#HappyNewYear #2025 #GoodReturns #truth #science #leadership #peace
Happy New Year!
May 2025 be a year of good returns. We are not talking about unwanted holiday gifts or even investments, though we could wish good investment returns for everyone.
We are talking about the returns of truth, science, leadership and peace.
Truth has largely disappeared from much recent discourse. Inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase from former Vice President Al Gore, is replaced by falsehoods explained away by something other than documented evidence. Just because one may hear these falsehoods over again doesn’t make them true.
So, if one hears or reads something they may even want to be true, look for the documentation and proof. If you don’t see it, don’t believe it.
Dovetailing with truth is science. Again, inconvenient science is being replaced by theories (not science) that may sound better to many. But, these theories have not been scientifically proved, and are often downright wrong. It’s gotten to the point at which legitimate scientists are being criticized, persecuted, fired or even prosecuted for doing their jobs.
Doctors can’t practice medicine according to scientific principles in some places. Teachers can’t teach real science in some places, lest it conflicts with some religious beliefs. Faith is good, even virtuous. But faith, by definition, is the belief in something that may or may not be provable. Science is the act of taking a belief and proving veracity — or not.
Leadership is doing the right thing by others, often without notice. Leaders let their actions tell their story. Too many pseudo leaders of today tell their great stories, making sure actions – whether for the good or not – are on display.
These pseudo leaders don’t often think through decisions, or even get good advice. They do what, in their gut, looks good at the time.
This behavior produces many contradictions: For example, you may hear statements about not wanting to teach sexuality in school, but, at the same time, wanting more young women to have babies – wanted or not.
How can one expect anyone to make good decisions about having children without knowing all the facts?
Leaders create an atmosphere in which their teams, and those they are supposed to lead, can make good decisions for themselves, while helping those who need it. Often, leaders do what they do without much notice.
We all wish for peace, whether it is among warring factions abroad, or quarrelling factions at home. Family dinners that once were civil, pleasant or even delightful have become less so, even provocative.
Peace is not just the absence of fighting. It is the function of everyone having everything that is rightfully theirs. No unprovoked invasions of countries. No uncalled-for criticisms of one’s life endeavors.
Peace is everyone living with what is rightfully theirs, without infringement from others.
So, as we embark on a new year, may it bring everyone good returns. May those returns bring blessings upon all.
Peter
Category Archives: Uncategorized
RAISING RETIREMENT AGE HAS ITS PITFALLS
#RaiseRetirementAge #RetirementAge #retirement #jobs #work
Some who want to govern us have proposed raising the retirement age to, say, 70.
These ideas are forged as the country grapples with the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare and the deficit federal spending they cause.
At first blush, it looks like a good solution.
When Social Security was created (Medicare came later), it adopted 65 as the age one can begin collecting. Over time, Congress played with the Social Security fund until it merged with the entire federal budget.
Back when the retirement age was set at 65, many, if not most, people did not live much beyond that. Working life took a lot out of people, and untreatable diseases caused early deaths.
Today, however, people are living longer, because of advances in medical care, treatment and prevention. They are staying retired for decades. Many are healthy enough to work in some capacity.
So, for the financial good of the country, why not have people work a few more years?
Here’s the rub: employers, in many cases, want people gone as soon as possible.
Even though the “official” retirement age is 65, once people start approaching age 50, employers want to phase them out. In fact, they want them gone long before 65. There are laws preventing employees from age discrimination, but companies usually find other ways to phase people out.
If these companies provide health benefits for employees (fewer and fewer are doing that), they know older employees will use those benefits to a higher degree.
Older employees with seniority in the company also make a lot of money and, in some cases, are less productive than younger workers. They have more vacation time, in many cases.
There is a labor shortage in many industries, and older workers could help ease that. But, the extra costs older workers put on employers can negate the needed help they are providing.
Certainly, some older workers want to keep working. But, if they have a stressful job, that stress may not be good for them. Ideally, if employers could phase out older workers by putting them in less stressful jobs, that may ease the problem. But, most employers simply cannot do that.
Also, older employees often have old skills that are no longer needed, or have been replaced by machines.
Many don’t easily adapt to newer skills as companies evolve.
So, the idea of people working longer may have some appeal on paper, but, as a practical matter, may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
If you are a worker, are you going to regret on your death bed that you didn’t work more?
That would be unlikely.
We should have a system of labor in the U.S. that allows people to work as long as they want to, within reason.
But, that may not be practical.
As a worker, you need to plan correctly, presuming your job will go away at any time. It may not go away at a time of your choosing.
Peter
Some who want to govern us have proposed raising the retirement age to, say, 70.
These ideas are forged as the country grapples with the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare and the deficit federal spending they cause.
At first blush, it looks like a good solution.
When Social Security was created (Medicare came later), it adopted 65 as the age one can begin collecting. Over time, Congress played with the Social Security fund until it merged with the entire federal budget.
Back when the retirement age was set at 65, many, if not most, people did not live much beyond that. Working life took a lot out of people, and untreatable diseases caused early deaths.
Today, however, people are living longer, because of advances in medical care, treatment and prevention. They are staying retired for decades. Many are healthy enough to work in some capacity.
So, for the financial good of the country, why not have people work a few more years?
Here’s the rub: employers, in many cases, want people gone as soon as possible.
Even though the “official” retirement age is 65, once people start approaching age 50, employers want to phase them out. In fact, they want them gone long before 65. There are laws preventing employees from age discrimination, but companies usually find other ways to phase people out.
If these companies provide health benefits for employees (fewer and fewer are doing that), they know older employees will use those benefits to a higher degree.
Older employees with seniority in the company also make a lot of money and, in some cases, are less productive than younger workers. They have more vacation time, in many cases.
There is a labor shortage in many industries, and older workers could help ease that. But, the extra costs older workers put on employers can negate the needed help they are providing.
Certainly, some older workers want to keep working. But, if they have a stressful job, that stress may not be good for them. Ideally, if employers could phase out older workers by putting them in less stressful jobs, that may ease the problem. But, most employers simply cannot do that.
Also, older employees often have old skills that are no longer needed, or have been replaced by machines.
Many don’t easily adapt to newer skills as companies evolve.
So, the idea of people working longer may have some appeal on paper, but, as a practical matter, may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
If you are a worker, are you going to regret on your death bed that you didn’t work more?
That would be unlikely.
We should have a system of labor in the U.S. that allows people to work as long as they want to, within reason.
But, that may not be practical.
As a worker, you need to plan correctly, presuming your job will go away at any time. It may not go away at a time of your choosing.
Peter
DON’T CONFUSE BULLIES WITH LEADERS
#leaders #bullies #leadership #success
Leaders don’t have to know everything.
They only have to know what they don’t know, find people who do know and create a space/atmosphere for them to do their best work.
A leader doesn’t have to be an expert in the company/agency he or she is leading. He or she has to make sure the people he or she is leading – the actual experts – have what they need to do their best work. The leader also may have to defend and support the work being done in the company or agency.
A leader also has to embrace the mission of the company/agency he or she is leading.
Bullies, on the other hand, do not lead. They tear things down. They denigrate the people within the company or agency. They don’t embrace the agency’s or company’s mission. In fact, they want the agency or company to do the opposite of what it is supposed to do.
Strong leaders don’t always show their strength. They often exercise strength behind the scenes, and always in an effort to help those they are leading.
Bullies want their “strength” on display. They often deploy their “strength” by acting against those whom they are supposed to lead. In such a situation, people usually get hurt and the company or agency crumbles.
Leaders know their success doesn’t come strictly on their efforts. They know it takes a team to pull off success, and are eager to credit that team with the success. If there are failures along the way, leaders take the blame themselves, and take responsibility for the repairs.
Bullies believe they are the only ones who can achieve success, and those under them merely do as they say. They credit no one but themselves for success, and only blame others for failures.
While the leaders work diligently to help others succeed, bullies work only to help others fail, so they can claim success.
Leaders lift people up. Bullies beat people down, to paraphrase a campaign theme from the recent U.S. election.
Bullies are skilled at breaking things. They are less skilled at building, or rebuilding, things.
Leaders try not to break anything, but, instead try to build or rebuild with existing structures, materials and people.
Indeed, some things must be torn down to rebuild. Bullies do that for sport. Leaders do that only when necessary, to try to save as much of what was there as possible.
Most of us have worked for leaders. Some of us have worked for bullies. If you are an aspiring leader working for a bully, you may have to cut your losses and find a leader(s) to work for. You’ll learn from a bully how not to be, and learn from a leader how to be.
The bully’s apparent “strength” hides overwhelming weakness. Over that so-called muscle is very thin skin.
Bullies have to look over their shoulders constantly, lest they be sabotaged. Leaders have to observe their teams constantly so they can learn more, support more and advocate more.
If you are put in charge of something, choose to be a leader. It’s safer for you and better for your organization.
In golf, the player lets the club do most, if not all, the work, while providing the best swing possible. In leadership, the leader lets the team do most, if not all, the work, while providing the best atmosphere possible.
Peter
WHO WANTS SMART PEOPLE CONTROLLED?
#SmartPeople #doctors #scientists #teachers #discrimination #ControllingForces
There seems to be a strategy by some in politics to try to control smart people.
Doctors, scientists, teachers and others who have professional credentials are seeing their work ridiculed, criticized or otherwise restricted.
It’s tough to do what they do in this environment.
But, that may be the point. And, it’s not unprecedented in history.
Groups who have faced discrimination have faced it because those in power are envious of what they have, and their abilities. Or, they have faced it because of the labor they can provide.
The world flourishes when smart people with good intentions are given free rein to do their jobs.
It’s tough to innovate when restrictions are improperly imposed upon those with the greatest minds.
Teachers can’t teach well if they are told that only certain books can be used, or only certain subjects can be addressed.,
Doctors can’t practice medicine properly when they are restricted on what medical procedures they can use to treat patients.
Scientists can’t advance science when others ridicule or condemn scientific progress.
Usually, those doing the restricting are not qualified to do so. They merely believe they have the power to do so.
Often, it feels like an assault on intelligence. Yet, there is a method to the madness.
By restricting how intelligence is used, it enhances the control of those doing the restricting.
This type of control in history has led to slavery, the holocaust and other forms of humanitarian destruction.
Those who have not achieved what the most intelligent have achieved revel in this power grab. They are jealous of others’ intelligence and knowledge.
They feel that if you can’t be as smart, be more powerful.
Fortunately, the intelligent folks under assault have ways to fight back. They can remove those restrictors from power.
They, and their supporters, at least in the United States, can vote out those who would restrict the best and the brightest.
We in the U.S. value innovation. We value the fact that we can make progress. We recognize problems that can be solved by unleashing the talent we have in this country.
Yet, some who wish to control the intelligent refuse to recognize the problems that can be solved through innovation.
They feel their lives will be upended by progress. They want to go back to the way things were before innovation.
We have to remember, particularly as Americans, that things like innovation and demographics are like flowing water. We can try to divert them, if they don’t suit us, but we can’t stop them.
In the case of the best and the brightest, let’s try a little less diversion and a little more unleashing.
Peter
There seems to be a strategy by some in politics to try to control smart people.
Doctors, scientists, teachers and others who have professional credentials are seeing their work ridiculed, criticized or otherwise restricted.
It’s tough to do what they do in this environment.
But, that may be the point. And, it’s not unprecedented in history.
Groups who have faced discrimination have faced it because those in power are envious of what they have, and their abilities. Or, they have faced it because of the labor they can provide.
The world flourishes when smart people with good intentions are given free rein to do their jobs.
It’s tough to innovate when restrictions are improperly imposed upon those with the greatest minds.
Teachers can’t teach well if they are told that only certain books can be used, or only certain subjects can be addressed.,
Doctors can’t practice medicine properly when they are restricted on what medical procedures they can use to treat patients.
Scientists can’t advance science when others ridicule or condemn scientific progress.
Usually, those doing the restricting are not qualified to do so. They merely believe they have the power to do so.
Often, it feels like an assault on intelligence. Yet, there is a method to the madness.
By restricting how intelligence is used, it enhances the control of those doing the restricting.
This type of control in history has led to slavery, the holocaust and other forms of humanitarian destruction.
Those who have not achieved what the most intelligent have achieved revel in this power grab. They are jealous of others’ intelligence and knowledge.
They feel that if you can’t be as smart, be more powerful.
Fortunately, the intelligent folks under assault have ways to fight back. They can remove those restrictors from power.
They, and their supporters, at least in the United States, can vote out those who would restrict the best and the brightest.
We in the U.S. value innovation. We value the fact that we can make progress. We recognize problems that can be solved by unleashing the talent we have in this country.
Yet, some who wish to control the intelligent refuse to recognize the problems that can be solved through innovation.
They feel their lives will be upended by progress. They want to go back to the way things were before innovation.
We have to remember, particularly as Americans, that things like innovation and demographics are like flowing water. We can try to divert them, if they don’t suit us, but we can’t stop them.
In the case of the best and the brightest, let’s try a little less diversion and a little more unleashing.
Peter
WHAT IF BREAKFAST WAS NO LONGER FREE?
#FreeBreakfast #hotels #eggs #PriceofEggs #HowPeopleFeel
Free hot breakfast.
Many hotels offer that as a perk to their guests.
Most of them are buffet style, as guests come down to the lobby to serve themselves.
But some hotel chains, like Hyatt Place, are considering charging, say, $7 a head for breakfast.
That probably still beats what you would pay if you went out to a nearby restaurant for breakfast. But, will guests object to that idea?
It’s not a big deal to charge for breakfast. But, the psychology here is different. You don’t give people something, then take it away and expect them not to complain.
Perhaps, when the hotels try this, there will be some initial blowback from guests. Still, it’s imprudent to bet that the blowback eventually will subside and things will be normal again, albeit at a higher price for hotel guests.
The overall trend of raising prices on just about everything is having a real effect on people. In fact, it’s been said that the price of eggs, among other things, influenced whom people voted for in the recent election.
It’s not that the candidates(s) can really do much about the price of eggs. It was the feeling people had about whom they thought would be more likely to make their lives better.
Apparently, they were willing to overlook the bad things about a candidate, if that candidate gave them a good feeling that things were going to improve.
Let’s hope these gut feelings were not misplaced.
As political analyst Matthew Dowd put it: “You can’t tell people how to feel.”
These feelings may have little to do with a candidate’s policies or ideas. They are not data points.
In fact, when candidates try to tell people that their feelings don’t match the data, the people really don’t care about the data.
They are worried more about how they are going to pay, say, $6 for a dozen eggs, when they probably paid $2 a few years ago.
You can talk to them about supply-chain issues, bird flu outbreaks and other things that may have affected egg prices. But that doesn’t solve THEIR problem.
In fact, it’s very likely that those egg prices are spurring hotel chains to consider charging for their “free” hot breakfasts.
Of course, the cost of almost all necessities has gone up. Most salaries have, too, but people are still hurting.
Is this really the time for hotel chains to, in relative terms, nickel and dime their guests?
In most cases, hotel stays are a luxury, unless people are homeless because of storms or other reasons.
Travelers will vote with their feet on free breakfasts. Those chains that keep their free hot breakfasts are likely to fare better than those who try to charge for them
On the other hand, some chains never went the free-breakfast route, and they don’t appear to be suffering for it.
Still, psychologically, it would have been better not to have offered free breakfast at all, than to offer it and later charge for it.
Peter
Free hot breakfast.
Many hotels offer that as a perk to their guests.
Most of them are buffet style, as guests come down to the lobby to serve themselves.
But some hotel chains, like Hyatt Place, are considering charging, say, $7 a head for breakfast.
That probably still beats what you would pay if you went out to a nearby restaurant for breakfast. But, will guests object to that idea?
It’s not a big deal to charge for breakfast. But, the psychology here is different. You don’t give people something, then take it away and expect them not to complain.
Perhaps, when the hotels try this, there will be some initial blowback from guests. Still, it’s imprudent to bet that the blowback eventually will subside and things will be normal again, albeit at a higher price for hotel guests.
The overall trend of raising prices on just about everything is having a real effect on people. In fact, it’s been said that the price of eggs, among other things, influenced whom people voted for in the recent election.
It’s not that the candidates(s) can really do much about the price of eggs. It was the feeling people had about whom they thought would be more likely to make their lives better.
Apparently, they were willing to overlook the bad things about a candidate, if that candidate gave them a good feeling that things were going to improve.
Let’s hope these gut feelings were not misplaced.
As political analyst Matthew Dowd put it: “You can’t tell people how to feel.”
These feelings may have little to do with a candidate’s policies or ideas. They are not data points.
In fact, when candidates try to tell people that their feelings don’t match the data, the people really don’t care about the data.
They are worried more about how they are going to pay, say, $6 for a dozen eggs, when they probably paid $2 a few years ago.
You can talk to them about supply-chain issues, bird flu outbreaks and other things that may have affected egg prices. But that doesn’t solve THEIR problem.
In fact, it’s very likely that those egg prices are spurring hotel chains to consider charging for their “free” hot breakfasts.
Of course, the cost of almost all necessities has gone up. Most salaries have, too, but people are still hurting.
Is this really the time for hotel chains to, in relative terms, nickel and dime their guests?
In most cases, hotel stays are a luxury, unless people are homeless because of storms or other reasons.
Travelers will vote with their feet on free breakfasts. Those chains that keep their free hot breakfasts are likely to fare better than those who try to charge for them
On the other hand, some chains never went the free-breakfast route, and they don’t appear to be suffering for it.
Still, psychologically, it would have been better not to have offered free breakfast at all, than to offer it and later charge for it.
Peter
FREEDOM TO … FREEDOM FROM
freedom #FreedomTo #FreedomFrom #progress
Everyone loves freedom.
But, people view the concept differently.
Some want to have the freedom to do something.
Others want freedom from something.
Those who want freedom to do something generally are looking ahead, searching for the freedom to do something new.
Those who want freedom from something generally are looking back to a time when things that exist now either were not there, or were kept under wraps.
Generally, progress brings more freedom. It allows people to explore who they are, to interact with people who are different from them and to check out new things.
That progress can interfere with the freedoms others thought they had, and those folks want to stop progress in its tracks and go back to the way things were.
Since toothpaste cannot be put back into a tube, once progress has evolved, one cannot un-evolve it.
Those who want freedom from such progress may have to adjust how they live with it. The world generally doesn’t move backward, regardless of some people’s desires.
As individuals, we have to realize that things will change. In this world. They often change rapidly and often.
The security of the past can be shattered in an instant.
We may want to hold on to that security for as long as we live, but, chances are, something will happen to diminish or even obliterate it.
Such progress can upend what was a good life for some.
It’s not only progress that can be upending. Tragedy can do the same.
Some tragedy can be prevented or minimized. Other tragedy will come whether we are ready or not.
In decades past, progress was much slower. Tragedy was more infrequent.
People could grow and mature in a bubble that was unlikely to burst for a long time. That bred a contentment that may no longer be here for some.
What to do? If you sincerely seek freedom from progress and tragedy, and feel powerless to do anything to mitigate those things, you may want to concentrate on what you will do when the unthinkable hits.
It’s not what happens to people that is most significant. It is how they react when it happens, and how they recover from upending life circumstances.
It may take work to do so. From some things, one may never fully recover. Adaptability can be learned. Difficult change might even open doors one may never have seen.
Such events, perhaps, can turn a person who wants freedom from something into someone who wants freedom to do something.
Peter
Everyone loves freedom.
But, people view the concept differently.
Some want to have the freedom to do something.
Others want freedom from something.
Those who want freedom to do something generally are looking ahead, searching for the freedom to do something new.
Those who want freedom from something generally are looking back to a time when things that exist now either were not there, or were kept under wraps.
Generally, progress brings more freedom. It allows people to explore who they are, to interact with people who are different from them and to check out new things.
That progress can interfere with the freedoms others thought they had, and those folks want to stop progress in its tracks and go back to the way things were.
Since toothpaste cannot be put back into a tube, once progress has evolved, one cannot un-evolve it.
Those who want freedom from such progress may have to adjust how they live with it. The world generally doesn’t move backward, regardless of some people’s desires.
As individuals, we have to realize that things will change. In this world. They often change rapidly and often.
The security of the past can be shattered in an instant.
We may want to hold on to that security for as long as we live, but, chances are, something will happen to diminish or even obliterate it.
Such progress can upend what was a good life for some.
It’s not only progress that can be upending. Tragedy can do the same.
Some tragedy can be prevented or minimized. Other tragedy will come whether we are ready or not.
In decades past, progress was much slower. Tragedy was more infrequent.
People could grow and mature in a bubble that was unlikely to burst for a long time. That bred a contentment that may no longer be here for some.
What to do? If you sincerely seek freedom from progress and tragedy, and feel powerless to do anything to mitigate those things, you may want to concentrate on what you will do when the unthinkable hits.
It’s not what happens to people that is most significant. It is how they react when it happens, and how they recover from upending life circumstances.
It may take work to do so. From some things, one may never fully recover. Adaptability can be learned. Difficult change might even open doors one may never have seen.
Such events, perhaps, can turn a person who wants freedom from something into someone who wants freedom to do something.
Peter
THE ECONOMY: PERCEPTIONS AND REALITY
#economy #wages #prices #PerceptionOfEconomy #EconomicData
The data show the economy is good, even robust.
But people don’t always see it that way. They see prices that are higher than a few years ago on almost everything.
So why the difference between data and perception?
First, almost everything costs more than a few years ago for a few reasons. First, some companies are trying to make up for their losses during the pandemic. Some may call that price gouging, but it becomes that only when prices stay up AFTER the losses have been made up.
Secondly, almost everyone is getting paid more than they were a few years ago. If you are not in this category, look around for other opportunities. They are out there, in many places.
To help pay for those higher wages, companies raise the price of what they sell or make.
There are certain categories of prices that have unique issues. Housing (rents and purchases) prices are up. There are lots of entities out there competing with individual families for housing. They buy properties for cash and rent them out at rents that are often unaffordable for many.
That takes many houses off the market for individuals, and raises rents for renters.
Auto insurance and repairs are another unique category. Today’s cars are a lot more complex than those from the past. What may look like a simple repair gets complicated because systems in the cars may have to be recalibrated. That could double or triple the cost of a simple repair.
The same could be said for home repairs. That may be why repair insurance companies have a market, and why auto and homeowner’s insurance in general have risen in price.
No matter who serves in the U.S. government, he or she can only do so much to bring prices down.
The good news here is that if you are making more money in your job, most data show that your higher pay is outpacing inflation.
That begs the question: would you prefer lower pay and lower prices, or the current situation? Before answering that, know that the data again shows price inflation coming down.
We may never see $1 a gallon gasoline again. Those pandemic prices, when no one was going anywhere, may not return unless there is another pandemic. No one wants that.
Food prices are also affected by distributors, who are raising their prices. Also, one has to consider climate issues that affect the growth of what we eat. If food can’t grow as well, or gets destroyed in storms, what is not affected is going to be more expensive.
Therefore, be skeptical of anyone who runs for public office who says he or she will lower prices.
There may be things they can do to mitigate inflation, but the government can’t subsidize everything, and it has limited ability to force producers and sellers to lower prices on what they make or sell. The main thing that will affect pricing is whether people buy things at the price charged. Some necessities have to be bought, but we may want to try to use less of those if we can.
The government can lower your taxes on certain things as one mitigation. But, the government can’t control pricing, nor do we necessarily want it to.
Certainly, your parents or grandparents paid less to live in their younger years than you do now. But, in that time, much progress has been made. Society, as a whole, has seen much improvement.
The betterment of society comes at a price. Most of us do not want to go back to the “good old days.”
Peter
The data show the economy is good, even robust.
But people don’t always see it that way. They see prices that are higher than a few years ago on almost everything.
So why the difference between data and perception?
First, almost everything costs more than a few years ago for a few reasons. First, some companies are trying to make up for their losses during the pandemic. Some may call that price gouging, but it becomes that only when prices stay up AFTER the losses have been made up.
Secondly, almost everyone is getting paid more than they were a few years ago. If you are not in this category, look around for other opportunities. They are out there, in many places.
To help pay for those higher wages, companies raise the price of what they sell or make.
There are certain categories of prices that have unique issues. Housing (rents and purchases) prices are up. There are lots of entities out there competing with individual families for housing. They buy properties for cash and rent them out at rents that are often unaffordable for many.
That takes many houses off the market for individuals, and raises rents for renters.
Auto insurance and repairs are another unique category. Today’s cars are a lot more complex than those from the past. What may look like a simple repair gets complicated because systems in the cars may have to be recalibrated. That could double or triple the cost of a simple repair.
The same could be said for home repairs. That may be why repair insurance companies have a market, and why auto and homeowner’s insurance in general have risen in price.
No matter who serves in the U.S. government, he or she can only do so much to bring prices down.
The good news here is that if you are making more money in your job, most data show that your higher pay is outpacing inflation.
That begs the question: would you prefer lower pay and lower prices, or the current situation? Before answering that, know that the data again shows price inflation coming down.
We may never see $1 a gallon gasoline again. Those pandemic prices, when no one was going anywhere, may not return unless there is another pandemic. No one wants that.
Food prices are also affected by distributors, who are raising their prices. Also, one has to consider climate issues that affect the growth of what we eat. If food can’t grow as well, or gets destroyed in storms, what is not affected is going to be more expensive.
Therefore, be skeptical of anyone who runs for public office who says he or she will lower prices.
There may be things they can do to mitigate inflation, but the government can’t subsidize everything, and it has limited ability to force producers and sellers to lower prices on what they make or sell. The main thing that will affect pricing is whether people buy things at the price charged. Some necessities have to be bought, but we may want to try to use less of those if we can.
The government can lower your taxes on certain things as one mitigation. But, the government can’t control pricing, nor do we necessarily want it to.
Certainly, your parents or grandparents paid less to live in their younger years than you do now. But, in that time, much progress has been made. Society, as a whole, has seen much improvement.
The betterment of society comes at a price. Most of us do not want to go back to the “good old days.”
Peter
LOVE AND ROBOTS
#robots #love #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #humans #emotions
“What does a robot know about love?”
That begins an Etsy TV ad, to make the point that Etsy conducts its commerce with more human activity than robot activity.
But, as time progresses, more robots and other non-human technology will be used in commerce, factories, research and many other endeavors now mostly conducted by humans.
That could have an effect on current jobs, and the jobs of the future.
For some workers, technology is moving too fast. More work that was previously done by humans is being done by machines.
] That means some good jobs are being eliminated, and those who’ve lost those jobs are having difficulty finding alternative jobs that pay as well.
It’s important to note here that no matter who is serving in the U.S. government, those jobs likely are not coming back.
With the advancement of artificial intelligence, many people who thought their jobs would never go away may have a rude awakening sometime in the future.
Make no mistake: machines and humans are not equivalent. That statement can have a good, or not so good, connotation.
For employers, machines have fewer needs – no vacations, no illness, no pensions etc. That can save them lots of money.
Machines, on the other hand, break down. If they can’t be fixed immediately, that can be a real cost to employers.
Also, customers and clients mostly prefer dealing with humans rather than machines. Though machines can try to talk back to customers, no real conversation takes place. Plus, machines have no power to actually solve problems, if a customer has one. With varying degrees of success, perhaps a machine can put a customer in touch with a human.
AI is attempting to be creative by compiling the past creativity of humans into a mechanically driven recitation.
There is no machine that can be as creative as a human. For human creativity is raw, original and direct.
Going back to the Etsy ad, robots have no ability for human emotion. Human emotion is something we all crave, no matter what type of interaction.
So, as useful as robots or AI can be in some instances, they are not human.
But, as humans, we still have to look over our shoulders lest robots or AI replace us in the workplace.
In many cases, it’s not a matter of whether that will happen. It’s a matter of when.
As humans, we have the raw, original and direct creativity to prepare for most eventualities. When replacement comes, we can, and should, be ready. Longing for the old days will not prevent the inevitable.
Peter
“What does a robot know about love?”
That begins an Etsy TV ad, to make the point that Etsy conducts its commerce with more human activity than robot activity.
But, as time progresses, more robots and other non-human technology will be used in commerce, factories, research and many other endeavors now mostly conducted by humans.
That could have an effect on current jobs, and the jobs of the future.
For some workers, technology is moving too fast. More work that was previously done by humans is being done by machines.
] That means some good jobs are being eliminated, and those who’ve lost those jobs are having difficulty finding alternative jobs that pay as well.
It’s important to note here that no matter who is serving in the U.S. government, those jobs likely are not coming back.
With the advancement of artificial intelligence, many people who thought their jobs would never go away may have a rude awakening sometime in the future.
Make no mistake: machines and humans are not equivalent. That statement can have a good, or not so good, connotation.
For employers, machines have fewer needs – no vacations, no illness, no pensions etc. That can save them lots of money.
Machines, on the other hand, break down. If they can’t be fixed immediately, that can be a real cost to employers.
Also, customers and clients mostly prefer dealing with humans rather than machines. Though machines can try to talk back to customers, no real conversation takes place. Plus, machines have no power to actually solve problems, if a customer has one. With varying degrees of success, perhaps a machine can put a customer in touch with a human.
AI is attempting to be creative by compiling the past creativity of humans into a mechanically driven recitation.
There is no machine that can be as creative as a human. For human creativity is raw, original and direct.
Going back to the Etsy ad, robots have no ability for human emotion. Human emotion is something we all crave, no matter what type of interaction.
So, as useful as robots or AI can be in some instances, they are not human.
But, as humans, we still have to look over our shoulders lest robots or AI replace us in the workplace.
In many cases, it’s not a matter of whether that will happen. It’s a matter of when.
As humans, we have the raw, original and direct creativity to prepare for most eventualities. When replacement comes, we can, and should, be ready. Longing for the old days will not prevent the inevitable.
Peter
WHAT WILL DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE?
#vote #RegisterToVote #choices #ChooseWisely
Decisions, not conditions, determine one’s future.
That paraphrases a partial comment by California Gov. Gavin Newsom when asked by Jen Psaki what keeps him up at night these days.
Psaki is host of “Inside With Jen Psaki” on MSNBC. The show aired Oct. 20, 2024.
Newsom was discussing the upcoming presidential election. He was explaining that voting is a decision we all can make to help determine the future.
But, digging deeper into his comment, let’s analyze how each of us determines our future.
Do we let the conditions – most of which we cannot anticipate – determine our future? Or, do we take action to determine our future?
Some believe that no matter what actions they take, their future is somehow predetermined.
Perhaps that’s what they were taught as children. Did you ever have a parent, teacher or other elder tell you that this is what you were going to do — or were meant to do — for the rest of your life?
Or, have you been affected by circumstances, from which you believe you will never recover? Some victims of recent storms may feel that way, while others are determined to rebuild, or otherwise carry on.
Many are busy creating their future. They are saving and investing their money to help ensure security. Or, they are building a business with the intention that it will succeed, perhaps beyond their wildest dreams.
Perhaps one’s imagination does not extend that far. A person may just be looking for contentment rather than wild success.
Undoubtedly, there are small things one can do to ensure that.
But, regardless of your desires for the future, it’s largely up to you to make it happen. Generally, things don’t just happen serendipitously, like winning a lottery.
Usually, they are the result of decisions one makes throughout his or her life. One may decide to go to college – or not. One may decide to work for Employer X – or not. One may decide to get married and have children – or not.
Each of these decisions individually can really help determine one’s future.
But Newsom was talking about collective decisions – decisions made by lots of people individually that can determine everyone’s future.
Voting is such a decision. If everyone who is eligible to vote registers, and then votes, the future will be different – likely better – from having many decide not to vote because, say, they don’t like the choices.
When one is starving, usually he or she grabs what’s available to eat. Choices are immaterial.
There are choices in this election. Some may not like the choices offered. But, choosing the one you think is the best alternative – not necessarily the ultimate alternative – can help determine one’s individual and everyone’s collective futures.
Choose wisely, but, whomever you choose, vote.
Peter
Decisions, not conditions, determine one’s future.
That paraphrases a partial comment by California Gov. Gavin Newsom when asked by Jen Psaki what keeps him up at night these days.
Psaki is host of “Inside With Jen Psaki” on MSNBC. The show aired Oct. 20, 2024.
Newsom was discussing the upcoming presidential election. He was explaining that voting is a decision we all can make to help determine the future.
But, digging deeper into his comment, let’s analyze how each of us determines our future.
Do we let the conditions – most of which we cannot anticipate – determine our future? Or, do we take action to determine our future?
Some believe that no matter what actions they take, their future is somehow predetermined.
Perhaps that’s what they were taught as children. Did you ever have a parent, teacher or other elder tell you that this is what you were going to do — or were meant to do — for the rest of your life?
Or, have you been affected by circumstances, from which you believe you will never recover? Some victims of recent storms may feel that way, while others are determined to rebuild, or otherwise carry on.
Many are busy creating their future. They are saving and investing their money to help ensure security. Or, they are building a business with the intention that it will succeed, perhaps beyond their wildest dreams.
Perhaps one’s imagination does not extend that far. A person may just be looking for contentment rather than wild success.
Undoubtedly, there are small things one can do to ensure that.
But, regardless of your desires for the future, it’s largely up to you to make it happen. Generally, things don’t just happen serendipitously, like winning a lottery.
Usually, they are the result of decisions one makes throughout his or her life. One may decide to go to college – or not. One may decide to work for Employer X – or not. One may decide to get married and have children – or not.
Each of these decisions individually can really help determine one’s future.
But Newsom was talking about collective decisions – decisions made by lots of people individually that can determine everyone’s future.
Voting is such a decision. If everyone who is eligible to vote registers, and then votes, the future will be different – likely better – from having many decide not to vote because, say, they don’t like the choices.
When one is starving, usually he or she grabs what’s available to eat. Choices are immaterial.
There are choices in this election. Some may not like the choices offered. But, choosing the one you think is the best alternative – not necessarily the ultimate alternative – can help determine one’s individual and everyone’s collective futures.
Choose wisely, but, whomever you choose, vote.
Peter
CLIMATE CHANGE IS HERE; WE HAVE TO ACT
#storms #hurricanes #ClimateChange #Helene #Milton
If you still don’t believe the climate is changing, look at the quantity and severity of the 2024 storms.
First, Helene. Second, Milton a week or so afterward.
In fact, Milton had grown to a Category 5 hurricane (the worst) before it hit land.
Florida got the double whammy of both storms consecutively, as debris from Helene had yet to be cleared before Milton hit.
Some folks on Florida’s Gulf Coast had gone nearly 50 years before being affected by storms. Then, they got a double hit.
Though the damage is not as bad as predicted it could have been, it will probably take years for places like Florida and Western North Carolina to fully recover from the destruction.
Climate change is happening worldwide. In fact, many migrants are coming to the U.S. because the climate in their countries has become so severe they cannot make a living as farmers etc.
Western North Carolina, shielded by the Blue Ridge Mountains, has learned that it is not immune from storm devastation.
All this means that sea levels will eventually rise, perhaps rendering expensive beachfront properties nearly worthless.
Will property insurers give up insuring properties in some areas? In some cases, they already have. Though most people devastated by storms say they will rebuild, how long with the rebuilding take, and how long will it last before the next storm comes along?
All hands, and minds, need to be on deck to try to mitigate this change as best we can.
It will be no easy task. Property near water has become the most desirable, yet the most vulnerable.
If we do nothing, it will only get worse. So, we have to do something. We have to try new ways to protect people and property from these frequent severe storms. Mitigation ideas and potential solutions are already out there, but the will to enact them is still missing.
Perhaps a new building material will be widely available to withstand these storms.
Perhaps we should not build so close to water that even the smallest storm-generated waves could do real damage.
Certainly, it will take money for this mitigation. But, money alone won’t solve the problem. The money has to be combined with innovation, keeping in mind that all the manmade innovation in the world cannot always defeat Mother Nature.
The other issue is time. We can’t wait years for the innovation, or the will to enact it, to come. It has to come ASAP.
So, as we continue to brace for more severe storms, we have to first recognize the problem. Denying a problem won’t make it go away.
Then, we have to put the best scientists, unrestricted by political or financial constraints, to work finding solutions.
The storms will always come. How we prepare for them, and recover from them, will be the key to the planet’s survival as we know it.
Peter
If you still don’t believe the climate is changing, look at the quantity and severity of the 2024 storms.
First, Helene. Second, Milton a week or so afterward.
In fact, Milton had grown to a Category 5 hurricane (the worst) before it hit land.
Florida got the double whammy of both storms consecutively, as debris from Helene had yet to be cleared before Milton hit.
Some folks on Florida’s Gulf Coast had gone nearly 50 years before being affected by storms. Then, they got a double hit.
Though the damage is not as bad as predicted it could have been, it will probably take years for places like Florida and Western North Carolina to fully recover from the destruction.
Climate change is happening worldwide. In fact, many migrants are coming to the U.S. because the climate in their countries has become so severe they cannot make a living as farmers etc.
Western North Carolina, shielded by the Blue Ridge Mountains, has learned that it is not immune from storm devastation.
All this means that sea levels will eventually rise, perhaps rendering expensive beachfront properties nearly worthless.
Will property insurers give up insuring properties in some areas? In some cases, they already have. Though most people devastated by storms say they will rebuild, how long with the rebuilding take, and how long will it last before the next storm comes along?
All hands, and minds, need to be on deck to try to mitigate this change as best we can.
It will be no easy task. Property near water has become the most desirable, yet the most vulnerable.
If we do nothing, it will only get worse. So, we have to do something. We have to try new ways to protect people and property from these frequent severe storms. Mitigation ideas and potential solutions are already out there, but the will to enact them is still missing.
Perhaps a new building material will be widely available to withstand these storms.
Perhaps we should not build so close to water that even the smallest storm-generated waves could do real damage.
Certainly, it will take money for this mitigation. But, money alone won’t solve the problem. The money has to be combined with innovation, keeping in mind that all the manmade innovation in the world cannot always defeat Mother Nature.
The other issue is time. We can’t wait years for the innovation, or the will to enact it, to come. It has to come ASAP.
So, as we continue to brace for more severe storms, we have to first recognize the problem. Denying a problem won’t make it go away.
Then, we have to put the best scientists, unrestricted by political or financial constraints, to work finding solutions.
The storms will always come. How we prepare for them, and recover from them, will be the key to the planet’s survival as we know it.
Peter