put your resultant in there over the top going from the first position to the last position. And that gives you your vector addition.


Welcome to the 21 convention, Miami, Florida. This next speaker is actually a former keynote speaker of the 21 convention, but also a multiple time speaker, super, super popular guy has changed men's lives in many different ways. And I think that's very important that we today are going to get to see yet another version of the ever-transforming, evolving James Marshall. All right, good afternoon. When I left high school, passed just barely, I was considering two distinct pathways of what to do with my life.  And these were my heroes, people that I was interested in following in the footsteps of. So on the one hand, I was considering this lifestyle. On the other hand, I got it in my head that the best way to get my father's validation and approval would be to join the army. And so I applied to join the Australian Army, not just as a grunt who could go in and out after a war or so, but as an officer. So I was applying to join the Australian Defense Force Academy. And that seemed like a good idea from a pragmatic level because there was a good dental plan and you got a university degree and you had a steady job. And this was back in the 90s before things were getting too hot in the Middle East. So it seemed like a pretty cool thing to do. And so what I did was I started going through the application to join the army. And this was when over many months and involved various stages that you had to go through. And it was kind of like the X factor where at the end of each session they would kick out half the people and eventually the winner gets to join the army. And because I had been around army people, my father worked with the military. I understood the culture. I sort of knew how they talked, the way that they interacted with each other which was very different than the way that I was actually. There was a lot of mateship and team and no poofders and being in a tough bloke. That wasn't really me, but I was able to play that game and kind of present that front. So I went to each of these application processes we had to do leadership exercises and team exercises. And I kept getting through. And after each one of these, I would leave with this deep boiling, sinking feeling in my intestines that this was a really wrong place for me to be. Even though I was able to get in there and go, oh, yes, James Marshall, Ozzy bloke, yes, yes, so on. I'd walk out of it just feeling like, fuck, this is not what I want. Because if I did get in, I would be obliged to stay in the military for at least 10 years. All right, so this, I was looking down the barrel of spending my youth essentially in an institution not so well known for its free thinking ideas and a place for an artistic, weird spiritual dude such as myself. Any case, I got to the last application, which was an interview with an army psychologist. He sat me down, started asking me questions, and he got to this question. He said, James, if you ever considered suicide and something inside of me just snapped, just couldn't do it anymore. And so I looked at him and I twitched a little bit and I said, well, I mean, of course everyone's considered that, right? Like these are broad existential questions that we're looking at. I mean, what is the point of being alive or not alive? Was it Sartre who said that the only grand philosophical question was whether or not to kill yourself? Right, okay. And did you ever have any specific type of plan? Was this just a more of a vague notion? Well, I mean, of course, you don't want it to hurt, right? And I didn't want to be found by my mother or my brother or something and traumatize them for life. So, you know, something that was quick, preferably doesn't break the skin, so hanging, drowning. Right, okay, gotcha. And they asked a few more questions and then he said, so have you ever had any homosexual inclinations, James? And I said, well, I'm young. I mean, I wouldn't say my sexuality is defined yet. Gave him just a little half a wink. And so we concluded the interview.  We're gonna hit the road and become these vagabond spiritual seekers that we had read about from the 60s and 70s.  And so I got on my bicycle, rode over to my best friend's house in the middle of the night. I don't know why I opened it in the middle of the night, but for the sake of the story, let's just say it was the middle of the night.   But before we were going to India, I had to go and tell my dad. So I went to him and I said, listen, dad, I didn't get into the army.   And so it was that my life trajectory took the pathway that has led me to being on this stage as well as many other weird and wacky, wonderful stages around the world.  So when I was considering choosing these pathways at the end of high school, I sat down with my career's advisor because I had to and they asked me the same kind of questions. I said, what are you going to be doing with your life, James? Which is the voice of somebody, an Australian person who doesn't like their life. Doing with your life. And I said, oh well, you know, either might join the army, hope not, otherwise I thought I'd travel around India and like learn how to meditate and then maybe start a band or something and then just do the things that I like until I figure something out. Right, well, you do realize your scores do indicate you could go to university and if you don't go to university after high school, you'll be a year behind your contemporaries. I said, what do you mean a year behind? Well, obviously they'd start in 1998 and you'd start 1999, it's not all parties in 1999. And then they would finish earlier and then they'd enter the workforce earlier so you'd be behind them. I said, okay, yeah, all right, I see your logic but I don't necessarily agree with that. I think there might be something to be said for going out and exploring life first before picking something. Well, the other thing is from my experience that if you don't go to university, you'll possibly never go. And I said, all right, thank you, opinion noted. That person was right. I didn't actually, well, I did go to college for a small amount of time, studied a few things I was interested in for a little while and then decided to quit and go and find something practical that I could use to further myself in my life. So what ended up happening was that I chose a life that was very different from the status quo from the previous generation's designs or roadmap for success. And the main points that I wanna make in this speech today is loosely about lifestyle design, looking at how to, which is what is being called like the modern phrase which used to be just called doing things you like doing, having some fun, having a fun life and now is lifestyle design in a package so we can sell it. But what I wanna talk about is the way that you can make choices in your life and this speech is for young guys out there because I get a lot of guys contact me, ask me what should they do with their lives and I don't necessarily wanna be responsible for men quitting university or real jobs and going out to, going to India. I'm not necessarily saying that's the best thing to do but I do want people to start thinking in terms of what are their real options and that it's not necessarily the riskiest thing to go out and live a life that is on your own terms. Our parents' generation, our grandparents' generation came from very different economic socio-political times and back in my parents' generation it made sense more or less that if you were working class, middle class unless you were born into extreme wealth it was a good idea to study hard, get involved in a job that seemed stable and stay there for multiple decades, buy a house early in the city that you were brought up in and get married and have kids. That was the way things were done and it did equate that if you studied hard, worked hard we're pragmatic that likely you're going to succeed. Things these days are very, very different. There are still some industries where that is like the correct thing I guess or makes sense to do and I work with a lot of these guys as a dating coach, a lot of analytical thinkers, a lot of engineers, IT guys, finance guys, those areas that yeah there's still plenty of work out there for but in terms of life satisfaction maybe those things are deficient. However, in my opinion as someone who accidentally became a digital nomad accidentally became a successful entrepreneur because I was never planning to do those things. I was planning to follow passions that I were interested in which originally was martial arts so that meant that I had to go to China because that's where the masters were that I wanted to learn from. So instead of doing what a lot of my contemporary male friends did, buying cars sometimes buying houses, getting themselves saddling themselves with lots of debt in order to try and project a certain status to the world around them I put my limited resources into travel and finding masters and teachers that I wanted to learn from. So it was that I went to the ends of the earth to find the teachers that were really meant something to me. My other passion in life was playing the flute which I play very nicely and so I started a weird wacky funk band which was never gonna work in terms of becoming famous because I was several decades too late for that. If I'd been brought up in the 70s in San Francisco or fuckin' LA then maybe that would have worked but I was too late for that. However, that was what I wanted to do that was an expression of my passion and moving from these kind of odd choices to odd choice, what I did was I recognized that there was certain time and places to experiment with this kind of stuff and that there was also a time to let it go and move on because I did notice playing music for many years that girls would have sex with a guy who might become famous but they don't wanna have sex with a guy who's definitely not gonna become famous. Yeah, there's nothing sadder than seeing that 39 year old guy rockin' out in the local pub still just living the dream still just holding on to that that it's someday it's gonna work. I spent 10 years playing in a weird wacky funk band and I was obsessed with that, that was my life's purpose and at a certain point I realized, okay, if I keep doing this, this is gonna get sad. It's been really fun and interesting up until this point but I need to shift and change. I developed over time the abilities that eventually led me into becoming a really effective entrepreneur which the first one was