Issue 506 Technology: rewards the skilled January 15, 2015

Well, the gap between rich and poor is only going to increase.  The reason being is that technology rewards skilled labor and reduces those who are unskilled to the poorest class of society.  Allow me to explain.

How the skilled are rewarded:  In a technology driven society, the business climate and technology itself is constantly in flux.  Basically it is adapt or die.  As such, people with skills generally are able to survive in this environment as they can adjust to these fluctuations on the fly.  So skilled people who specialize in computers, using computer programs or repurposing techniques and technologies become the upper middle class and higher.  In addition, people who once worked the dull, the dirty and dangerous jobs are slowly being supplanted by either new methods of doing those jobs, or those jobs becoming outmoded due to technological changes.  Case in point is the robots working an assembly line as opposed to traditional workers.  But this too rewards skilled labor.  Blacksmiths, carpenters and others who make things by hand can know sell their wares at much higher prices due to the fact that what they sell is hand made.  Their skills allow them to create novelties that fetch much higher prices at markets and thus makes them richer as well.  

The Unskilled:  On the other hand we have the unskilled.  Those who are just starting out in the workforce, and without any particular skill set.  These people get assigned menial jobs that pay very little and thus they are relegated to a less fulfilling existence.  As such, these people are the new working poor.  Until they find a skill of some sort or they move up the corporate ladder (something that becomes much harder with the slow decline of middle managers) they will always be on minimum wage.  Hence why skilled labor makes the big money, while the unskilled will not.

Conclusion:  We are in the start of a new industrial revolution that will see the rise of new methods of manufacturing and greater standards of living.  However, it comes at the cost of many people becoming poor first to get there.  So my best advice to you my readers is find something you are skilled at and embrace it while you can, you never know if that skill will save you from obscurity.

Issue 505 Mandatory Minimums and Judges January 14, 2015

Mandatory minimums like plea bargaining has its problems.  With mandatory minimums we have people who are declared guilty in a jury trial forced to serve out a sentence of say a set 30 years even if the other facts in evidence would be cause to have the guilty person to have a much reduced sentence of say five years.  Let us discuss.

Mandatory Minimums:  As I said in the opening, Mandatory minimums mean that a petty theft charge could bring a 30 year sentence, the same kind of sentence an individual could get for grand larceny.  Obviously this is unfair.  Another example is that a drug dealer, and a drug addict caught with their personal stash would be given the same criminal sentence of 25 years in jail.  Obviously their crimes are not equal, but this is what mandatory minimums unfortunately do.

Solutions:  Well, many judges are calling for the mandatory minimums to be scrapped altogether. Some think this a good idea because it allows maximum flexibility when it comes to judges deciding sentences for a convicted individual.  It allows for judges to take into account all factors in a case to the point that an individual could be remanded to a rehab facility for six months as opposed to a jail cell for five plus years.  However, this does risk people being under sentenced for a crime, or even being let go for a crime despite being guilty (case in point is the judge who let the Muslim husband who raped his wife go without penalty because his "religion" allowed it).  Also, mandatory minimums support plea bargaining by making it easier for prosecutors to convince suspects to take a lighter sentence.  On top of this, mandatory minimums also reduce costs because it prevents lengthy sentencing trials after the guilt of the individual has been determined.  Taking all this into account, if mandatory minimums was to be removed from our system, then strict conditions on punishments or even newer updated penalties that allow for flexibility in sentencing will have to be implemented.

Conclusion:  I do not favor mandatory minimums for most crimes.  In fact, for a majority of crimes, a televised public trial where the defendant is humiliated (or exonerated) becomes the main source of punishment.  Then if the defendant is guilty (crimes like petty theft to grand larceny) the individuals become forced to pay back all the money they stole (no jail time).  People who are drug addicts would go to therapy and other programs to aid them in resisting their addiction and the economic and social consequences associated with it.  Rapists and child molesters on the other hand is another story.  I want penal colonies where they stay for life and that they can volunteer for medical experiments to receive extra "privileges".  Murder though is entirely different and thus needs maximum flexibility with respect to sentencing (the nuance in these cases is a little beyond me and thus why I have this opinion).  But I think you my readers get my view and the issues surrounding the tool known as mandatory minimums in criminal sentencing.  Hope you enjoyed the read.

Issue 504 Plea bargains: should they be scrapped? January 13, 2015

Plea bargaining (where a defendant pleads guilty so that they get a lighter sentence) has come under fire as of late. And this may be so with good reason.  So let us discuss.  (Inspiration for this issue comes from the October 4th issue of the Economist)

Why plea bargain?:  The primary reason for the plea bargain is so that an accused individual can reduce their sentence in jail.  This works by the prosecutors offering shorter sentences in behind closed door meeting toward defendants.  Due to this, many courts have reduced costs and the government has saved thousands of dollars.  However, this power that the prosecutors have has been likened to a defending attorney bribing a witness.  According to the economist article Jed Rakoff (a district judge in New York) thinks it is unlikely the 95% of the defendants are guilty.  Rakoff believes that it is possible thousands of innocent people have been put behind bars because they wanted to avoid the mandatory minimum sentences for say 30 years in jail (if a trial was conducted normally) for a lighter five to 10 year sentence with a plea bargain. So basically, this power has been both good and bad for people all around when it comes to the criminal justice system. 

Solution:  The primary solution as proposed is to have a separate arbitrator or judge oversee the plea bargain process.  The goal is to remove the prosecutor from the lead role and that the independent arbitrator will make the deals with the defendant(s) instead if a plea bargain becomes the prefered option.  This allows for the plea bargaining process to continue without say an individual going to jail for a crime they did not commit (or at the very least reducing the chance of such an event occurring).  Obviously there's more detail to this, but you get the general premise that preventing an innocent person going to jail (especially in a case they can actually win) is preferable to the status quo.

Conclusion:  While I cannot say I am an expert on such matters, it is clear to me based on the articles I have read that there is room for reform in America's judicial system.  While I get that we want to keep costs down, it is no excuse to allow an innocent person go to jail based on fear of a heftier sentence.

Issue 503 If the Bureaucracy does not want it!?

Did you know that Congress and the President of the United States pass laws on spending that the Federal Bureaucracy does not want?  So the Pentagon will be forced to spend money on a new missile launcher that it does not even need.  The FDA will be forced to spend money on visual inspection agents for food, when a simple chemical test will due instead.  So what am I proposing?  Well read on to find out more.

The Proposal:  Here I am proposing that the Congress and the President pass a bill into law that would allow federal agencies and departments to eliminate programs that they deem redundant or are no longer useful.  So no more wasteful spending on missile launchers in the pentagon if they deem it redundant or possibly inferior to the ones they have already.  The State department can stop giving money to foreign countries when they do not vote the same way as us in the United Nations.  Departments that deal with welfare can drop programs deemed ripe with corruption or that are considered completely useless.  So many programs would be able to be cut, so much money could be saved.

How it would work:  So the idea is that the law would do one thing, that is to allow federal departments and agencies to cut programs and cease spending (even before it begins) on programs or expenditures deemed redundant, duplicative, superfluous or wasteful.  Of course, Congress will have oversight of this and have veto power over each program or expenditure cut with the stipulation that each item be voted on individually.  If the cuts get passed the Congressional veto, then the money will be deducted from the federal agencies/departments budget equal to the amount of money that was allocated that year for the continuation of that program or expense.  This will thus prevent corruption by the bureaucracy of cutting one program just to shift the money to a program or expense they favor without the consent of the people via their representatives.  This also has the advantage of letting Congressional representatives save face in the eyes of the public as they will no longer have to publicly defund a failing welfare program, or a school support program which would make them look like the evil bad guy taking money from the poor or from children.  Thus everyone can save a little face in the eyes of the public.

Conclusion:  This is a possible idea to help us deal with federal programs run amok that are deemed not needed.  Though it will have the problem of ideologues in the bureaucracies cutting programs they don't like as opposed to the ones that do not work.  So methods like an outside auditor or even a separate group within another federal branch like the treasury could make these decisions for the department/agency heads (with department heads making recommendations for cuts as well).  Again it is an idea to be flushed out, but it is an idea at the very least worth thinking about.

Issue 502 Dealing with Angry people January 9, 2015

While we discussed how we dealt with our own anger yesterday, we did not discuss how to deal with people who are angry at us, or the world.  So how should we react to an angry person?

Ways to react:

1) Don't get hurt:  For one, keep your distance.  If these people are violently angry, then you will want to avoid interacting with them as much as possible.  Also, if they attack you, then defend yourself so that you can avoid injury.  This is obviously an extreme case, but it is usually best to let angry people be, especially if they are expressing themselves publically, which usually means they want to engage in an argument.  Thus, avoid them so that you do not allow them the satisfaction.

2) If you are targeted:  Once the angry person has you in their sights there are a few ways to react.  If they want you to engage in a verbal sparring match, then you must meet that with "love".  In this case ask them what made them angry.  What went wrong with their day today to make them feel that way?  So you are just going to ask questions of them until they get frustrated and walk away or it turns into a discussion where they are basically venting to you and you are lending them a kind ear to listen to their problems.  Another option is to give short one to two word replies like "yes", "no way" or similar responses.  This prevents your interaction with the angry person into an argument and keeps the angry person from lashing out at you if at all possible.

Conclusion:  These are the two primary methods of dealing with angry people that I know.  Basically avoidance or converting the anger of the angry person into venting/having a discussion are the two best methods.  Obviously, everyone has their own methods of dealing with other people’s anger, but like I said, these worked for me and I share them with you so you can see if they will work for you too.

Issue 501 Dealing with Anger January 8, 2015

We all have to deal with anger.  In fact we all have anger issues.  But how should we deal with our own anger?  What ways can we stop ourselves?

Dealing with it:

1) Self Control:  For one, you will have to try and maintain self-control.  If you react to the situation in a negative way, you can make the situation worse.  Either that or damage yourself or the image people have of you.

2) Take yourself out of the situation:  If a particular person or event is causing you anger, then it is best to take yourself out of it if you feel yourself losing your cool.  Thus, you can nullify your anger.

3) Venting and exerting:  Finding ways to let your anger out in a positive way is a very good thing.  For one, a simple rant or going off on a tangent with a friend who is willing to sit there to listen to you can help greatly.  Either that or you can talk to your pillow.  Another way to let it go is to exercise in some way.  Whether it be kickboxing, weight lifting, or other form of physical fitness it can help.  Also, yet another way to unleash your frustration is by writing it down, painting, or other form of art that lets you unleash your inner torment. 

4) Isolating oneself:  While it may seem counterproductive, isolating yourself so you do not lash out as you slowly let go of your negative emotions is a viable tactic to dealing with the situation.  Even ignoring the other party that caused the anger and disengaging from them will aid you in stopping yourself.

Conclusion:  No one likes being angry (unless you are a little crazy), but there are healthy ways to deal with it that are not destructive to yourself or others.  So these are just a few tips from the times when I myself had to deal with anger and frustration.  Hope these help you as much as they did for me.

Issue 500 Getting Rich January 7, 2015

Well now, getting rich is something we all want to do right?  We want to be financially secure so that we can spend on the things we want or on those most important to us.  So here I would like to present some tips on how to become rich in an increasingly expensive world.

Tips:

1) Avoid spending money:  One of the basic misconceptions about being rich is that you have to spend money to get rich in the first place.  This is a misconception.  The primary way to accumulating money is by avoiding having to spend it.  So when given the choice between an expensive new car, and a used one, you would choose the used one.  If you can use a coupon to save money at the grocery store, then use it because you are able to keep the money you earned in your pocket.

2) The right investments:  There will be times when you must spend money in order to accumulate more wealth.  This is only for when making an investment into something that will increase your wealth later on.  One such investment is life insurance.  This insurance will protect you and your family from possible problems such as deaths and unforeseen life events.  Stocks and bonds are another form of good investment if you know which to buy (do your research on these please).  These long term choices on what to spend will dictate if you have to keep working until you're 70 years old or can retire early.

3) Healthy living:  Another important way of keeping you from having to spend money is to live in a healthy way.  Basically, eat right, exercise and avoid getting sick.  With the right maintenance to your body you will be able to avoid having to spend on healthcare and thus insure you can spend money on other priorities in your life.

4) Buying Choices:  Do you really need the $100 bag when they have another for $10?  Do you need that limited edition action figure?  Should you spend $20 on that new tattoo or invest it in next week's grocery bill?  Should you buy the pizza, or that box of spaghetti which will feed you for an entire week?  These are all examples of buying choices.  Similar to tip number one, but in this we are deciding what the better investment of our money is in the first place.

Conclusion:  Getting rich quick is the least likely way to achieve becoming rich.  In fact, becoming rich is all about making the hard choices from now and until your death.  No, it is not easy to become rich, and it is a lot of work (I'm still working on it myself), but in the end it is better to make these choices that leave you in a better position financially today than the day before.