Issue 534 Retirement age increase February 24, 2015

So, it is being tossed around yet again.  The idea to increase the retirement age once again.  Let us discuss what is being considered.

At what age do they want you to retire:  Well, at current, the retirement age for social security for my generation is 67.  This is due to the change made by President Ronald Reagan for my generation and those that will come after.  This my dear readers was great as it made sure that at least my parents will get to see some of the money they put into the Social Security system.  But this is not enough for my generation.  In fact, those who retire early and collect at the earlier retirement age of 62 are harming the chances of Social Security still being there.  Also, although it is good I can't retire and receive Social Security till I am 67, it still does not increase the chances of keeping the social welfare program around beyond 2035 (an estimate based on the board of trustees who govern Social Security).  So the proposal that is going around is to increase the minimum retirement age to 64 with the same penalty, and the main retirement age to 70.   I don't think I need to tell you that this will ensure Social Security will be around a little longer as it has worked before.  Additionally, this will not affect people already retired or those within 20 to 30 years of retiring.  It will only affect those who have at least 3 or more decades before they can retire.  This ensures that these individuals both born and unborn can plan, and work in a way that will make it so they can live the way they want up until the new retirement age hits.  This ensures some level of fairness.  

Conclusion:  Social Security is a beloved welfare program that has been around since the late 1930s as a method to help people retire earlier so as to make way for younger workers to enter the workforce.  If you don't believe me, you simply have to read President FDR's speeches on the subject.  As it is such a loved program, people want to keep it around, and thus methods abound are being proposed, but ultimately not implemented due to fear of reprisal from the American Populace.  So I am here to tell you all that at least I am willing to wait that extra couple of years to retire, so that Social Security can last long enough to help the baby boomers live out their twilight years.  In fact, I would say get rid of the early retirement age completely so that more money can be saved, and then deny benefits to those making a specific level of income per year after they retire.  Those two things would benefit everyone greatly and we may even be able to afford to give those people with the least a little more money so that they can survive without having to resort to other welfare programs and the stress of applying and staying on them.  I want to protect our seniors, so I am willing to make the sacrifice.  Are you?

Issue 533 Downsizing February 23, 2015

Downsizing can be a great thing.  In fact, it is why people have looked into the small homes movement.  The fact is, downsizing equals cheaper living and thus it is perfect for those looking to retire.

Why retirees should downsize:  Let us face it, the cost of living just keeps increasing.  And you know what, retirees exist on a limited income for at some point the money stops coming in, or at the least in very limited quantities.  So what happens with downsizing is that living becomes cheaper.  Property wise, living in a smaller home, or even apartment, or smaller place in general means less taxes and maintenance.  So you could go from paying something like $8,000 a year in property taxes, to paying half that or less.  Those savings go a long way without even factoring in cheaper maintenance costs.  Smaller living means less energy to heat the home, and less energy to clean.  As such, that means more savings.  Also, slimming down allows you to pocket some of the value of the home you had been living in to temporarily supplement your income.  This is the cost savings aspect.

The impacts on your body are also good.  What I mean by this is that you need not have a big house to hold all your stuff.  In fact, downsizing means getting rid of excess stuff you know you do not need.  This can become a stress relief.  Also, smaller living means having to make less effort to get from point A to point B in your home.  As such, there is less wear and tear on the body.  We do not need a big home past a certain point as we no longer have kids, or roommates to live with.  In addition, the earlier you move the less stressful it is to do so.  So basically, it is less stress and less clutter which is healthy.

Conclusion:  Downsizing can be beneficial for those who are retired, whose kids have moved out, or just for those who feel their home is way too big for them.  What will result is cost savings and a more positive living arrangement for these people who decide downsizing is right for them.

Issue 532 Auto Enrolment for Retirement February 20, 2015

I was reading an article in the economist about retirement (though I myself am very far away from retiring).  People are not saving money and that is becoming a detriment to people when they want to retire.  So the Economist has proposed auto retirement as a solution.  Is this the right idea?  Let us discuss.

Why auto enrolment works:  The reason the economist supports this idea is because it boosts participation into the retirement programs by 40% (this is their numbers).  Well, that is a very big number.  Also, the economists pointed out that things like Social Security and other social welfare programs cannot keep up the pace if so many people were to retire without a plan.  So baby boomers and the like in America will strain the country's Social Security system and its welfare programs that will be used to supplement that income when money from Social Security is not enough.  So the people at the Economist see more people saving for retirement as the only solution to getting through a possible financial crisis.

Is it worth it?:  I know that retirement and financial independence from a government body is worth it.  I mean, 40% more people saving means less financial resources government will have to use to help people, and less people having to work longer or struggle with money later on in life.  But forcing people is something a government body should not do, and yet they do so with Social Security.  Then having businesses where you are employed do the same thing becomes unnerving.  I mean, it is saying you are too dumb to save money on your own.  Too stupid to plan ahead.  Blah blah blah.  Retirement is worth it in my opinion, but I opted in to save, but what about those who need a push?  

Conclusion:  What I have found is that learning what to do to invest in a 401K, into stocks, and other savings tools was very difficult to do.  In fact, I still do not really understand it all myself.  I learned what these things do from my parents, who while only about a decade away from retirement do not understand how it works really either.  They just know that they have accounts and stocks with other forms of savings which they hope will carry them through for as long as possible.  So auto enrolment is not my definition of a solution.  It is education.  Dumbing the learning down so that a dope like me can understand how it all works and figure out how much I would need to save to have a specific amount of money to last ten to 30 years when I eventually retire.  I want to be able to invest in the stock market, form a 401K or other financial savings tool without having to go to a broker.  I think that the reason people do not invest into saving for retirement is because that they do not understand how (in addition to not understanding why).  Therefore, give me a service or an education program that gives me what I asked, a simple and easy method to know and understand when and where to save so I can retire and actually take it easy.  I don't want to be forced to retire when it's inconvenient, but when it makes sense and is beneficial to me.  Education is the key that is my solution.

Issue 531 Digital Monopolies: Break them? February 19, 2015

A business monopoly is a business that has total control over a specific area of business.  A digital one, is the same concept, but just pertains to the internet.  In the past, these things we call monopolies have been deemed very bad and that they cause high prices, and other negative impacts on the economy.  Well, that is not really the case with internet monopolies, so let us discuss.

Why digital monopolies are harmless:  A digital monopoly is basically a digital giant like Facebook, which controls most of the social networking area of the internet.  Google controls searches and Amazon selling goods.  However, we are not limited to them to buying, searching or socializing on the internet.  Numerous others still exist like Myspace, FaceTime, Bing, Go Daddy and the like.  Despite being smaller, we can still use their services.  In contrast, the original monopolies on trains, oil and the like had true monopolies where no other services could compete.  In the digital landscape, everyone no matter how big is replaceable.  And in fact, because giants like Google, Facebook and Amazon are replaceable we know that they are not real monopolies.  They are just really good companies that the world has recognized and thus they will continue to be used so long as their services continue to be useful to the masses.  You see, all the internet giants can be supplanted by others.  Bing, or another upstart as a search engine could possibly one day take the leading role over Google.  And this cycle can happen to that replacement as well.  

But what about when they buy their competitors or upstarts you say?  Simple, the buying of competitors and upstarts is a good thing.  For one, it may introduce new services that we do not have yet to existing ones we use.  So Google may add the new service, but so will Bing, and others because if you have not noticed, they copy each other’s successes.  Thus, if enough good ideas are focused into one place outside of these giants, Google, Facebook and the like could be replaced.  What this also means is that the acquisitions sponsor more startups.  Some hope to create a useful service that will become just as big as Facebook or Google, while others create ideas that they seek to be bought in the first place.  As such, more variety is created with more unique possibilities for us consumers to enjoy.

Conclusion:  All roads lead to innovation.  The fact is, monopolies on the internet really do not exist, for costs to create something on the internet is very small (though keeping it going may not).  Right now, I am enjoying Google's' free blogging service to reach you, my readers, but some day, a better service may come along and replace Google, or even buy them if they become big enough.  As business constantly reinvents itself along with innovations on goods and services, those who remain stagnant will fall by the wayside.  It is the creative destruction of the market, and I look forward to seeing where it will lead the internet.  So no, do not break Google, Amazon, Facebook, or the others.  They are doing their part to create an even better internet.

Issue 530 Privacy and the Internet: Opt in switch February 18, 2015

There has been talk about how you really have no privacy on the internet.  More specifically, service providers and websites like Google, Facebook, etc., are selling your personal information to make a profit.  Some of you know this already, and some of you do not, so let us discuss.

Defining personal data:  So on the internet, personal data is not just your bank account numbers (which these companies do not sell).  Instead it is all the websites you visit and your personal preferences on the web.  So if you like anime, or cartoons they will know, and even how often you watch a particular show.  They will know if you do online banking by how often you visit a banks website to log in.  Heck, they will even know if you watch porn, and how often you search for your favorite porn star.  All this data is then bundled, and sold to other websites, and services which then customize advertisements or searches to meet what you like.  But, this disturbed people for obvious reasons, including the fact that this data is used to make a profit off of you.  

Thus the opt in switch:  An opt in switch is a proposal by some people to websites like Facebook and Google, so that people who want to maintain privacy can have it.  Basically, you would have to say ok for a website or web service to use your data and sell it.  Very simple idea, but with major impacts.

For one, these companies would potentially lose money.  Reason being, the buying and selling of data supports business operations.  This includes making, or altering websites to suit us, the regular internet community who may visit their websites or use their services.  So that search may take longer than normal, or you may miss that advertisement for that tool set when you visit a home depot site.  It is really hard to tell you my reader how different it would be for businesses to attract your business on the internet if an opt in switch existed.  They could not put your favorite actor, website or item at the top of a search list.  Literally, these websites and services could not offer as many deals, or specials as all that data we give them every day provides them with the ability to customize our internet experience to us.  Sure, they profit off of all this, but if they did not, they would not be able to exist in the first place.

Conclusion:  The internet is a public square, where all information is free to move around.  This includes our data on personal preferences, tastes, and what we may have just bought online.  An opt in switch does sound like a nice idea, but I personally do not know.  Is there any real disadvantage to allowing these websites and services share our information on how often we update a wish list on Amazon, or search Godzilla on Google?  The only real data I am worried about is my bank account, as I just do not want my really important data stolen.  As such, data of useless searches or fancies has no negative impact on me so long as these companies integrity remains intact.  And last I checked, they do really well keeping the really important information safe.  So no opt in switch for me, in my case, but I cannot speak for you.  Therefore if you think this is a worthy idea, then pursue it, if not, then Que Sera sera.

Issue 529 Bug farms February 17, 2015

Apparently there has been some talk amongst the people who are worried about a world food crisis and the effects farming animals has on climate change.  In an issue of National Geographic they did a two page summary of the advantages of eating bugs as an alternative food source and how farming them over say cows, reduces the environmental impact we humans have on the planet.  Let's discuss what I have learned.

Interesting facts:  Did you know that a full quarter of the world's population eats bugs as part of their diet?  Also, there are 2,000 edible species of bug on the planet that we know of?  Well, I knew the French eat snails, but this is a whole lot more than I thought.  In fact, bugs have a higher protein value than other animals.  However, the reason they are not widely accepted as a food source is because they are, well, real yucky looking.  I mean, have you seen a slug?  Ewww.  So the idea to possibly make them more acceptable to the rest of the world is to make them into pasts and powders.  So you could have a bag of flower that is 1/4 ground cricket.  Though that may be a decade or so off, because it has to be accepted by people first.  So education is the key.

Getting people to accept bug food:  So, the article pointed out some places where bugs are used that we probably did not even realize.  Bugs are used as animal feed.  This seems easy to digest, as the high proteins in bugs help the animal’s bulk up without the need for steroids.  The creepy critters are used to color lipstick and other things like alcohols.  So you may be rubbing ground beetle on your lips or drinking crushed spider in your favorite beer.  Also, they are used in medicine as well.  So we are already eating bugs and probably do not even realize it.

Farming wise, for those environmentally conscious people, the bugs take up very small plots of land to farm.  So there is less need to clear large forests for grazing animals as bugs do not graze.  Instead, you just need a barn with enough space for mass production.  As they are so small, they generate less greenhouse gases and they even eat organic waste such as garbage, which they convert to protein.  So these little guys can eat the stuff we cannot (like dead leaves, dead animals, and other waste).   This means that they are cheaper and easier to feed.  In short, that means a lot less money and the waste is removed and recycled back into energy for us to eat.  Basically, they are easier and cheaper to farm, than a regular farm while reducing the environmental impact on the planet.

Conclusion:  Does all this make me want to eat a cricket, or a beetle?  Not really.  That yuck factor does not have me sold.  Sure, I may try a prepared dish, like something with escargot (snail), but I am not ready for eating a chocolate covered ant.  So for now, I am going to sit back and watch to see what unique possibilities bugs will have on the world’s future diet.

Issue 528 3-D printed homes February 16, 2015

Did you know that 3d printers can also print an entire house?  And no, I’m not just talking about small parts, but the entire home itself.  Here is how it works.

Here is how it works (thanks captain obvious):    To start track is laid down on either side of the planned foundation.  The foundation, is already pre-constructed, so if there is a basement, the structural walls or temporary support malls for that are already put in place.  From there the giant 3d printer begins its work.  It uses the track to move across the property, or even over multiple properties to build one to several homes that have been programed into its system.  There's a nozzle(s) on the end of a boom that excretes the contents of multiple hoppers for various liquefied materials such as cement, copper wire, foam insulation and even glass.  Then just like a regular 3d printer the house or houses are built bit by bit with the robot 3d printer keeping to the design specks.  Wood is no problem for this machine either as by using sheets of plant fibers, gluing them and then cutting them can make a wood like material when necessary.  Wiring is done in such a way that they are insulated in the walls with outlets and other electronic equipment implanted into the building itself.  This eliminates seems, but designed to be accessed by future electricians for upgrades/changes.  Even plumbing is laid down via the creation of thick plastic or metal pipes via the 3d printer. Heck, not only can it print a kitchen sink, but also a fireplace too (and that is done with its liquefied rock ink to get whatever look you desire). All of this is additive type manufacturing, in which material is added and them either melted/hardened/glued into place.

Limitations:  The main limitation is that if the 3d printed home has a design flaw, then the machine cannot fix that (as in the design of the home that was programed had a design flaw).  Also, if energy requirements for the home go beyond what the original design called for, then you again would need some sort of outside help from an electrician to fix the problem (this is in reference to changes in electrical needs over time).  Home remodeling is the same deal.  Construction workers of all sorts will still be required to do such jobs.  On top of this, whatever the 3d printer does not do, a construction worker will.  So if the steps to say the basement are not built with the 3d printer due to a design limitation the 3d printer cannot as of yet overcome, then the workers will have to do it.  So any and all finishing touches that the 3d printer is not designed to overcome yet, or is incapable of doing will be done by workers.  Also, the printer needs a clearing to do a job so the track can be laid down.  So this prohibits its current use on uneven/jagged terrain on the side of mountains or dense forest.  So these too will be left to the skills of the construction worker.

Conclusion:  While still being fully developed and implemented, the 3d home printer stands to make custom built homes very cheap and efficient as it will reduce almost all costs from labor save initial setup and removal of the 3d printer, and finishing details on the interior and exterior of the home.  So we are seeing a revolution is housing mass production.  However, this thankfully does not eliminate the construction worker from the job.  Custom, detailed or other work will still need to be done by these skilled laborers.  So these workers may end up with niche jobs like custom aftermarket tiling, or home remodeling as opposed to constructing an entire home from scratch.  As such, construction workers will be supplanted in the housing market, but not lose their overall need.  I don't know about you, but I look forward to cheaper homes as it means more homes become affordable.  So I welcome this technological triumph with glee.