The Factory-run Economy

On the brink of the fiscal cliff, the economy and employment have been a big issue.  In the new era of technology, employment is not improving.  Machines are taking jobs away from Americans at a record pace and these machines "can do the work of 10, or in some cases, 100 workers."  This article illustrates the issue that faces employment because of technology.

Today, people are being trained to fix machines as opposed to being trained in the field to machine is used for.  Since 2000, "Nearly six million factory jobs, almost a third of the entire manufacturing industry, have disappeared"

Are we converting to a technological era that is outpacing the job industry?  Is efficiency more important than employing people?  Our generation is becoming more and more dependent on technology and everyone is willing to save a little money by converting to machines, even if it may cost millions of people their jobs.  Unfortunately, many Americans with adequate skills cannot get jobs in industries that rely on technology.  These capable workers have to work at locations where their skills are not utilized.

The picture below emphasizes the fact that no one can get jobs at factories anymore, forcing people to revert to McDonalds and other low paying, service jobs.  Ironically, the "help wanted" on the McDonalds store is asking for help because there are too many people that need jobs.

Although machines can drastically improve efficiency, at what point do we have to start worrying about losing jobs as a country?  Will people start being trained as machine fixers?  Feel free to comment below.

"Light Footprint"

With the conflict going on in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, I was wondering in what ways the US was involved.  I read this article that focused on Obama's strategy on approaching he Middle East.  His plan was referred to as a "Light Footprint".

Light Footprint is a strategy that involves "a mix of remote-control technology and at-a-distance diplomacy to contain the most explosive problems in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa."  This seems like a very good plan because troops do not have to go to the Middle East and fight.

There were also "Strikes by unmanned drone aircraft increased sixfold, secret cyberweapons were aimed at Iran, and special forces killed the world’s most-wanted terrorist and made night raids the currency of American force."  This strategy worked for a while; however, with the recent events in Syria and Iran, it seems like Obama is going to have to change his strategy.

I started thinking about how difficult it must be as the President to decide when troops' services are necessary.  Although the president is making a strong push to take troops out of many countries, at what point does this become unfeasible?

Obviously no one wants US troops to die, but what if pulling out troops or being reluctant to import troops leads to even more deaths for native citizens of that country, especially if it is our ally.  Obama faces a tough decision on how to handle the crisis in the Middle East, but he has to think about the ramifications of importing troops.  The president has the job of deciding what to do, but he is going to have to eventually change his strategy if he cannot negotiate with the leaders of Iran.

Do you think that it is better to pull out troops according to plan, even if it may jeopardize the lives of that country's citizens?  And at this time, what do you think would be the best approach to the Middle Eastern crisis?  Leave comments below.

An American Hurricane

I didn't realize how devastating Hurricane Sandy was until I watched the Hurricane Sandy concert.  8 million without power, many without homes, and the New Jersey boardwalk completely ruined.  Here is the comparison between before and after the hurricane.  Hurricane Sandy was clearly a catastrophe that no one could have predicted, just like Hurricane Katrina and 9/11.

I was watching the Bears game today and right before they started the game, there was a moment of silence, a giant flag in the shape of the US on the field, and the announcer said, "Only in this country does everyone join together and give up their houses to help everyone that has suffered.  We live in the greatest country in the world."

That really got me thinking, what stats does this announcer have to prove that the US is the only country that helps people in need.  We have learned to analyze media critically and this is a great example.  The announcer had good intentions by trying to demonstrate patriotism and show his support for the survivors of Hurricane Sandy.

However, this statement seems very farfetched.  He may believe that America is the greatest country in the world and he is entitled to his opinion.  Contrarily, he is saying no country in any circumstance helps out its citizens when a disaster strikes.

Do you think the announcer had reason to say this statement?  Why?  And why do you think people accept this bold kind of speech without questioning it?  Leave comments below

Is Government Spending Wasteful?

I just recently read an article concerning wasteful government spending.  Although the government uses tax money for many worthy causes (schools, banks, transportation, and others), government spending can also be considered wasteful.

For example, the government had "a $939,771 experiment funded by the National Institutes of Health in Michigan and Texas that tested fruit flies to discover that male fruit flies are more attracted to younger female fruit flies than older ones."

This seems like a complete waste of money.  What good is it to test whether male fruit flies are more attracted to younger or older females, especially when it cost taxpayers $1 million.  

I don't know what prompts the government to fund these seemingly useless experiments, but they have to stop wasting taxpayers money.  Although it is not listed in this article, another article shows that the government loses $70 million annually producing pennies.

REALLY?

What is the point of making pennies anymore?  If the rate of inflation has made the price of producing pennies twice as much as the value of pennies, stop making them!  Some of the things the government spends its money on ceases to amaze me.  Instead of these unnecessary expenses, CUT TAXES.

The government spends "nearly $1 million annually on developing a so-called 'Mars menu.'"

Is it really necessary to try to develop foods that can be eaten on Mars even though we are at least 2 decades away from having a man on Mars?

Do you think the government spends money recklessly on unnecessary things?  And do you think the government should cut taxes instead of wastefully spending taxpayer money?  Leave comments below.

A little too much information

I recently read an article about the election, that focused on voters' lives.  It demonstrated how political figures may have too much information on people's lives.  

"Strategists affiliated with the Obama and Romney campaigns say they have access to information about the personal lives of voters at a scale never before imagined. And they are using that data to try to influence voting habits".

Are candidates so worried about getting votes that they are looking into people's personal lives to try to influence them?  This seems like a violation of privacy.  They even know things about people that their friends might not even know:

"The callers [have] access to details like whether voters may have visited pornography Web sites, have homes in foreclosure, are more prone to drink Michelob Ultra than Corona or have gay friends or enjoy expensive vacations".

I would not want strangers to know these things about me and would be offended that someone was working that hard just to get my vote.  Although the campaign managers say that they are trying to protect privacy, I would feel uncomfortable if they knew this information.

I applaud the candidates for trying this hard to get more votes, but at what cost?  Is it worth confidentiality?  Presidents are supposed to do their best to protect the citizens of the United States, but they are allowing members of their campaign to seek personal information about voters so they can sway them.  This almost seems like desperation.

Do you think that getting this personal information from voters is a violation of privacy?  Would you want people to know certain information about you?  Feel free to leave comments below.

"Broke"

Tonight I was watching ESPN 30 for 30.  This was a particularly interesting episode because it talked about the finances behind athletes and how many of them spend all of their money and go broke.  This is an overview of the episode.  Many athletes come from poor families that do not deal with large sums of money.  

Sean Salisbury, a former NFL player, said "I made more money in one check than my father made in three years."  This was a man who had grown up with little money and was now given more money in the form of one piece of paper than his father had made in three years.  Athletes just don't know what to do with their money.

When they rise to stardom, they are bombarded with constant business deals and endorsements.  About 1 out of every 30 or 40 of these deals is actually successful where the athlete gets their money back.  Almost all the rest of them fail and all money is lost.  Straight out of college, these athletes do not have experience with money. They hire agents to try to help them with their money, but some of these agents are hindrances.

Agents generally take 10% of a player's contract and sometimes deal with all the money a player obtains.  This means expenses, taxes, insurance, and mortgage.  Unfortunately, many of these agents are scammers.  One agent stole 5 million dollars from one player and did not file his taxes so the IRS knocked on his door asking for 1 million dollars.

In order to prevent this, agents hire financial managers to help them create a budget.  Although financial advisors are more reliable, some are still scammers.  Michael Vick's financial advisor was running a ponzi scheme from her house and Vick was out 6 million dollars.  Athletes are naive and with the rapid increase in salary over the recent decades, athletes have more money to spend.

The word "Broke" refers to the fact that 3/4 of NFL players are under financial stress or have gone bankrupt two years after they retired.  This stat is amazing.  These players cannot stop spending and when their career ends, they have no source of revenue.

Due to player's egos, they always want to have more than their counterpart.  This is why many athletes wear chains and bling bling to demonstrate their worth.  It is a matter of "anything you can do, I can do better".  Athletes are spending upwards of 1 million dollars on jewelry alone.

In these times, many people only worry about money and will do illegal things to take advantage of the naive.  America needs to better educate young athletes about the dangers of the financial world.  Athletes need to budget their money and not feel the need to spend compulsively.  The average NFL career length is 3.5 years.  Players that spend their money between paychecks will be broke the second they retire.  Obviously it is up to the players to make smart financial decisions but with all the media attention, it's tough not to show off the money you have.  Players need to worry about their own money with the help of others instead of others doing the work for the players.  Otherwise the bankruptcy will continue.  The American identity values fame and fortune, but not when it leads to bankruptcy.

Why do you think agents steal money illegally from the players?  How do you think players can manage their money better?  And why do you think they have this urge to spend all their money?  Please leave comments below.

And in the words of the great Biggie Smalls, "Mo Money, Mo Problems"

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Today my AiS class went on field trip to the Court Theatre to see the play Jitney, the Osaka Gardens, and finally to the Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College. At the museum, there was one exhibit which I found very interesting.

This exhibit featured about 10 different photographs of all different kinds of houses; however, they all had one thing in common: their address.  The address, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  What comes to mind?  The White House in Washington D.C.?  That was what I originally thought of when I viewed the address.  Upon further inquisition, I realized what the exhibit meant to me.

All of these houses were in different locations around the country in a vast array of areas.  One looks like a barn, another a building, another a rural house, and one a lower-quality house.  Interestingly, there was no photo of the White House.  This signifies how all of these buildings have the same address, but only one most people consider to be important.  I bet that if anyone mentions the address 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are mentioning the one in Washington D.C., not the one in Indiana or even Arizona.

I personally think that this confusion is due to priority and recognition.  Most people consider the President to be very important and famous.  Since we recognize him, we know the address of his house-- which is a famous monument itself.  People are so caught up in fame, they immediately associate the 1600 Pennsylvania reference to the White House, when 1600 Pennsylvania is just a way to identify a solitary location in a given state, not the nation.

This fame idea is similar to Timothy Treadwell from Grizzly Man.  His father claimed he went downhill after he did not get a part on Cheers.  This American view of celebrity warps people's minds.  Some people spend their whole life trying to be famous and gain recognition.  For example, Will Ferrell is an actor, just like any of the characters we saw in Jitney today.  Same as a member of theater at New Trier.  However, their degree of fame separates them.  The majority of people recognize Ferrell, but not a New Trier actor.   This perception of fame shapes American culture.  

The idea of fame is just like 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but with buildings instead of people.  The White House has an aura and is well-known, unlike any ordinary house with the same address.  This exhibit really changed my view on how Americans perceive fame and how important it is to society.

Feel free to leave other comments about the exhibit if you saw it.  Also, how do you think Americans perceive fame?  And is it fair to rule out less famous people with the same jobs or lesser-known buildings with the same address because you do not recognize them?