#inflation #prices #shopping #rent #gasoline #groceries
If something costs too much, don’t buy it.
That can’t be said for everything, since we all need housing (rents), fuel for cars (gasoline), medication and food (groceries).
But, according to Christopher Rugaber, business and economics reporter for the Associated Press, companies are starting to lower their prices because people just aren’t buying their products in the volume they would like, at the prices they want to charge.
Apparently, it’s working. Last week, inflation dropped below 3 percent for the first time since 2021.
Rugaber’s article on the subject was published August 13, 2024, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Before Rugaber’s article, McDonald’s reportedly started lowering their prices on some of its most popular items because there were too few diners at many of their restaurants. It showed in their earnings report.
It’s good also to remember that government has little leverage in bringing down prices. It can do what it can for things it can regulate, such as bringing down the cost of insulin to $35 for senior citizens. One big lever they have is allowing Medicare to negotiate prices. This has helped bring down the government’s cost for 10 popular drugs.
But, what really helps bring down prices is the lack of buyers.
It’s simple economics. Set a price, see whether the market will bear it and adjust as the market adjusts.
For businesses, particularly small businesses whose product is not an absolute necessity, it’s a much tougher decision. Usually, these businesses know what prices the market will bear for their finished product. But, can they produce that product at a cost that not only covers what it costs them to make it, but also puts a little profit in their pockets?
It’s a struggle for some of these businesses, many of whom are facing labor shortages. When workers are few, they will demand higher wages. Can these businesses keep their workers happy, pay for ingredients that produce high quality products, pay for their workspace AND make a profit?
The bigger corporations have more pricing flexibility. If they, like McDonalds, see less traffic in their retail spaces because of prices, they usually can adjust to that more easily.
Sometimes that doesn’t work well for some of those who work for them, since labor is one of the places that corporations adjust.
In all, reports say that, given the labor shortage, most workers have seen their pay rise. A lot of the things we buy are priced higher to pay workers more. In most cases, workers’ raises are more than the price increases they are paying for necessities.
As Rugaber’s article implies, consumers are working hard at changing what markets will bear – whether they realize it or not.
So, here are some handy rules for buying: If it is something you need to survive, try to use less of it. (Don’t drive around in a 4X4 pickup truck if you don’t need to haul anything). If it’s something you want badly, but don’t absolutely need, look for bargains. It may not pay to drive five or six miles to save two cents on a gallon of gas, but it might make great sense to shop around if you’re in the market for, say, a big-screen TV.
Another rule: don’t long for the days of the pandemic when prices on just about everything were lower because people weren’t going anywhere. The disease was too much of a cost just to have lower prices. (By the way, the air was also cleaner during the pandemic, but that’s a story for another day).
Inflation ultimately adjusts when fewer people buy. So, work hard at your job, make as much as you can and try to spend carefully. Also, try to pay yourself first by saving a little of that paycheck for your future.
Peter
Category Archives: Uncategorized
WINNING ISN’T FOR EVERYONE; OR, IS IT?
#winning #winners #athletes #achievers #WinningAttitudes #GoodPeople
“Winning isn’t for everyone,” says a Nike ad.
Various iterations of that ad campaign asks questions like, “Are you a good person?” The ad campaign was recently featured on the just finished Olympic Games TV coverage.
The implications are that “winners,” largely referring to athletes who win medals, are focused only on winning and believe they can beat anyone.
Therefore, a winning attitude involves a bit of cockiness as well as hard work, a lot of practice etc.
However, even the best of athletes don’t win EVERY time they compete. How they react when they don’t win says a lot about them.
Most accept defeat graciously, congratulate those who win etc. These actions actually make them good people. A few look for things, other than their own performance, to blame for their loss. The conditions weren’t good, someone cheated etc.
For the non-athletes among us, winning may be defined differently.
In such cases, being a good person may make you a winner. Humbly giving of oneself, whether or not he or she gets something in return, can make that person a winner.
Those focused more on helping others win are winners themselves.
Someone may become a winner in the corporate world or other business. That person’s true victory may come in how he or she uses what his or her winnings have wrought.
Are you using the money you’ve made or the success you have achieved ONLY to enrich yourself?
Or, are you taking care of yourself, then giving the rest back to your community?
In another ad, the message is that no one wins by himself or herself. There is usually a team of people – family, friends, coaches, sponsors, teammates etc. – so involved in one’s journey that he or she probably could not have won without them.
So, even individual competitions can be “team” sports.
An adage in business is that one may be in business for himself, or herself, but one is almost never in business by himself or herself.
Those who help others succeed often reap winnings, even if they don’t set out to get them.
Bette Midler famously sings, “You are the wind beneath my wings.” Those who fit that category are often the real winners, even when others get all the accolades and glory,
So, winning may not be for everyone, as the ad says, but everybody can be a winner.
Everyone can strive to be the best he or she can be, in whatever he or she chooses to do.
It’s also worth remembering that for some, no matter how badly they may want to be an athlete, opera singer etc., a certain amount of God-given talent is required. If you don’t have it, desire and determination alone won’t make it happen.
But, everyone can find something he or she can achieve, put the desire, determination and hard work into it and get it.
What is that for you? Only you can decide.
Peter
“Winning isn’t for everyone,” says a Nike ad.
Various iterations of that ad campaign asks questions like, “Are you a good person?” The ad campaign was recently featured on the just finished Olympic Games TV coverage.
The implications are that “winners,” largely referring to athletes who win medals, are focused only on winning and believe they can beat anyone.
Therefore, a winning attitude involves a bit of cockiness as well as hard work, a lot of practice etc.
However, even the best of athletes don’t win EVERY time they compete. How they react when they don’t win says a lot about them.
Most accept defeat graciously, congratulate those who win etc. These actions actually make them good people. A few look for things, other than their own performance, to blame for their loss. The conditions weren’t good, someone cheated etc.
For the non-athletes among us, winning may be defined differently.
In such cases, being a good person may make you a winner. Humbly giving of oneself, whether or not he or she gets something in return, can make that person a winner.
Those focused more on helping others win are winners themselves.
Someone may become a winner in the corporate world or other business. That person’s true victory may come in how he or she uses what his or her winnings have wrought.
Are you using the money you’ve made or the success you have achieved ONLY to enrich yourself?
Or, are you taking care of yourself, then giving the rest back to your community?
In another ad, the message is that no one wins by himself or herself. There is usually a team of people – family, friends, coaches, sponsors, teammates etc. – so involved in one’s journey that he or she probably could not have won without them.
So, even individual competitions can be “team” sports.
An adage in business is that one may be in business for himself, or herself, but one is almost never in business by himself or herself.
Those who help others succeed often reap winnings, even if they don’t set out to get them.
Bette Midler famously sings, “You are the wind beneath my wings.” Those who fit that category are often the real winners, even when others get all the accolades and glory,
So, winning may not be for everyone, as the ad says, but everybody can be a winner.
Everyone can strive to be the best he or she can be, in whatever he or she chooses to do.
It’s also worth remembering that for some, no matter how badly they may want to be an athlete, opera singer etc., a certain amount of God-given talent is required. If you don’t have it, desire and determination alone won’t make it happen.
But, everyone can find something he or she can achieve, put the desire, determination and hard work into it and get it.
What is that for you? Only you can decide.
Peter
SHOULD SCHOOL BE MORE FUN?
#FunAtSchool #fun #learning #work #reading
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
GIVE WITHOUT EXPECTING RECIPROCATION
#gifts #giving #receiving #reciprocation #leaders
France gave the U.S. The Statue of Liberty.
In an Etsy ad, Americans are perplexed that they now have to give France a return gift.
They decide to give France a cheese board, because of the French love of cheese.
A cheeseboard does not compare to the Statue of Liberty, but the ad indicates the French were thrilled with the reciprocation.
The ad raises an interesting point: do you feel the need to reciprocate when given a gift? Or, do you give gifts expecting some reciprocation?
If you expect reciprocation, do you see yourself as a giving person?
First, good leaders give. They don’t expect to get anything back, but they usually do, in one form or another.
Others are simply transactional. They are the proverbial reciprocal back-scratchers. They would not dream of scratching anyone’s back if their backs were not scratched in return.
Most of us, though, understand that it is better to give than receive. We give because it’s the right thing to do. We expect nothing in return, though we may get something – even if it is just personal satisfaction – back for what we give.
There is joy in giving. If you are in business, you want your customers to feel that you have given them much more than they paid for.
You can do that without it costing you. You can do that by just being pleasant to deal with, showing empathy to your customers’ needs or making them feel good about the transaction they are undertaking.
You can also do that by helping them use your product or service to maximum effect.
For example, if you sell tools in a hardware store, you can show them how they might build or repair whatever they need the tool(s) for.
For some, it takes effort to be nice or cordial. For others, it comes naturally. You don’t necessarily have to be everyone’s best friend, but you can make everyone feel that you are.
That way, they will want to patronize your business again and again.
You may want them to feel you are giving them a gift without expecting something in return, yet, their return is to keep patronizing you.
Good leaders, and good businesspeople, give and get. They never take. The act of taking means that those being taken lose, while the taker wins.
The act of giving means the giver expects nothing in return. The receiver wins. The giver wins, too, in some way.
So, if you give a gift, expect the receiver not to have to immediately reciprocate. Undoubtedly, he or she will reciprocate in due time, in some fashion.
Giving a gift does not have to be a transaction, though it can often turn into one.
Peter
France gave the U.S. The Statue of Liberty.
In an Etsy ad, Americans are perplexed that they now have to give France a return gift.
They decide to give France a cheese board, because of the French love of cheese.
A cheeseboard does not compare to the Statue of Liberty, but the ad indicates the French were thrilled with the reciprocation.
The ad raises an interesting point: do you feel the need to reciprocate when given a gift? Or, do you give gifts expecting some reciprocation?
If you expect reciprocation, do you see yourself as a giving person?
First, good leaders give. They don’t expect to get anything back, but they usually do, in one form or another.
Others are simply transactional. They are the proverbial reciprocal back-scratchers. They would not dream of scratching anyone’s back if their backs were not scratched in return.
Most of us, though, understand that it is better to give than receive. We give because it’s the right thing to do. We expect nothing in return, though we may get something – even if it is just personal satisfaction – back for what we give.
There is joy in giving. If you are in business, you want your customers to feel that you have given them much more than they paid for.
You can do that without it costing you. You can do that by just being pleasant to deal with, showing empathy to your customers’ needs or making them feel good about the transaction they are undertaking.
You can also do that by helping them use your product or service to maximum effect.
For example, if you sell tools in a hardware store, you can show them how they might build or repair whatever they need the tool(s) for.
For some, it takes effort to be nice or cordial. For others, it comes naturally. You don’t necessarily have to be everyone’s best friend, but you can make everyone feel that you are.
That way, they will want to patronize your business again and again.
You may want them to feel you are giving them a gift without expecting something in return, yet, their return is to keep patronizing you.
Good leaders, and good businesspeople, give and get. They never take. The act of taking means that those being taken lose, while the taker wins.
The act of giving means the giver expects nothing in return. The receiver wins. The giver wins, too, in some way.
So, if you give a gift, expect the receiver not to have to immediately reciprocate. Undoubtedly, he or she will reciprocate in due time, in some fashion.
Giving a gift does not have to be a transaction, though it can often turn into one.
Peter
THE WORLD — AND WORK — ARE CHANGING
#jobs #ClimbingLadders #ClimbingCareerLadders #WorkLifeBalance
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKERS OFFER CHALLENGES TO MANAGERS
#MultigenerationalWorkers #employers #employees #jobs
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
BE AS ENTHUSIASTIC TO VOTE AS NEW CITIZENS ARE
#vote #RegisterToVote #USCitizens #NaturalizedCitizens #NativeBornCityzens
In the past few weeks, thousands of people from many countries have become U.S. citizens.
For most, the process took years. But, they say, it was well worth it.
On July 3, 2024, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered some of these citizenship ceremonies. In one case, political columnist Patricia Murphy told the story of her cousin from Ireland finally becoming a U.S. citizen.
The privilege of U.S. citizenship is valuable to anyone who comes here from any other country.
Usually, the first thing these new citizens look forward to is registering to vote and casting their ballots.
Many native-born citizens of this country do not take advantage of that right to vote. Every election, be it local, state or federal, is important.
If you are a native-born or long naturalized citizen of the U.S., and are of eligible age, do what the newly naturalized citizens look forward to: register and vote!
Politicians will do their thing. Courts will do their thing. If you don’t like what they are doing, vote them out! If you admire what they are doing, or say they are going to do, vote them in! Don’t let minor mishaps by candidates discourage you from voting. In the upcoming elections, it will come down to WHAT you are voting for, not whom you are voting for.
Our system of democratic government has shown its fragility recently. There are some who want to eliminate it altogether. If you don’t want that to happen, make sure you vote for candidates at every level that have pledged to preserve it.
The preservation of our system of government is more than just a partisan issue, or a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of power. Some would rather have the few control the lives of the many.
If you think voting for candidates who want to disrupt that system is a good idea, you may miss our system of government when it’s gone.
Giving Person X ultimate power today because you like him or her may lead to Person Y, whom you may not like, coming to power tomorrow. An election may not be able to stop that.
Often, a person who gets power this way will find ways not to leave power, regardless of the people’s preferences.
We’ve also recently seen courts, for the first time in the nation’s history, start to take rights AWAY from people.
If you don’t want that to keep happening, vote for candidates at all levels who will appoint judges who will enhance and increase rights, not remove them.
Remember, what you think you have the right to do today may not be available to you tomorrow.
The reason for optimism here is that the people STILL have power to control much of the country’s destiny.
New citizens cherish the right to vote here. It should be cherished by ALL citizens. If you think your vote doesn’t count, it will count more than ever. Don’t sit out an election because you don’t like the choices. Remember, some choices are so much worse than others. As a voter, you have to discern the worst alternative, and vote for the other candidate.
Voting should be made as easy to do for everyone eligible in all jurisdictions.
Still, regardless of attempts to restrict voting, as some want, you, as a citizen, must persevere and do whatever you must to vote at all levels. Damn the long lines and other obstacles. Make sure you register, vote and get your vote counted.
Your future definitely will depend on it.
Peter
In the past few weeks, thousands of people from many countries have become U.S. citizens.
For most, the process took years. But, they say, it was well worth it.
On July 3, 2024, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered some of these citizenship ceremonies. In one case, political columnist Patricia Murphy told the story of her cousin from Ireland finally becoming a U.S. citizen.
The privilege of U.S. citizenship is valuable to anyone who comes here from any other country.
Usually, the first thing these new citizens look forward to is registering to vote and casting their ballots.
Many native-born citizens of this country do not take advantage of that right to vote. Every election, be it local, state or federal, is important.
If you are a native-born or long naturalized citizen of the U.S., and are of eligible age, do what the newly naturalized citizens look forward to: register and vote!
Politicians will do their thing. Courts will do their thing. If you don’t like what they are doing, vote them out! If you admire what they are doing, or say they are going to do, vote them in! Don’t let minor mishaps by candidates discourage you from voting. In the upcoming elections, it will come down to WHAT you are voting for, not whom you are voting for.
Our system of democratic government has shown its fragility recently. There are some who want to eliminate it altogether. If you don’t want that to happen, make sure you vote for candidates at every level that have pledged to preserve it.
The preservation of our system of government is more than just a partisan issue, or a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of power. Some would rather have the few control the lives of the many.
If you think voting for candidates who want to disrupt that system is a good idea, you may miss our system of government when it’s gone.
Giving Person X ultimate power today because you like him or her may lead to Person Y, whom you may not like, coming to power tomorrow. An election may not be able to stop that.
Often, a person who gets power this way will find ways not to leave power, regardless of the people’s preferences.
We’ve also recently seen courts, for the first time in the nation’s history, start to take rights AWAY from people.
If you don’t want that to keep happening, vote for candidates at all levels who will appoint judges who will enhance and increase rights, not remove them.
Remember, what you think you have the right to do today may not be available to you tomorrow.
The reason for optimism here is that the people STILL have power to control much of the country’s destiny.
New citizens cherish the right to vote here. It should be cherished by ALL citizens. If you think your vote doesn’t count, it will count more than ever. Don’t sit out an election because you don’t like the choices. Remember, some choices are so much worse than others. As a voter, you have to discern the worst alternative, and vote for the other candidate.
Voting should be made as easy to do for everyone eligible in all jurisdictions.
Still, regardless of attempts to restrict voting, as some want, you, as a citizen, must persevere and do whatever you must to vote at all levels. Damn the long lines and other obstacles. Make sure you register, vote and get your vote counted.
Your future definitely will depend on it.
Peter
ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOUR PARENTS?
#housing #YoungAdults #HighCostOfLiving #HousingPrices #parents
If you are a young adult, do you believe you will have a better life than your parents?
In decades past, and, perhaps, still today, parents’ goal was to give their child(ren) a better life than they had.
But, young folks today, in large numbers, don’t see that as a possibility.
Many of them still rely on help from their parents to get through daily life.
Remember last week, we talked about the cost of going to work? Now, we will examine one of the effects.
Perhaps this problem began as home prices really started to accelerate back in the 1970s. Many children who grew up in relatively affluent towns could not afford to live there on their own as adults. They could not afford the home prices or apartment rentals.
So, if they wanted to stay close to home, they moved to nearby towns and cities that were not nearly as affluent and had more affordable housing options.
Perhaps, they thought, someday they’d have enough money to move back to the town in which they grew up. Maybe, they could even inherit mom and dad’s house when they died. This was when living at home with mom and dad was, shall we say, less desirable.
Today, young people are really feeling the squeeze. The jobs they can get, even with a college education, don’t pay much more, figuring for inflation, than they did back in the 1970s.
But housing costs during those decades have ballooned. Housing that was unaffordable in the 1970s is completely out of reach today for young folks.
Even housing in the less affluent towns has become more difficult for young folks to buy, or even rent.
Add to that the rising cost of everything else: food, fuel, day care, education etc., and starting a life in one’s 20s today without help is nearly impossible.
Many in that age group are postponing marriage, children and other life expectations (at least their parents expect them) because of costs. Never mind that some of them are already burdened with student loan debt.
Today’s employers are not seeing young people coming into the workforce in droves because they can’t live on what they will be paid.
Companies are expanding and relocating to new environs, thus creating jobs. But few of the jobs they are creating will go to people who already live in those places. They will go to people who will move to those locales because of the jobs, which brings increasing property values that aggravate the problem.
As an aside, American retirees moving overseas to less expensive countries are pricing the young locals there out of some of their markets.
For many young people today, getting ahead financially is a somewhat foreign concept. How to survive, day to day, is a more pressing matter.
There are signs that wages are rising, contributing to inflation and creating an economic chicken-and-egg roller coaster for everyone.
So, starting an adult life is hard today. The idea of finding a first apartment, or house, that is affordable, then trading up over time may be foolhardy thinking.
A combination of public and private solutions to this problem are in demand right now. Perhaps the catalyst to solving this problem may lie in an idea no one has yet conceived.
Still, it’s vitally important for young people to cultivate and maintain optimism. You are the future. You, and your cohort, may be the ones to solidify that future for your whole generation.
Peter
If you are a young adult, do you believe you will have a better life than your parents?
In decades past, and, perhaps, still today, parents’ goal was to give their child(ren) a better life than they had.
But, young folks today, in large numbers, don’t see that as a possibility.
Many of them still rely on help from their parents to get through daily life.
Remember last week, we talked about the cost of going to work? Now, we will examine one of the effects.
Perhaps this problem began as home prices really started to accelerate back in the 1970s. Many children who grew up in relatively affluent towns could not afford to live there on their own as adults. They could not afford the home prices or apartment rentals.
So, if they wanted to stay close to home, they moved to nearby towns and cities that were not nearly as affluent and had more affordable housing options.
Perhaps, they thought, someday they’d have enough money to move back to the town in which they grew up. Maybe, they could even inherit mom and dad’s house when they died. This was when living at home with mom and dad was, shall we say, less desirable.
Today, young people are really feeling the squeeze. The jobs they can get, even with a college education, don’t pay much more, figuring for inflation, than they did back in the 1970s.
But housing costs during those decades have ballooned. Housing that was unaffordable in the 1970s is completely out of reach today for young folks.
Even housing in the less affluent towns has become more difficult for young folks to buy, or even rent.
Add to that the rising cost of everything else: food, fuel, day care, education etc., and starting a life in one’s 20s today without help is nearly impossible.
Many in that age group are postponing marriage, children and other life expectations (at least their parents expect them) because of costs. Never mind that some of them are already burdened with student loan debt.
Today’s employers are not seeing young people coming into the workforce in droves because they can’t live on what they will be paid.
Companies are expanding and relocating to new environs, thus creating jobs. But few of the jobs they are creating will go to people who already live in those places. They will go to people who will move to those locales because of the jobs, which brings increasing property values that aggravate the problem.
As an aside, American retirees moving overseas to less expensive countries are pricing the young locals there out of some of their markets.
For many young people today, getting ahead financially is a somewhat foreign concept. How to survive, day to day, is a more pressing matter.
There are signs that wages are rising, contributing to inflation and creating an economic chicken-and-egg roller coaster for everyone.
So, starting an adult life is hard today. The idea of finding a first apartment, or house, that is affordable, then trading up over time may be foolhardy thinking.
A combination of public and private solutions to this problem are in demand right now. Perhaps the catalyst to solving this problem may lie in an idea no one has yet conceived.
Still, it’s vitally important for young people to cultivate and maintain optimism. You are the future. You, and your cohort, may be the ones to solidify that future for your whole generation.
Peter
IT CAN COST YOU TO GO TO WORK
#employers #employees #jobs #work #wages #salaries
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
WHO IS ALLOWED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX?
#ThinkOutsideTheBox #JobParameters #jobs #employers #employees
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter