New Jersey’s Law Faculty Can Stay Put

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. AW says:

    Cheap populism? In one of the most liberal states in the union, there’s no “cheap” political advantage (if there’s any political advantage at all) to being so hard-nosed on this issue. Christie is going to get bruised plenty for what he’s doing. Spending cuts are popular in the abstract, but when people see what the cuts specifically affect, cuts get way more controversial.

  2. jtanner says:

    Such laws are fairly common, and in my experience tend to be common in urban core areas. DC has such a law, although Congress has mandated exceptions for favored groups, and it appears that NJ has tempered the wind to an affluent group.

  3. I believe the theory of this is similar to requiring management of firms to be partially paid in the stock of the firm: You want employees to have some incentive that the institution they’re part of be successful. That, and recapturing part of the pay as revenue down the line makes employees who live inside your tax ‘watershed’ cheaper.

    I’d also question how many jobs that “cream of the crop” argument applies to. It’s really only an issue for job sites which are within easy commuting distance of the state border; Employees working well within the state will live there as a matter of simple practicality. And for many jobs there’s simply no great differential between the productivity of great, and merely adequate, employees.

    It’s not, IOW, really irrational. Whether the costs exceed the benefits is an empirical matter.

  4. Maryland Conservatarian says:

    Maybe we can flesh out that cream-of-the-crop argument; explain how NJ is lucky to have those creamers and without whom NJ would not enjoy the excellent reputation it basks in today. (Although why they wouldn’t want to live in the paradise (it is the Garden State!) they are working so hard to maintain may require additional thought).

    …and could we make a similar argument for a NJ-based company that wanted to locate to, say, Delaware because of a perceived better business climate? (…and, for all you progressives, that perception would be “reality based”.) NJ has a pretty strict WARN Act version; Should companies enjoy the same mobility that the progressives employed at the two law schools still enjoy?