By definition this statement:
“The fact that aggregation may work on some, even most businesses (I will not concede that it works on each and every business)”
is going to run into problems. If _in aggregate_ your “overworked” employees are hurting the bottom line then tossing them all as a group will help you, whatever your business. Of course in some businesses they might not in aggregate be hurting you.

Actually the Slemrod approach of trying to come up with a disincentive is seductive since as you suggest in the original post the best producers might be the least susceptible to the disincentive.

By and large I agree with you btw. I just think — as I thought on CC’s blog — your gauge for what’s real and what’s theory needs calibrating: that applies here both in, how is a manager going to deal with this problem? and, what is it professors exacly _do_? So I hope I’m being helpful in recasting how you approach this one study. Apologies if it pisses you off instead. I’m just toying around while I run calculations in the background.

What my point ultimately boils down to, however is that really, its a business’ interest and responsibility to ensure its long-run financial solvency, it is not the proper task of the government to do such things.

When a business fails because of poor managerial decisions, they have nobody to blame but themselves. When a business fails because policy has taxed it out of profitability, it’s a different story. The fact that aggregation may work on some, even most businesses (I will not concede that it works on each and every business) is not evidence that there exists a blanket policy that the governmenent might enact that would aggregate all employees in all lines of work for every employer.

Yeah, but I still think you’re overreacting. As far as I can tell from what you linked, and looking into it a very little,this isn’t a paper about taxing people into retirement.

There’s a little about it in the press release, and that probably slightly reveals the preferences of its writer but to a considerable extent, press releases on research are squat. My guess is the way the taxation came into it is, the guy wants to look at adverse health affects in older workers, and since that costs the government money (as healthcare is construed), there’s some argument to try to figure out measures to reduce the expense, and he can get funded that way. But I don’t get the feeling that’s what he’s doing.

There’re two areas of inquiry here, both of which are actually quite interesting:

1) Do workers contribute in a net negative way when they overwork? (Actually the answer is, yes. But what I mean is some weird definition of “overwork” where you outstay your retirement age. The answer there is probably also, _in aggregate_, yes as well: we all know cases of someone who’s gone a little senile for example and refuses to step down. But I think 100% of folks who’ve managed creative people — I have — has had to pat someone on the shoulder and say, you need to go home and knock off a day, you’re no good now. And 95% of the people who’ve been so told would say, my boss didn’t know what he was talking about, I was fine. So this is a good point to research).

2) If there is a problem, then, what kinds of disincentives can you use? How much money does it take?

It looks to me like Slemrod is actually poking into both of those areas at least a little, so, it’s good research (or at least, something worth studying). He perhaps reveals some unpleasant biases in how he thinks about this stuff by suggesting what he does in the press release — but it really shouldn’t freak you so much. Try to get your own sense of what’s going on better calibrated with what academics do when they give interviews. When I’ve talked to real world people I make my stuff sound like the solution to everything, man — that’s my bread and butter. Researchers’ job is to get money — yours, mine, or government — to do research.

As for “aggregation” — get over it. A good manager will try to make things case sensitive and companies (in my example) ought to try to give wiggle room in things, just as governments (if they were to go Slemrod’s route) probably ought to try to individualize this as much as possible (which is where the cock-ups and loopholes would come in)), but basically if GM (say) is trying to figure out some way of reducing costs blown on older workers, it’s going to try to get a flexible policy but settle if it has to on a “one-size-fits-all” since after all the “aggregate” behavior is the net effect on the bottom line. In addition the “fine-tuned” policy is going to piss off the people for whom you don’t bend the rules — and their friends. Don’t underestimate the complexities of managing real people! Soem babies are going with the bathwater. As I said, this sucks for the worker — but I can see why a boss might do it. Really your point coms don to, policies should be as flexible and individualized as you can make them: but my answer of “Duh,” is quite good actually!