Issue 214 Work week my way November 26, 2013

Well we talked about a 30 hour work week yesterday, but how about an alternative. My idea is to keep the work week as it is, but have a workers income not taxed on the 31st hour. Interesting right?

The idea: People are desperate for money. Income has not kept pace with the economy in part due to governments’ monetary policies and market incentives which suppress many wages for low skilled workers. Part of that is due to Americas failing public education system which results in substandard reading, writing and math scores. As such skilled workers are higher in demand. So this is where my idea comes in. The economy may already be switching to a 30 hour work week, but people will be at a loss for the money they would have gotten if the traditional 40 hour work week was maintained. As such, let's not tax the worker on the 31st hour that they work. This would allow the worker to keep all the money they earn beyond the 30th hour. Who doesn't want more money in their pocket?

Possible benefits: The main benefits are that it incentives workers to work longer. If they work long enough then they get to keep much more of their income as they would not be taxed once they hit the 31st hour. It would help those individuals on the borderline of poverty by allowing them to keep more money rather than hand it over to the Federal government or even the State governments if they follow suit. It actually may enable some workers to get out of poverty especially if the mandated 30 hour work week goes into effect which mandates time and a half beyond that 30th hour. So a worker getting $8.50 an hour would get to keep the $15 an hour (if time and a half pay is applied) if they work beyond that 30th hour. Yes each $15 dollars you make on the 31st plus hours will be yours. The government will not be allowed to touch it at all. Of course, if the time and a half rule is not applied, then you would still get to keep that $8.50 an hour after that. Overall, more money stays with you in your bank account rather than going toward a government that may squander it.

Possible costs: A problem will occur with respect to filing for your income taxes. It may in fact make it a little more complex to file for taxes making it a bigger burden on individuals to file there taxes. A.K.A., it will be a bigger pain in the rear. Also, the government may loose too much revenue from this change, and result in a fiscal glut in the federal government. However, these issues are solvable thankfully with respect to cutting budgets and a revised and simpler tax system.

Conclusion: This is my idea and I want any and all critiques which may in fact help me develop it further which would allow it to possibly become more viable as an idea to be put in place. Overall, the intended goal is to keep money in the hands of the worker where it belongs and not the government that spends on useless things and on perks for themselves.

Issue 213 A 30 hour work week November 25, 2013

Currently the United States mandates by law a 40 hour work week with time and a half of pay being given for each hour after that. But there is talk of reducing that number to 30. So let’s discuss the cost and the benefits.

Benefits: Henry Ford was the man who set the standard for the 40 hour work week all those years ago. Many businesses would eventually copy it with it finally being set as the legal standard. The reason why it was copied so much was that it actually improved production in the factories and in other businesses. Thus, the concept of decreasing the 40 hour work week to 30 is believed to have the same effect. Not to mention, if this change occurs, the worker will therefore get time and a half worth of pay after the 30th hour by law. So we have two main benefits, a more efficient workforce and greater chances for the average low wage worker to earn more money.

Already workers hours are being pushed back to the 20 to 25 hour range due to new trends in business. The reason Henry Fords 40 hour work week idea was put into law was that some businesses would have there workers working 60 or more hours a week. Today the incentive is to cut down on hours to the bare minimum. This may in part be due to incentives perpetuated by the government such as forcibly providing health care if your business has a specified number of workers who work a certain number of hours. It may also be due to technology which renders a traditional staff load as redundant and thus less man power is needed. What ever the reason, the trend by business is to reduce the number of workers working per hour which is turning the United States into a part time work force. As such, the 30 hour work week is envisioned to make it easier for the worker to get their hands on higher pay.

Costs: The costs themselves seem to be negligible. Aside from a belief that greater efficiency will result, the only down side is that the 30 hour work week may push more people into the full time worker category. Some of you may wonder why this is bad, even though it is something good as they will have access to benefits. This is because businesses may further reduce hours and even benefits to absorb the extra costs. The reason this would occur is because small businesses will be ill equipped to handle the rules and regulations mandated by government with so many people being pushed to full time. And those that wish to escape it will simply reduce hours of the worker so that they will not even be considered full time and thus the worker may actually loose money or be faced with the business possibly shutting down. So this change will mainly help big businesses while suppressing poorer and smaller ones.

Also, as a libertarian, the government should not be mandating how long the work week is or how much a person should be paid. It should be the market that dictates the persons wage based on their skills and capabilities. The majority of the time the skilled laborer will gain enough experience while working to be worth the larger income. Those that want more money will leave for higher paying jobs once they become available. As such, the work place as part of the free market usually takes care of itself.

Conclusion: I am in favor of the 30 hour work week. The only reason I am though is that businesses are depressing workers hours due to the changing nature of the market. If the government was not interfering so much we may already have a 30 hour work week. My own job as a pharmacy technician is considered full time at 30 hours (yes I am a full time worker). So, in my opinion, businesses will naturally trend toward this new standard on their own if they are given enough time. So if the change does occur, it should be announced a year or two earlier so that businesses will have a chance to adapt so that the negatives do not do any immediate harm.

Issue 212 Loan pay alternative November 22, 2013

Mentioned in the previous article was a method of loan payments in the form of a percentage of income being taken out of your paycheck to slowly pay your loan back. There is more to it than just being able to pay the loan back however. So let's begin.

Concept: Basically each paycheck, money is deducted from your paycheck to pay your student loan back. Simple right. Basically it acts the same way as traditional income tax would if it were to be deducted or automatic payments from your checking account. But here is where it gets "interesting". If you don't have a job then you don't have to pay. So if you’re unemployed, you will not have any money deducted to pay. So literally the paying back of your loans is put on hold until you find a new job. It’s actually a nice idea.

Variations: Similar concepts to this idea have been proposed. One option was to have the need to pay back the loan expire after a certain period of time. So say after 20 years if you paid a certain percentage back, the rest of your debt will be forgiven. I did not like this idea as people who were successful would pay off most or all of their loans before the cut off while others got off from their obligations. Also, those who wished to escape the rest of their debt may work at menial jobs for a short period of time until they reach the cut off so they would not have to pay back the rest of their loan. I find it dishonorable to do such a thing as to not pay what you owe (let alone the part about it being unfair to those who become successful).

Other variations mostly dictate varying levels of income being deducted; with the highest number I've seen being 30 percent. Also, some continue to charge interest even if you are not working. However, I mostly see the ones that charge interest combined with the cut off clause.

Troubles: The main purpose for giving a loan is one: to help those afford something they cannot at the current moment and two: to make a profit while incentives a return on investment. So it is unclear how a bank or even a government will break even on their loans to students. I know many (including myself) are fine with helping those who cannot afford to go to college to actually be able to go. But, college prices are beyond the pale as you and I well know. Something has got to give. I can see this method being applied with a form of the "Sharia Compliant Loans" where the traditional interest is added up front so as to make a profit and the person knows how much they must pay back. In short they have a goal. If this variation becomes successful, then I can possibly see it being applied to other forms of loans as well, such as loans on your home or other lines of credit. However, that assumes this method, where loans are paid back only when you are working, catch on in combination with the variation of the sharia compliant loan.

Conclusion: It is, overall a good idea. I like that you are only asked to pay a percentage of your salary if and when you are working exclusively. I also like my idea of combining my variation of a sharia compliant loan (interest tacked on upfront) with this concept so as to make paying all forms of loans more affordable and lessen the chance of a repo man knocking on your door to reposes your home if you miss too many payments. So I am willing to give it a shot, if the loan is done in such a way that makes it affordable and that the individual pays all of that money back.

Issue 211 Obama's school rating system Novemeber 21, 2013

We have talked about rating schools before, and there is no doubt that we will not be discussing it again. Like right now. President Obama has proposed a school rating system a few months ago which was summarized in the Wall Street Journal article "Obama to propose College Rating System on Bus Tour." So let’s examine it and see if it has any merit.

What it wants to do: President Obama is looking to tie federal student aid to a college's level of performance. As such colleges will be rated on how well they help disadvantaged students the most (all before the year 2015). Financial aid will then be dictated by those ratings (in the year 2018). Part of the rating will be based on how affordable the college is and the outcomes of that education which include graduation rates and transfers. The top performing colleges under this system will get larger federal grants and more affordable student loans given to student who go there. In addition, the plan calls for more innovation such as a 3 year accelerated degree and more online courses.

With this comes a pay as you earn program. This concept has you pay your student loans back by a percentage of your pay check. In this case, the plan calls for 10% of a graduate’s monthly income to be taken out to pay back the loans. Also, the race to the top program will have its funding raised with it being more focused on higher education reforms. So this is Obama's plan in a nutshell.

Critiques: I have come to not like overly complicated rating systems. Especially when the schools involved do not have a uniform standard by which to measure performance. As such one will need to be created either by the government, or the colleges. Both options are dismal as the government is prone to corruption by lobbyists and the colleges may purposely seek to weed out their smaller competitors. Basically, a rating system that favors elite schools would be created either way, even if elite is just another false title.

Also, giving out more loans only incentives colleges to allow their prices to rise. Student loans have a unique relationship with college prices. The higher the loan, the higher the price for college goes. Colleges know they can raise prices more because the federal government will just give out larger loans. But the people who get screwed by this are the students who end up with massive debt. The only good thing I like about this is the automatic loan payments taken out of the paycheck. It may make it easier for a college student to pay their loans back as they don't have to really think about it and they only are forced to pay when they have a job in the first place.

Conclusion: Colleges are not getting any cheaper. As such, alternative methods of education are rising to not only compete, but in some instances take the place of colleges in specific fields of work. I do not see this system working at all save the deduction to pay back a loan through the individuals pay check. It would also be great if the colleges made a bachelors degree a 3 year degree, but only if they make an associates a 1 year degree and make many of the masters and doctorates undergrad courses. Let’s face it, many of the programs and jobs done at the college level don't need a college to be taught, or to take more than 4 years of learning to learn. Especially as many jobs are forced to retrain many of their new hires which costs them money. So alternative education is winning and as such, I question if the federal government is focusing on the right solution to what seems to be an ever worsening problem.

Issue 210 Siphon Energy November 20, 2013

Is there a way outside of solar panels to make energy yourself? Can it be done simply and easily? I asked my self these questions as I too want not just the country to be energy independent, but us as individuals to. So here is my idea.

Water turbine: The technology has existed for years for us to harness energy from water. Every single power station uses this method where water is used to turn turbines to generate electricity. So can we shrink that technology down and place it in our own homes? I think we can. But where would we get the water you ask? Well, when water is pumped into your house through your faucets right. So my idea was that at some point in the system a mechanism like a turbine is placed inside the pipe. As such every time you turn the water on, the turbine spins to generate electricity for your house. If you are thinking that water and electricity do not mix, I invite you to look at my example of the damns that use water to generate electricity for our homes already. So why not copy that system to make our own homes independent from the electrical grid?

More water: Another water source that we can harvest for electricity using this technology would be rain water. If your area lets you capture rain water, then the same turbine can be placed inside to generate electricity for your home. So when it rains, you will get powered up. In addition, the stored water, if used for drinking/bathing can be stored in such a way, that when it is used, another turbine can use it to make even more electricity. Heck, the electricity produced could even be used to purify the water as well. Even water used for in solar water heating can be used to generate electricity as the water being heated up may even convert to steam to turn those same micro turbines. So it can be combined with other methods of water delivery to thereby produce electricity.

Economic advantage: This is advantageous as for one you are generating electricity off the grid yourself. You may even produce enough in combination with solar panels to reduce your electrical costs to zero. In some instances, some people with solar panels alone have gotten a check back from the power company because they produced enough electricity to sell back to those same electrical companies. So imagine this in combination with solar panels making a good portion or all of your electrical needs. What’s also good is that you are using water pumped into your own home or harvested from a well or rain water. So you can reduce your overall costs for water too. Sure it will not make you independent plumbing wise, but it is better then watching all that water just costing you more and more on your water bill. If done right and combined with other power saving methods, you can eliminate the costs for heating your home (electrical) your electrical bill and even your water bill. Some of those savings come in the form of just eliminating the need for the power company, or selling enough electricity to the power company to get a check back that can help pay for your water bill. So it can work and it can help us get off the grid.

Conclusion: This method of power generation uses a magnetic field and metals that pass by each other to produce electrons which are used for power generation. As such, the water merely has to spin the turbine for the metal and the magnets to interact to generate those elections. So the only hurdle to actually making this technology work is making a small enough version to fit into a homes plumbing system and determining the best method of installing the device safely so that people don't get hurt by stray electricity. What also may be a nice by product is that it may increase the water pressure coming out of your faucet which would be beneficial with new regulations demanding reduced use of water to flush toilets, and coming out of the shower head. But again, the technology must be developed. So even though it is my idea, I invite anyone to come up with this technology to make it cheaper and easier to become energy independent for us as individuals. Good luck and happy inventing.

Issue 209 Apprenticeships November 19, 2013

Not everyone needs college. In fact, college has been promoted so much that legitimate learning alternatives have been hushed under the proverbial rug. So I am here to speak about another alternative model to education. That model is the apprenticeship model.

It’s an old method: Apprenticeships are one of the oldest forms of learning. It basically has an individual shadowing a professional in the field they are studying for the sole purpose of learning how to do the job. But, unlike modern forms of shadowing, the apprentice would be taught how to do the tasks bit by bit, until they learned how to do the full task and eventually do the job themselves. Some may be thinking of jobs like blacksmithing, or wood working but many jobs used to be taught in the same way.

Modern apprentice: The current modern apprentice is an intern. They are taught the job in the same way and sometimes, if they prove to be worth the effort, they are hired at the company they interned in. Of course, if the intern is seen as having no potential or aptitude for the work, they are generally shoved out of the work place and left to look elsewhere. So the infrastructure for apprenticeships making a major comeback is there. But what jobs would apprentice type training be suited for?

The jobs in the modern era: Aside from traditional jobs like black smiths (yes they are still going strong) and furniture makers/wood workers, there are numerous jobs that can benefit from this model. Vocational jobs like electricians, plumbers, and jobs in construction are better learned in a hands on environment. Also, jobs like videographer, photographer, news caster and television and radio jobs can also be learned by being involved in the field itself. Thankfully, the internet and other tools have made this process easier with online learning, but hands on learning is still much more practical. Sure, there are other more specialized jobs where you need a proper education in combination with hands on learning (doctors for instance) but for the most part apprenticeships can handle many of the jobs we were led to believe required college. Truth is, very few jobs require that expensive degree.

Advantages: The main advantage to an apprenticeship is that it is hands on learning. You get a true feel for the overall working environment and the job itself. Also, as a job it is either free or you are paid as you work. So you may not even have to spend any sort of money to get this type of education. In addition, as the job evolves, you can also get hands on learning experience about the changes in the field. As such, there will be little need for you to be retrained once you begin working as a full member of the team. On top of this, you might even know your co-workers or at least share a common bond as a fellow sailor, blacksmith, carpenter, or even news anchor. Same education, but with much more reliable results.

Conclusion: Apprenticeships are a great alternative to the college system or even in instances where online schools are lacking. So it is another option to look into if and when it is offered. See if this method works great for you and your American dream job. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Issue 208 Cycle of hate November 18, 2013

How does hatred become violence? Well, it is fairly complex, so Glen Beck (owner of the Blaze television network) had his staff assemble a team to analyze how hatred spreads and perpetuates it self. So here are his findings.

Event: An event is the start of the trigger. So something like slavery or a treaty between governments is the initial trigger. Anything can be a trigger. The 9/11 attacks are another easy example which is usable to create discord. This is where phase two comes in.

Seeds of discord: Phase two is when someone or a group begins to take advantage of an event that occurred and never let the wounds of the past heal. Something like slavery and the Jim Crow laws are one example. Those wounds never healed because people took advantage of the anger and frustration to spread more ill will. It was set up into an us versus them mentality between blacks and whites even though not all blacks and not all whites where involved. Another easy example is the conflict between Muslims and Jews. Propaganda is used to keep the hatred alive from thousands of years ago when select Jewish tribes betrayed Mohammad in a battle. Then all future problems where blamed on the Jewish community no matter how far apart or involved they were in the conflict. As such, the radicals who hate the people of Israel don't hate them out of actual wrong doing, but out of being taught and or convinced that the Jews are an evil force causing them or some one else in their community pain and suffering. This propaganda keeps the pain alive.

Real crisis: Here the haters who want conflict "never let a good crisis go to waste." So when an economic crisis, a war, a famine or other horrible event occurs, it will be blamed on the targeted group. If you remember, a large number of Muslims blamed the Jews as a cause for 9/11 with the purpose of drumming up not just more hate but violent backlash. Other similar events like when cops are accused of abusing Black Americans amplify the conflict here in the U.S. Not to say that some of these conflicts are not legitimate or illegitimate, but even the most innocent of situations can be turned into a larger more violent situation. This leads us toward the final result.

Actual Conflict: The cycle of hate always ends with actual violence. This means race riots and wars. And this is the ultimate goal for hate groups like the Neo-Nazi's, KKK, Black Panthers, Al Quada and other groups that seek violence. If the violence should fail in its intended goal, then the "event" becomes another sticking point toward future violence with it being used as another wedge towards the us verses them mentality.

Conclusion: Sad isn't it. People actually want conflict between races, ideologies, religions, and more. They always make it an us versus them conflict to further fan the flames of hate. Can it be stopped? Well yes it can. But it can only be stopped when people dismiss the us verses them mentality. It is not the collective Muslims that caused 9/11, but a specific group amongst their number. It is not all white people who perpetuated slavery, but a group of both blacks and whites who were slave owners. Not everyone is to blame for all conflicts, and they are not to blame for the situation you are in now. It is either yourself, or the immediate situation with those actually involved that put you in the situation you are in. This is how it really works. Stop always blaming others, when it just may be circumstances that even you yourself have no control over.