family

Jeff Levick: A Father’s Day Gift: Celebrating Working Dads

June 18, 2011

A disclaimer: I value, support, respect and admire all working women. I don’t know how they do it all — and they really do it all — but this column isn’t about them. Instead, it’s about this other group we sometimes take for granted: the working dad. There’s no shortage of parenting advice, books and commentary on work-life balance and parenting for working women. There are endless books, advice columns and even forums to celebrate ‘the best working mom’ in most industries. But, there’s also an incredible lack of recognition for working fathers. In fact, I’ve struggled to find any meaningful dialogue on the topic. In my job, I work long hours and travel nearly every week. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t aspire to be a great father, a great husband and also find work-life balance. Like most working parents, I do what it takes to do both. You make sacrifices, you make tradeoffs and you find ways to do both the best way you can. For me, that means never missing them before they go to bed. If I’m not traveling, I try to get home in time to at least read a story or lie in bed and chat about the school day. If I’m traveling, I call them from wherever I am in the world, no matter the time zone. On the weekends, it also means full days of soccer practices, ballet recitals or shuttling back and forth to birthday parties and play dates. And for this, I’m not looking for awards or recognition. I assure you, I firmly believe that working moms definitely carry the larger burden, but still, where is the dialogue around working fathers? I can’t count the number of conferences that I’ve been to where very successful women have taken the stage and discussed ‘just how they do it all’ and receive standing ovations for being a working parent. But can you imagine if I stood on a similar stage and discussed the plight of the working father? It’s not to say it wouldn’t be interesting or even well received, but it’s just something we don’t discuss and celebrate. I recall traveling recently and watching from my hotel room a CNBC reporter interviewing Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi, and asking her how she manages being a CEO of a top global company and also being a mom. While well intentioned, I wondered, why don’t we ask that question to Bill Gates? He’s one of the most successful CEOs of our generation, and he managed both to raise children and run the global Microsoft empire. But, he’s also a father and presumably a good one. I’d love to know how he does it… so why don’t we ask? I’m certain many working fathers like myself would like more dialogue and discourse on the challenges facing the working father. I’ll speak on behalf of this working father — I don’t want praise, I don’t want trophies or awards, but I do think we need to spend more time acknowledging that we do try hard to ‘do it all’ just like our working mother colleagues. And, we’re also open to more resources and dialogue on this topic. So, on this Father’s Day, I’d like to celebrate the working fathers for their hard work and for trying to do it all. While we still have a long way to go to catch up with our working mother counterparts, I’m proud of the emphasis we place, not only on judging our success by how we perform at work, but also how we raise our kids.

Read the full article →

‘Brooklyn’s Bernie Madoff" Sentenced For Ponzi Scheme

June 17, 2011

NEW YORK (Jessica Dye) – With dozens of his victims watching, an investment manager once dubbed by the media as “Brooklyn’s Bernie Madoff,” was sentenced on Friday to 20 years in prison for operating a decades-long Ponzi scheme that bilked hundreds of investors out of more than $24 million. Philip Barry, 53, was convicted last November by a federal jury in Brooklyn on one count of securities fraud and 33 counts of mail fraud for the three-decade crime, which prosecutors described as a classic Ponzi scheme. Barry, a resident of Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge neighborhood, has also been ordered to repay $24 million to his victims, although prosecutors cast doubt on whether the restitution will ever happen. Barry declared bankruptcy in 2008. In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, seven of Barry’s 800 victims came forward to share tales of how Barry pledged to invest their hard-earned savings in safe options. Instead, he began ducking calls and promising a check was in the mail when, in fact, there was no check, they testified. “Phil Barry is a thief,” said Frances Monteleone, who lost the $215,000 she invested with Barry. “He stole my money, and he stole my future.” Barry’s attorney, Lisa Hoyes, compared Barry with Bernie Madoff, the Manhattan Ponzi schemer who received a 150-year sentence in 2009 for operating a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Unlike Madoff, who inhabited a swanky Manhattan apartment and lived a lavish lifestyle, she argued, Barry lived modestly and declined to use investors’ money to pay for fancy cars or trips. “Does that make any difference to his victims?” Dearie asked in response. “PROFOUNDLY SORRY” Prosecutors had pushed for a prison sentence of 27 to 34 years, the maximum term allowed under federal guidelines. U.S. attorneys cited the 30-year duration of the scheme, the 800 estimated victims, and the $24 million in actual losses as proof that Barry ranked “toward the top of the list of Ponzi schemers convicted at trial.” In addition, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Goldberg argued, Barry’s victims, unlike Madoff’s victims, were primarily working-class individuals without the means to absorb the losses they suffered. Dearie did not give a reason for the lower-than-maximum sentence, other than to say that he had to consider a “sufficient” punishment. Barry read a short statement in which he said he was “profoundly sorry.” If granted leniency, he said, he would work to repay the money, possibly as a radio host, since he is barred from working again in the financial sector. “I never intended or expected this to happen,” he said. “No one plans to get lost in the woods. It just happens, one step at a time.” Barry voluntarily told prosecutors at the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s office in August 2008 that he owed investors more than $50 million. In October 2008, he declared bankruptcy, and testified in bankruptcy court that he owed investors in his operating company, Leverage Group, an estimated $60 million. In late 2009, he was arrested and indicted following a year-long investigation. Also in 2009, Barry and Leverage Group settled a civil lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, agreeing to pay an as-yet-undetermined amount in disgorgement and civil penalties. The case is U.S. v. Barry, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 09-833. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Banks in race to shed commercial property debt – almarcorkel's blog

June 5, 2011

Lenders are fighting to slash their exposure to £224bn in commercial property loans, with half of that set to mature by 2013, a report from De Monfort University says Source: …

Read the full article →

The Elusiveness Of Presidential Pardons

June 3, 2011

A 1975 felony conviction and three-year prison stint ended Randy Eugene Dyer’s career as a bad guy who imported drugs from Mexico and started his career as a God-fearing family man who ministers to prisoners. In 2004, after nearly 30 years jailhouse preaching, Dyer applied for a presidential pardon via the Office of the Pardon Attorney with much help from his wife, Karla Dyer. The application took them most of the year, she said, as they gathered more than 100 affidavits from business associates and friends who could speak to Dyer’s good character. Collecting the affidavits, plus gathering info on every place they’d lived since the 1970s and every job he’d had, amounted to hundreds of hours of work. On May 20, it paid off off: President Barack Obama pardoned Dyer, forgiving him for his bad deeds. “I think it’s a great honor,” Dyer told HuffPost. “We know Jesus Christ forgave us, but sometimes society has a lot of difficulty forgiving people for the things they’ve done.” American presidents have found it increasingly difficult to forgive felons. Over the past century, acts of executive clemency have dwindled, with President Obama on track to be among the stingiest presidents in history. So far, Obama’s granted just 17 pardons. In May, the president denied 791 pardon requests and 1,947 sentence commutation requests, giving no explanation for his decisions. Obama has rejected at total of 3,976 requests for forgiveness. George W. Bush wasn’t any more generous after two years in office, but he also hadn’t denied as many petitions as Obama. Over eight years in office, Bush handed out 189 pardons and 11 commutations. P.S. Ruckman, a professor of political science and pardon expert at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., said the lack of pardons is a shame. “In an era of booming federal prison populations, mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, the growth of the ‘nanny state’ and over-criminalization, the need for regular use of the pardon power is greater than ever,” Ruckman said. “Amazingly, the most popular explanation for scarce use of the power — that controversial pardons expend tremendous political capital — is altogether flimsy. The typical pardon simply restores the civil rights of an unknown, average person who has committed an offense and served their time a long, long time ago.” Obama pardoned seven others besides Dyer in May. Among them was Mike Neal of Palm Coast, Fla., who said he spent six months in a federal prison camp in the early 1990s for the “manufacture, assembly, modification and distribution of equipment for unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming.” Neal ran a company called T&M Communications in Virginia that de-scrambled satellite signals, he said, even though he knew it might be against the law. A 1991 story in Communications Daily reported that Neal and his business partner realized more than $900,000 in illegal proceeds from their business. The FBI had to figure out what to do with the 3,000 people who’d purchased illegal decoders after Neal and his partner were arrested, the article said. Neal told HuffPost he pursued the pardon in 2007 because he’d changed since the early ’90s — he was only 26 years old when he was arrested. Neil is proud of the way the pardon reflects that change. “When I was young I could care less about voting, about holding public office,” he said. “But later on in life when you grow up, you get married, you have kids, you want to be able to make a change in society. But you can’t do it? Man, that really affects you. You run for office of any sort -– you can’t do it? Back when you’re a kid that didn’t matter.” Neal, now 46, said he recruited three people to sign affidavits on his behalf, which is all that the pardon application requires. Each person provides a few lines to describe his or her relationship with the petitioner, whom the signer affirms “has behaved since the conviction in a moral and law-abiding manner.” Neal said he handled the application himself. Marveling at the number of applications rejected, Neal asked, “What made me stand out? Was it the luck of the draw? The Justice Department looked at these and said, ‘This one looks good,’” he said. “My lucky day, I guess.” Dan Levitz of Angola, Ind., and Edwin Alan North of Wolcottville, Ind., both received pardons after being sentenced in 1980 to probation for felonies relating to the sale of a machine gun. North had sent it home from the Vietnam War as a souvenir, according to the pair’s lawyers, Jackie Bennett and Jayna Cacioppo of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, who represented them pro bono. North traded the gun to Levitz, and Levitz told HuffPost that he sold it almost immediately. “I was told it was illegal to have it so I got rid of it,” he said. The gun apparently wound up in the wrong hands: Years later, Levitz said, federal authorities traced it back to Levitz, North, and a third friend, all of whom were arrested and charged with felonies. Attorney Bennett said a strength of Levitz’s and North’s 2006 pardon applications was a transcript from their sentencing hearing that strongly suggested the judge didn’t think the government should have pursued the case so aggressively. “The judge thought this was not the case that should have been brought,” he said. “I think that fact was one of the most compelling aspects of their pardon application.” Another boost came from former Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), who sent a letter supporting the applications after the lawyers brought it to his attention, Bennett said. “I feel like I was very lucky that [President Obama] looked at it,” said the 59-year-old Levitz. As for his felony record, he said, “Other than I couldn’t hunt with my sons with cartridge guns, it really didn’t have no effect.” Yet Levitz said that he’s still “really relieved” to have been pardoned and that he’s looking forward to now going hunting with his sons and grandkids. “I’m sure that those who were pardoned are all deserving, but it isn’t clear to me what distinguishes them from many hundreds of others who applied and were turned down,” said Margaret Love, a U.S. pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997 who now represents clients seeking clemency. Though it may be difficult to distinguish pardon winners and losers, there is a pattern to who gets pardons these days, P.S. Ruckman said. Drug offenders have been regulars among the pardoned for the past 30 years. And for the past 50 years, it’s been unlikely for presidents to commute prison sentences, he said. “And the people who are pardoned are typically people who were sentenced a really long time ago,” Ruckman said. “People who are suffering right now are not getting pardons. People whose previous convictions are causing them the most inconvenience — the ones who could benefit the most — are the ones least likely to get it.” Another trend, Ruckman said, is pardons for minor offenses. He cited the December pardons for “mutilation of coins” in 1963 and the guy who’d been busted for stealing plywood and nails from a construction site. The president’s pattern of pardons, Ruckman said, has been identical to that of George W. Bush. “I don’t think you could point to a single thing about Obama that suggests he’s doing different in any way.” One man who had his pardon request denied by Obama in 2009 said it was “devastating” when he found out. “There’s a whole way of life I cannot participate in, and there’s no mechanism for me to get my rights back,” said the New York resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wants to re-file his pardon request eventually. In 2000, he was sentenced to four years of probation and slapped with a $5,000 fine for mail fraud and conspiracy after being accused of inflating the cost of a building renovation contract with a local government agency. Since serving the probation and paying the fine, the man said his life has changed for the worse. Some real estate investors won’t deal with him, he says, and he can’t go hunting like he used to. “I’m affected in business, I’m affected socially, and mostly, I love my country as I love my family, and it is so insulting for me,” he said. “As it stands now, I’m going to die as a convicted felon.” HuffPost readers: Denied clemency by a president? Tell us about it — email arthur@huffingtonpost.com . Please include your phone number if you’re willing to do an interview.

Read the full article →

Bant Breen: The Siesta Phone Call

June 3, 2011

Warning: Do not call Spanish homes between three and six in the afternoon! Let me explain the painful lesson I learn at the beginning of every summer. Every summer, my wife Carmen finishes teaching Spanish at a New York City school and heads to her hometown in Spain with our two young sons for some rest and relaxation. I stay in New York City tied to the classic American rat race work responsibilities. While summer separation presents plenty of challenges to a marriage, one of the cultural clashes my wife and I face is the siesta phone call. In southern Spain it is normal for a family to eat lunch during the summer between two-thirty and four in the afternoon. After lunch, many Spaniards take a siesta, a nap lasting from fifteen minutes to a couple of hours at most, before heading back to work in the late afternoon. My wife and her family are strict practitioners of the siesta. After the plates are cleared from the dining table, all family members head to take a siesta. Down come the heavy metal shutters over the windows, off go televisions, radios, computers and the dog is put outside on the patio. The noise of the traffic in the streets fades. During this restful moment is generally when I make my mistake. I arrive at my office pick up the phone and call Carmen to check on her and the boys before I get too caught up with work. The phone rings. And rings. And rings. Finally, I am greeted by a fumbling phone sound as someone on the other end reaches to pick-up the handset but struggles to get a clean grasp on it. I hear a voice, the voice of my wife’s father. It is an anxious voice, the type of voice that I use when I pick up the phone when I receive an unexpected call in the middle of the night. ” ¿Sí? ¿Quién es (who is it)?” he utters. On the other end of the line I answer with caffeinated, American accented Spanish, ” Hola Fernando. Soy Bant, desde Nueva York! ¿Cómo estás (how are you)? ¿ Puedo hablar con Carmen (can I speak to Carmen)?” This is when I hear the change in his voice from anxious to slightly irritated. “Ar, um, hola Bant, sí, errr, es siesta. Un momento. Voy a llamar a Carmen. (I am going to call Carmen)” He drops the handset and walks down the hall to wake my wife. Soon I hear my wife on the line. “Bant, is everything ok?” she asks in a concerned voice. I answer, “Absolutely, how are you? How are the kids?” When my wife realizes that all is well and that I am just calling to chat she shifts from concerned to angry. “What are you doing? Do you know what time it is? It is siesta! This is time for sleep, not talk. You woke my father, my mother. DO NOT CALL DURING SIESTA!!! We’ll talk later.” I hear a click as she hangs up on me. Not a great marital conversation, but cultural lesson learned. If calling a home in Southern Spain, especially in the hot summer months, do not call between three and six in the afternoon. Do not mess with sacred siesta. And maybe we can learn from the siesta. There is something extremely refreshing about grabbing a nap, even for only fifteen minutes, resetting the mind before tackling the second half of the day. Could we ever incorporate an idea like siesta into the US working day? Could we set aside our five-hour energy drinks for a nap instead? If we can, I will learn the lesson from my siesta phone calls and make sure my phone is off the hook.

Read the full article →

Bad housing market hurting job prospects

June 2, 2011

Life Inc.: Here’s a Catch-22 of the weak economy: You finally land that job you need desperately, only to find that you can’t sell your home to move.

Read the full article →

The Depressing State of Housing

May 31, 2011

Five years ago, practically anyone could get a mortgage and no one believed real estate prices would ever stop rising. Now, hardly anyone can get a mortgage and no one knows when home prices will stop falling. It’s gotten so bad that for many young couples a key element of the American dream — buying a home of their own — has been put on hold in favor of renting. It just makes more financial sense right now. “Not too long ago rent used to be a four letter word,” said Mike Larsen, a real estate analyst with Weiss Research.

Read the full article →

Family Office Exchange is betting that RIAs and the ultra-affluent can’t get … – RIABiz

May 31, 2011

Family Office Exchange is betting that RIAs and the ultra-affluent can’t get … RIABiz This is the story of Family Office Exchange ramping up its efforts in response. Impervious to the gravitational pull of a down economy, the family office business keeps plowing ahead and one big Chicago-based consultancy is planning its own aggressive … and more »

Read the full article →

Don McNay: What to consider when offered a severance package

May 29, 2011

In the end there is once dance you’ll do alone -Jackson Browne In 1991, the IBM plant in Lexington, Ky. became Lexmark. IBM offered employee severance packages. People could take the package or take a chance that Lexmark would keep them on. Several IBM employees came to me for advice. Some took the package and others did not. I concluded that taking a package is an individual decision. There are no set guidelines. Many of the IBM employees were engineers or had heavy statistical backgrounds. They wanted an answer they could quantify. They sought me to calculate the present value of their package. After 30 seconds crunching the numbers, I asked the essential question: What are you doing to do with the rest of your life? Some had well thought out plans. They wanted to do charity work or start a second career. Others didn’t. Working at IBM was not just a job, it was a lifestyle. They had never thought about life outside the corporation. IBM employees were like a large family. They had generous benefits and perks. Most socialized with other IBM employees. Once someone started at IBM, they generally stayed for life. The idea of leaving IBM was painful. Companies who offer severance packages are generally established companies who sold the concept of lifetime employment concept. I’ve found that people leaving old line companies, even with a severance package, were more bitter than those where companies treat employees like interchangeable parts. If you work at a company with high employee turnover, getting fired is not a total surprise. People at a company like IBM never thought about working somewhere else. Many people who are married to their jobs. They don’t have hobbies or outside interests. Those people need to forget about a severance package and stay put. An engineer who came to my office with many boxes of data, that he brought on a moving van dolly. He had spent hours trying to quantify his decision. Before I started looking at his boxes, I asked some questions . Did he like his job? Yes. Did they want him at the new company? Yes. Would he enjoy retirement? No. Could he find a similar job? Not in this part of the country. Was moving an option? No. I told him to skip the number crunching. . He needed to stay where he was. He was stunned. He kept wanting me to look at his boxes. I wouldn’t look at his data. I told him it was irrelevant. After a while, my words sunk in. He worked happily for another decade. Economic decisions shouldn’t be ignored. Some severance packages are lucrative and offered on a one time basis. Financial considerations are one part of the package, not the whole package. The health of the company and industry are important factors to consider. I’ve seen people pass up a buyout and have their company go down a few years later. People often think their own industry is healthier than it is. It is good to get an objective opinion. There are economic factors I look for in a plan. First is lifetime income. It’s easier to leave if your lifetime income is secured. A second factor is health insurance. Larger companies have better benefits than what people can get on their own, especially if people have complicated medical conditions. I warn people getting lump sum packages not to make any sudden or stupid financial decisions. When severance plans are offered, I see hucksters come running, pitching everything from financial products to fast food franchises. The best advice is to take a deep breath. Talk, really talk, with your family, your bosses, your co-workers and the stakeholders in your decision. Get some outside and impartial advice. Make a decision based on information and logic, not on fear or emotion. It’s one of the most important decisions of your life. Even with good information, it is a decision you will ultimately make alone. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is Chairman of the Board for McNay Settlement Group in Richmond, Ky. You can write to him at don@donmcnay.com or read his award winning column at www.donmcnay.com

Read the full article →

Grocery Store Workers Go On Hunger Strike Over Stagnant Wages

May 28, 2011

All night long, Jose Garcia performs his job while surrounded by food — a painful bit of irony, he says. The 52-year-old Mexican immigrant works the overnight shift cleaning floors inside a Cub Foods store in Minneapolis, Minn., a job he’s mostly appreciated for the nine years he’s held it down. But lately, waxing aisle after aisle filled with groceries has simply reminded him of how little he has. Despite his long tenure with the same cleaning company, Garcia says he earns a wage of $9 an hour — more or less the same rate he was making when he started cleaning floors back in 2002. Taking inflation into account, his salary has effectively gone down since he started working on the cleaning crew. There are times when he can’t afford as much food as he’d like. He says it pains him to see workers at the store throw out unsold perishables like roasted chicken at the end of the night. “It’s perfectly good food,” Garcia says through a translator. In the past, when he’s asked if he can take the food home, he says he’s been told that under-the-table giveaways are against store rules. Sometimes he resorts to visiting the charitable food pantries around town. The irony there doesn’t escape him, either: Grocery stores like the one where he works often donate the very food that goes to those pantries and, eventually, to the needy like himself. Like a lot of the workers who clean retail and food stores these days, Garcia doesn’t work directly for the store he cleans. He’s employed by a company called Carlson Building Maintenance, which has a contract to wax and buff the floors inside Cub Foods stores, a chain concentrated in Minnesota. Cub is owned by Supervalu, a grocery conglomerate that also has Acme, Albertsons and Shoppers among its many holdings . Although they had once been decent-paying union jobs, a lot of the cleaning and other grunt work in grocery and retail stores now gets farmed out to third-party contractors like Carlson. Sometimes there are even sub-contractors beneath the contractors. If these companies can’t get the job done at a certain price point, the retailer will simply find another company that will. The system puts downward wage pressures on bottom-rung workers like Garcia. If someone can work at the same job for roughly a decade and not see a raise, Garcia wonders, then what kind of promise does American employment actually hold? “I started out working thinking I would make more money at some point,” says Garcia. “As the years have gone by, instead of things getting better, things have gotten worse.” Despite the stagnant pay, he says his workload has managed to increase. Whereas three workers used to clean the floors of a store, Garcia says two workers are now expected to complete the same task. He says he often has to work through breaks to get the job done. Although he has no children, Garcia says he has a mother and a wheelchair-bound sister to look after back in Mexico, where he tries to send $300 or $400 each month. He declined to say whether he’s documented to work here. Feeling desperate, Garcia and a former coworker are now in the midst of a hunger strike, posting up at an encampment in Minneapolis to bring attention to their plight. The goal of organizers and local clergy is to bring Cub Foods management to the bargaining table to negotiate pay. Veronica Mendez, one of the organizers, said most grocery-store cleaners in the area are earning around $7.50 or $8 an hour and doing more work than they did just a few years ago. “The reason is, these big stores are pitting the cleaning services against one another to get the lowest cost,” Mendez said. “The cleaning workers at those stores are the ones who pay.” With other cleaning jobs that have several layers of sub-contracting, “there are workers who end up not getting paid at all. … Retail cleaning is in a downward spiral, and it’s going from bad to worse.” The Minneapolis City Council has taken notice of the workers’ plight. It passed a resolution on Friday saying that “retail cleaning workers have seen good-paying jobs of ten to eleven dollars per hour deteriorate into jobs barely paying minimum wage over the last ten years.” Even though the workers are actually employed by Carlson, they tend to blame Cub Foods and Supervalu for the squeeze they feel. But the folks at Supervalu say the workers’ beef is with Carlson, not them. “The people who clean the floors are employed by an outside company,” said Mike Siemienas, a Supervalu spokesman. “We ensure that the company we contract with follows all laws. Other retailers in the Twin Cities area use third-party floor-cleaning companies. It’s a very common practice.” Siemienas referred any question on workers’ wages to Carlson. Amy Rotenberg, a spokeswoman for Carlson, says the company offers fair and competitive wages, given the current job-market woes. “This is a very challenging economy and a very tight market, and these are entry-level, unskilled jobs,” Rotenberg says. “And, frankly, if we want to get into a discussion of what’s a living wage, that’s for Congress to decide and not us as private businesses.” Rotenberg says the company has managed to avoid laying off workers despite the recession and slow economic recovery. Mario Colloly Torres, another hunger striker, says he worked under Carlson in another store for about a year and a half until he was recently fired. (Torres says he was fired for organizing workers; Rotenberg says he was fired for cause.) “We don’t have enough money to put food on the table,” Torres says. “The situation is getting worse.” He has two daughters back home in Mexico but he’s no longer sure if he can afford to get them good educations. Garcia isn’t sure if there’s any other work he can do. He doesn’t speak much English, and he doesn’t have qualifications for much beyond manual labor. Besides, the jobs that have been added during a sluggish recovery have tended to be lower-paying retail jobs anyway — the kind of gig that Garcia no longer believes can go anywhere. A report released earlier this year by the National Employment Law Project found that lower-wage industries accounted for half of the job growth during the first year of the post-recession rebound. “For those seeking to move up in the labor market,” the report noted, “the current distribution of job opportunities has deteriorated.” The situation has Garcia wondering if maybe he should retreat home, where he’d at least be able to spend time with his family. “I’m considering going back to Mexico next year,” says Garcia. “I’m older now. There aren’t that many opportunities for me anymore.”

Read the full article →

GRAPHIC PHOTOS: ‘I Still Feel That Little Finger’: Table Saw Victims Speak Out

May 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — A consumers’ advocacy group and a panel of table-saw victims called on government regulators and the power-tool industry Wednesday to enact new safeguards against saw-related mutilation and amputation. The number of table-saw injuries has risen to 40,000 annually, an increase of 10,000 a year in the last decade, National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg told reporters at the National Press Club. About 4,000, or 10 percent, of the table-saw accidents each year result in finger amputation, according to statistics compiled by the NCL. The nonprofit group’s leader called for the Consumer Product Safety Commission , the federal agency tasked with protecting Americans from dangerous products, push through a table-saw safety standard that was first proposed in 2003 but has since languished. She also asked the tool industry to drop its opposition to the regulations and pass along any new costs to customers if need be. “The vast majority of table-saw manufacturers haven’t changed their technology in 50 years,” Greenberg said. “This is a major public health and safety issue that cries out for a public policy response.” Long used by carpenters, construction workers and woodworking hobbyists, table saws typically come with little more than plastic guards to prevent fingers and hands from coming into contact with the blade. These guards are often removed by the saws’ operators to make the work easier. The consumers’ league would like to see manufacturers forced to adopt a technology developed by a company called SawStop , which brings the blade to a standstill when it senses the electrical impulse emanating from human flesh. (A demo of the SawStop technology can be viewed here.) Greenberg said the NCL has no affiliation with SawStop and receives no funding from the company. The safety measure would add about $100 to the price of a saw, she added. NCL officials and table-saw victims have been meeting with lawmakers this week to make their case. The Power Tool Institute , a trade group representing table-saw manufacturers including Black & Decker and Bosch, said in a statement that the price of table saws would “increase dramatically” if companies had to use the SawStop technology. “The lower-priced consumer bench-top saws will disappear from the market,” the group warned. It also said SawStop would enjoy an unfair market advantage. Four victims of table-saw accidents spoke out in favor of new standards Wednesday, including Adam Thull of Crosslake, Minn. Thull owns his own woodworking business, and a year ago this month most of his right arm went through a table saw as he was cutting a wood panel. The blade sliced clean through the bone and nerve in his forearm. Thull’s been told it may take five years for him to recover, if he’s lucky. “My two small children and my wife suffer along with me,” the Minnesotan said. Considering Thull didn’t have health insurance, the accident has devastated him financially in two ways: With five surgeries down and six to go, he’s run up a medical tab that he can’t even fathom; and at the same time, he’s also lost his ability to earn money. He can only work for five or ten minutes at a time before the pain in his arm becomes unbearable. “I’ve been able to find ways to do it, but there’s no feasible way to turn a profit,” Thull said. “It takes me ten times longer to accomplish anything.” In his ten years in woodworking, the 30-year-old had made a decent living doing what he loved to do. But now his family is on food stamps and receiving aid from the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota. He doesn’t know how he’ll earn money in the future. “The business is more or less done. There’s no way to pay the insurance costs,” he said. “The physical suffering is on me, but my six-year-old knows. He says, ‘I wish daddy was like before the accident.’” Although there are no hard statistics, Greenberg said that about 20 percent of table-saw accidents seem to be work-related, with the rest happening to hobbyists. Like Thull, many table-saw victims are injured in the course of self-employed work. Curtis Harper, a firefighter from Provo, Utah, said he lost his pinky and suffered severe nerve and ligament damage while he was notching a corner of a wooden board in 2007. Harper owns a small mantel-making business, Masterpiece Cabinet and Mill. Looking at his mutilated hand after it ran through the saw, his first thought was that he’d lose his primary job, as a firefighter. He’s since gone back to work at the firehouse, but he’s lost much of the strength in his hand. And the accident isn’t easy to forget. “Phantom pain is real,” Harper said. “I still feel that little finger.” WARNING: Some of the photos below are gruesome.

Read the full article →

WATCH: College Grads Move Home, Face Uncertain Futures

May 24, 2011

LANSDALE, Pa. — One midnight in April, Sabrina Malik pulls her red Chevy Blazer into her mother’s asphalt driveway, removes the keys from the ignition, and stops to take a deep breath. Alone in the darkness, a sense of defeat courses through her body — disappointment about her past and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This, she thinks to herself, is surely what failure feels like. Six years ago, Malik fled this town for Syracuse University. Since graduating in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree in art history, she has yet to find a decent job. She hadn’t planned on moving back home and, at the age of 23, never expected to return to her mother’s house for an extended and open-ended period of time. “At times, it really feels very personal, it really feels like I’ve failed,” says Malik, standing in the kitchen of her mother’s two-story stone house and recalling the eight weeks since she returned home. She’s wearing khaki shorts and white socks that come up to her ankles. Glasses frame her brown eyes and wavy chestnut hair grazes her shoulders. “Your dream is a very personal thing and when you can’t do it, it feels like you’re being told that you’re not talented enough and that you haven’t worked hard enough.” After graduating from college, Malik moved to Boston. There, she worked as a nanny, sold books, and waited tables — a series of dead-end jobs that didn’t pay more than the minimum wage, didn’t require a college degree, and weren’t remotely related to what she wanted to do for the rest of her life. Two months ago, she ran out of money and drove home from Boston to Lansdale, a middle-class suburb north of Philadelphia, her car brimming with the contents of post-college life: canned food, twinkle lights, potted plants. A dozen of her paintings, stacked to the ceiling, kept hitting the back of her head. When a gas station attendant in New Jersey asked why she was moving and where she was headed, Malik didn’t know quite how to respond. She’s hardly alone. Malik is part of a generation of 20-somethings that’s experiencing what it’s like to graduate from college, move back in with your parents, and then get stuck there. Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives . To be sure, having a college degree still matters. Nationwide, while the unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, the jobless rate for college graduates 25 years and older is 4.5 percent. By contrast, 20 to 24-year-olds who only have a high school diploma are contending with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. While college graduates typically navigate periods of economic decline far better than those lacking such credentials, the past few years have still taken an especially brutal toll on them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate for younger workers with a college degree has more than doubled since the recession began four years ago — from 3.5 percent in April of 2007 to 6.4 percent in April of this year. For college graduates under the age of 25, finding stable work is a particular challenge. According to Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, about half, or 3.2 million, are “underutilized”  — meaning they’re unemployed, working part-time, or working a job outside of the college labor market, such as bartending or waiting tables. Added to the lack of jobs is an increased amount of debt. Student loan debt recently outpaced credit card debt in terms of total amounts owed by borrowers. By year’s end, it is on track to surpass a trillion dollars, according to Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student financial aid who runs the websites FinAid.org and Fastweb.com. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, an independent, nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more affordable, the average graduate finishes school with $24,000 of debt — though many struggle to repay far more. Like Malik, many 20-somethings are experiencing early adulthood as one long pause in their lives, affecting not only conventional coming-of-age milestones such as becoming financially independent, but more deeply personal things as well — like their hopes and their dreams.  THE AMERICAN DREAM Recently, after sending out dozens of resumes and cover letters, all of which went unanswered, Malik’s spirits plummeted. Even rejection feels better than no response at all, she thought to herself. In her second-floor bedroom, where handmade quilts cover the bed and charcoal drawings line the walls, she tries as best she can to avoid her mother’s notice. Mostly, she just doesn’t want her to worry. But Marilyn Malik is close to her daughter and is an expert at reading Sabrina’s shifting moods. “Sabrina gets down on herself and I worry,” says Marilyn, sitting in her home office in the basement, where she works as a nursing supervisor for a health insurance company. While she says that her daughter is welcome to live in the house for as long as she needs, she hopes that Sabrina might find a job sooner rather than later. And Marilyn is adjusting to the fact that her daughter’s path may not mirror the one she took 30 years ago, when, as a college-educated young woman, she first ventured out into the world.  Marilyn, 53, grew up in a small town in the Poconos. Her father worked as an electrician; her mother worked as a nurse. Marilyn studied nursing in college and she and her parents split the $4,000 annual tuition. She worked as a waitress to earn her share. A few years after college, Marilyn married Ajmal Malik, a Pakistani immigrant. He attended college at the University of Lahore in Pakistan and earned two master’s degrees after moving to the U.S. The couple made their home in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., where they raised Sabrina and her older brother Omar, who’s now 25. In those early years, Ajmal, an accountant, worked his way up the ladder while Marilyn picked up night shifts at the nearby hospital. She describes their standard of living as lower-middle-class — borrowing money to purchase their first starter home and relying on quick, cheap dinners of soup and biscuits to get by. Ajmal died of cancer when his children were nine and 11, leaving Marilyn to support an entire household on her income alone. “You grieve for yourself, and you grieve for your kids,” explains Marilyn, who started working full-time after Ajmal died and has yet to let up. Sending both kids to college was always the plan. The majority of the payout from her deceased husband’s life insurance went towards a college savings account, which ultimately wasn’t enough to cover the high costs associated with sending two kids to out-of-state schools. Marilyn paid about $100,000 for Sabrina to attend Syracuse University in upstate N.Y. and took out another $20,000 in loans to cover the rest. Sabrina and Omar, who attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will have to shoulder their own graduate school costs, however. “She’d probably say no to doing things if she knew how much everything cost,” says Marilyn, who pays down the $20,000 in Sabrina’s student loans while also saving up for her own retirement. Sabrina is struggling to pay off about $2,000 in credit card debt and her remaining student debts weigh on her relationship with her mother. Marilyn hates owing money and tries to put an extra $100 or $200 towards paying down the student loans whenever she can. Marilyn and Sabrina find it hard to talk about Sabrina’s student loans and generally avoid the subject. Sabrina wishes she could do more to help her mother pay the debt and had planned on having a job after graduating that would allow her to do that — yet another part of her future that hasn’t exactly gone as planned. While living in Boston, she made barely enough to cover her own rent and utilities, let alone scrape together enough extra to help her mother with the monthly loan repayments. Sabrina also wonders whether paying so much for college has made her mother’s own life more insecure. “I know she’s further away from her own retirement because she sent us to such expensive schools” says Malik, whose plans for graduate education are indefinitely on hold until she can save up some money. Right now, even $80 application fees for graduate school seem like a lot.  Although Marilyn remarried a few years ago, her first husband’s absence is deeply felt — especially now, when their daughter is struggling. “I wonder if he had been around, whether my kids would have been better placed, whether they would have received better advice,” says Marilyn, who plans to work for at least another decade. She long ago decided that sending her kids to college was more important to her than saving for the day when she could retire. By this point in her life, Marilyn imagined that her daughter would have already embarked upon a well-paying career and be living on her own. She also wonders what it means for the next generation of 20-somethings, and whether they’ll have access to better opportunities than their parents’ generation. “My generation had it better than what my parents had and you’d think it would continue progressing that same way,” she says. “Historically, each generation gets better as it goes along — they’re more affluent, they have more education, they reach more goals. This generation, you would hope that would happen, too, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.” DREAMS ARE CHEAP Half a century ago, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had attained traditional markers of maturity by their 30th birthday: They had left home, finished school, gotten a job, married, and started a family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, less than half of 30-year-old women and just one-third of 30-year-old men had attained similar markers of adulthood. A lot, but not all, of the shift has to do with work — or, more specifically, a lack of work, say analysts and others . They argue that the current recession has pushed 20-somethings farther and faster in a direction they were already headed. Sending your kid to college once was a way of ensuring their sure-footed success. But with 20-somethings mired in debt and confronting a dearth of decent-paying jobs, many are returning to the nest. “I can assure you that few people in my generation are living high off the hog in their parents’ house,” says Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old founder of Our Time , a national membership organization for young people under 30. He says he resents the popular characterization of 20-somethings as lazy and unmoored. “Trust me, they’re not getting too comfortable sleeping in their childhood bedroom or eating out of their parents’ fridge. They’re moving home because they don’t have jobs and they have a lot of debt.” Except for designated downtime, when she’s either making art or weaving on her loom, Malik spends much of her time avoiding thinking about what became of the goals her parents helped her to set. Her mother always encouraged her to think and dream big. Yet since graduating from college, she’s found herself doing the exact opposite. Her dream for the future used to encompass a well-appointed and comfortable life — a farmhouse, two artist studios, a husband, and several children. “But it’s not worth dreaming so big anymore,” says Malik. “My plans now are far less extravagant. I guess I’m learning to dream on a much smaller scale.” Specifically, she doesn’t think she’ll be able to afford a home as nice as her mother’s. Nor, she predicts, will she be able to send her own children to schools as fancy as those that she attended. “The hope that things are going to get better is really all we have,” she explains. “I mean, on top of being the generation that’s struggling, we don’t want to be the generation that’s cynical, too.” Some scholars attribute such hard-wired optimism to the way that the parents of 20-somethings raised them. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais co-author books about millennials (typically defined as the generation born between 1982 and 2003). “Millennials were raised the way Bill Cosby told parents to raise their kids — set rules, show encouragement, don’t use physical discipline, build up a child’s self-esteem,” explains Winograd. “If you tell someone from zero to 13 that they’re always doing a nice job and that they’re really special and wonderful, they’ll wind up believing they are.” Self-confidence breeds optimism, according to Winograd and Hais, even when times are tough. “The millennials don’t have a sense that everything is wonderful, because obviously it isn’t, but they believe as a country that things will get better and their lives will also get better,” says Hais. “In part, it’s because they’re young and they actually have time to accomplish this. But it’s also because generations like the millennials feel they’ve accomplished good things in the past and that they will again in the future because their parents told them so.” Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, is also struck by the optimism of the young adults that he studies. “I think the main reason for their optimism is that dreams are cheap in emerging adulthood. That is, their dreams haven’t yet been tested in the fires of real, adult life. And who knows, maybe they really will find their dream job?” In general, young people are taking longer to assume more traditional adult responsibilities and young lives are unfolding in a less predictable sequence , Arnett says. He views the twenties as a new and distinct life stage and classifies it as “emerging adulthood.” According to Arnett, this stage generally starts around the age of 18 and continues until an individual is in his or her mid-to-late twenties. While the category itself is fluid, “emerging adulthood” refers to a time during which young people are relatively free of obligations. But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are increasingly delaying adult responsibilities because they can’t secure a job stable enough to allow them to take the steps necessary to establish an independent life. As such, even youthful optimism has its limits . Despite a general proclivity toward positive thinking, analysts say current circumstances are weighing down this generation of 20-somethings. “The mood for young people definitely isn’t as optimistic as it’s been in the past,” says Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. Last week, he and his colleagues released a study titled “Unfulfilled Expectations: Recent College Graduates Struggle in a Troubled Economy.” It polled young people who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010. “You expect people to be optimistic when they’re young about their ability to get ahead,” Van Horn says. “It’s pretty clear that this group of college students are feeling very much like their opportunities have been stunted.” A FALSE PROMISE? Since moving home, the highlight of Malik’s weekend involves walking to the edge of her mother’s driveway on Sunday morning and retrieving the hand-delivered copy of The New York Times . She’s on a $15 weekly budget and getting the paper delivered is a rare indulgence. Last Sunday, Malik accompanied her extended family to a pancake breakfast to support the local firehouse in the nearby town of Sellersville, Pa. Without traffic, it’s about a 20-minute drive from Lansdale. As her family and some of her mother’s friends waited for a table, Malik carved out a tiny space where she sat and read the paper in silence. She wasn’t up for answering the questions that usually follow — about what she was up to, or how the job search was going. She mostly just needed a break from the constant inquisition. “I spend a lot of my time trying as best I can to appease everyone and show them that I’m in good spirits and putting forth all this extra effort,” says Malik. “Every once in a while, I just need to be by myself. They know what I’m going through.” Even the relentless optimism of millennials is straining under the depth and length of the current recession. A poll released in April by AP-Viacom indicated that among Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, there was skepticism about the notion that life would improve with each passing generation. Four in 10 of those surveyed predicted difficulty in raising a family and affording the lifestyle they felt they deserved. Like homebuyers who took on outsized mortgages they couldn’t afford, either out of ignorance or because banks cajoled them, in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, many students and their parents have taken on crushing piles of educational debt in order to realize another part of the American Dream: a college education. Andrew Sum, a 64-year-old economist at Northeastern University who’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years, thinks the current economic slump is giving both recent graduates and their parents a rude awakening. Sum grew up in Gary, Ind. with a father who worked as a welder. While he says that he and his four siblings were able to achieve a better life than their parents, for the first time in recent American history, the majority of the young people he studies are not. “Every generation ought to try and leave behind a better world for the next generation,” says Sum. “And until recently, it’s generally been true that the next generation exceeded the living standard of the current one. But over the last decade, that’s no longer the case.” One of Sum’s pet theories is the “age twist effect.” He says that over the decade from 2000 to 2010, the younger someone was, the more likely they were to get fired or be otherwise left without a job. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Sum’s findings conclude that 7 million more young people under the age of 30 would be working today if the labor market behaved as it did only a decade ago. Sum and his colleagues predict that underutilization and underemployment will leave an indelible mark on this generation. In the near term, Sum finds college graduates moving home, and staying there. And while college degrees matter, they only matter if young people are able to then convert them into a job — hence, generating the considerable college premium. “If you can manage to do that, you can do well,” says Sum. “But if you end up outside, you’ll only do marginally better than someone who has a high school diploma and those losses stay with you for a lifetime.” For Malik, both in terms of her current and future income, the longer she’s out of work, the more dire the consequences will be. Being unemployed is always worse than working, but it’s ultimately the type of job she gets that will affect her future stability. For instance, should Malik secure yet another job outside the college labor market — working again as a nanny or as a clerk in a retail shop — the chances that she’ll regain a more permanent economic toehold will grow ever more unlikely. The impact that the job she lands will have on her future wages is likely to be staggering. For the public at large, Sum finds there’s a 73 percent gap in the annual earnings of college graduates that have a college labor market job versus those that work in a job that doesn’t require a degree — say, the difference between working as a paralegal and a receptionist in a law firm. Bachelor’s degree holders between the ages of 22 to 64 that have a college labor market job make an average salary of $52,873. Those working outside the college labor market earn $30,503 — or a difference in salary of more than $22,000 a year.  But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are also struggling with what is likely a case of bad economic timing. Graduates of 2009 were hit especially hard. A study conducted by the  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers indicates that 50 percent of 2009 graduates are either unemployed or working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. Lisa B. Khan, who studies economics at Yale’s School of Management, recently conducted a study that looked at the long-term impact of graduating into a weak economy. Khan examined young people that graduated from college during the peak of the recession that occurred in the 1980s. In their first three years on the job market, Khan found they made about 30 percent less than classmates with more advantageous economic timing. And their subsequent salaries, even a dozen years later, were between eight and ten percent lower. This means that it might take Malik, who graduated two years ago during the beginning of a particularly brutal recession, up to a decade to recover the wages she might have earned had she sidestepped the downturn altogether. Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford University, concedes that young people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but generally have a tough time catching up. But Oyer also thinks that luck plays a role in the making of any successful career, good economic times or bad. What does concern him is that some historical trends seem to be withering in the current economy. Although wealth in America has increased from generation to generation, Oyer isn’t convinced that the current generation of 20-somethings will enjoy the rewards of a similar phenomenon. He attributes the shift to globalization and the number of available jobs. Because of these factors, he doesn’t think it makes much sense for young people to pile on educational debt to attend elite schools when they have less expensive alternatives — unless, of course, their parents are willing to go on the hook for it. Parents exert a powerful shaping force on their children’s decisions to go to college, as well as which college to attend. In addition, they are often caught up in the emotional rush that a college education entails, further complicating an issue that has already become a financial minefield for the middle class. “All along, I was going to make it work,” explains Marilyn. “If I had to take out loans, I was going to do that.” Once Sabrina and Omar were admitted into the colleges of their dreams, Marilyn saw it as her personal responsibility to make sure they could attend — even when it meant taking out additional loans in order to finance it. And while Marilyn says she doesn’t regret her investment, she assumed that a $120,000 degree would at least translate into a decent-paying job for her daughter. “One thing that terrifies parents more than budget deficits or a weak economy is job security for their kids. They’re afraid they won’t be able to pass along their middle class status to the next generation,” says Anthony P. Carnevale, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “In raising a child in America, the fear of failing is just enormous. Sending your kid to college used to pretty much guarantee their future success. It no longer necessarily works that way.” And, of course, what if this generation simply doesn’t value the same things their parents’ generation did? John Della Volpe, who directs polling at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, spends much of the year gauging the thoughts of young people. His company SocialSphere recently conducted a study of 5,000 millennials between the ages of 16 and 24. It asked them to think about the next five to seven years of their lives and to rank the importance of what they hoped to achieve. His findings indicate that many young people aren’t focused on becoming famous or making piles of money. On the contrary, their hopes for the future revolve around making a contribution to society and staying in close touch with family and friends. “There’s a potential for this younger generation to have an economic reset,” explains Della Volpe. “It’s now okay to stay in your hometown.” AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE When it’s your decision, returning to your hometown is one thing. Being stuck there feels like something else entirely.  Malik says her days are an exercise in resilience. She has yet to shake her loneliness and general feeling of isolation. Most weekdays, she gets up by nine o’clock and immediately forces herself to get dressed. After breakfast, she typically positions herself on one of two floral upholstered couches in the sunroom, where, with laptop in hand, she begins the daily chore of scouring websites for job openings. When not job hunting, Malik helps out around the house — taking out the trash, doing the dishes, going grocery shopping, walking the dog, or making dinner a few nights a week. In some ways, the chores remind her of being in high school. Before her mother remarried and she and her brother headed off to college, it was just the three of them helping out around the house. Growing up, when her mother made dinner or when the house needed cleaning, the two siblings alternated chores. “Now that I’m back, I do those same kinds of things and it feels like the least I can do,” explains Malik. “It doesn’t feel like a task or a chore. I’m just helping my mom out, like I’ve always done.” But now, Malik is a grown woman. Part of her yearns for her own place where she can come and go as she pleases, and where the rules are hers and hers alone. On visits to see her boyfriend, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. and works for a private art collector, she sees glimpses of the independent life she expected to be living by now. Until she can land her ultimate gig of working as a curator in an art gallery, or begin a long trajectory of jobs that might eventually get her there, she’s looking for something to pay the bills. She’s looked into working as a clerk in a local retail shop and selling hot water heaters. Businesses in Lansdale are inundated with swarms of recent colleges graduates looking for any job they can get. Locally, there’s the option of working for a big pharmaceutical company, Starbucks or Walgreens, but not much else. When things start to feel overwhelming, Malik finds it helpful to make lists of things to accomplish. The current two-page iteration lists everything from big to small stuff — like getting a job and someday opening an art gallery to straightening her hair and eating fewer bagels. A recent addition, which has yet to be crossed off, is that Malik aspires to be less hard on herself. Namely, that for the time being at least, it’s okay to allow herself to feel sad sometimes. “Right now, it’s a battle of trying to remain levelheaded — and I don’t know if it’s trying to stay optimistic, or become more realistic, or just learn to be okay with going through the motions,” she says. “It feels like a lot of pressure. I want to make everyone proud. I want to blow everyone out of the water with everything I’ve accomplished. And I just can’t get there.” 

Read the full article →

Obama Heading To Europe

May 22, 2011

WASHINGTON — Weaving together strands of pomp, policy and summitry, President Barack Obama’s weeklong European tour is all about tending to old friends in the Western alliance and securing their help with daunting challenges, from the political upheaval in the Mideast and North Africa to the protracted war in Afghanistan. Obama’s eighth trip to Europe as president, with a quick-moving itinerary that dips into four countries in six days, unfolds against the backdrop of the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya and stubborn economic weakness on both sides of the Atlantic. A priority for the president and his allies will be to more clearly define the West’s role in promoting stability and democracy in the Arab world without being overly meddlesome and within tight financial limitations. Obama, who departs late Sunday, will visit Ireland, England, France and Poland. Each is weathering an economic downturn that has forced European nations to adopt strict austerity measures. The U.S. has pushed its national debt to the limit, and Obama and congressional Republicans are in contentious talks about how steeply to cut spending. But never mind all that, at least for a moment. A highlight of Obama’s opening stop in Ireland will be a feel-good pilgrimage to the hamlet of Moneygall, where America’s first black president will explore his Irish – yes, Irish – roots, and most likely raise a pint. It turns out that Falmouth Kearney, who immigrated to the United States in 1850 at the age of 19, is the great great great grandfather of Obama on his white, Kansas-born mother’s side. Obama, whose father was born in Kenya, will connect in Moneygall with distant relatives from the Irish branch of his family tree. Michael Collins, the Irish ambassador to the United States, says the president’s visit will be “a golden moment” for a country that’s been on the economic ropes after its boom time. The visit is sure to play well at home for Obama – make that O’bama – as he heads into re-election season after being pushed to great lengths simply to prove he was born on U.S. soil. After his day in Ireland, Obama spends two in England, where he and first lady Michelle Obama will be treated to all the pomp and pageantry that the monarchy can muster for the president’s first European state visit. The Obamas even get a Buckingham Palace sleepover. Though the United States and Britain remain the closest of allies, the relationship has been strained by recent events, including last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico triggered by the explosion of an oil rig owned by British-based BP. Britain’s unilateral announcement of a timetable for withdrawal of its 10,000 troops from Afghanistan also rankled the United States. Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the private Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Obama’s stop in Britain could help “put the `special’ back into the U.S.-U.K. special relationship.” Obama on Wednesday will become the first American president to speak to members of Parliament from the historic Palace of Westminster. European leaders are eager to see how president frames the U.S.-European partnership at a time when Obama has prodded Western allies to shoulder greater responsibility in areas such as Afghanistan and Libya. A NATO-led mission is working to protect civilians and assist the rebel fighters trying to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell, a member of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, said British politicians would be listening keenly to what Obama had to say about Afghanistan when he addresses both houses of Parliament on Wednesday. “The death of Osama bin Laden can only encourage those with the ear of the president to proceed more quickly with the draw-down of American forces in Afghanistan,” Campbell said. “MPs and peers alike will be listening closely to what he says about America’s intentions for Afghanistan.” In private, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron will plunge into the details of a host of international challenges on which the U.S. and Britain have worked together: Afghanistan, Libya, counterterrorism, the global economy and more. Both leaders then scoot to a French summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, where the president hopes to build on momentum from his speech days ago about how best to promote stability and democracy in the Middle East. Obama has called on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to present the G-8 with an ambitious plan to help Egypt and Tunisia, in particular, recover from the disruptions caused by their democratic revolutions and prepare for elections later this year. The U.S. and its allies don’t want those elections to occur against a backdrop of economic chaos that could increase support for extremists. But there’s no expectation of a big aid measure emerging from the G-8. Rather, the countries in the region will present their plans for democratization and stabilizing their economies, and the G-8 will consider ways to help. Although not on the official agenda, the G-8 leaders are sure to be talking about future leadership of the IMF now that former chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn has resigned after being arrested on attempted rape charges in New York. European leaders are anxious to put another European in that position while emerging economies would like to see a process that is open to someone from the developing world. U.S. officials have said they favor an open process, without being more specific. Obama’s visit to Europe comes a little more than a month before the U.S. is scheduled to start its gradual troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. The president has said the initial drawdown will be significant, but it’s unclear how many specific answers he’ll have for European leaders. Britain and France, in particular, are looking for details on the U.S. withdrawal timetable for signs of how NATO will move from combat missions to a training role by the end of 2014. The Afghan mission is deeply unpopular in many European countries, and political pressure has led some leaders to set timetables for their withdrawal. The British are planning to draw down 400 of their nearly 10,000 troops this year, with all British troops out by the end of 2014. France, which has 4,000 troops in Afghanistan, has said it is considering speeding up its withdrawal now that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is dead. During his two-day stay in Deauville, France, Obama will take time for one-on-one meetings on the side of the G-8 with several world leaders, including Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan. The U.S.-Russia relationship, though much improved since the Bush administration, remains complex. Medvedev has spoken out strongly in recent weeks against U.S. plans to plant missile interceptors in Romania as part of a U.S. shield over Europe, saying that could threaten Russia. He’s warned that Washington’s failure to cooperate with Russia on the missile shield could lead to a new arms race, and also threatened to pull out of the New START nuclear treaty with the U.S. if Russia feels at risk. Obama’s meeting with Kan would be his first with the Japanese prime minister since the March tsunami and earthquake that triggered a nuclear crisis in Japan. The U.S. has sent military and humanitarian assistance to Japan, as well as nuclear experts, to help the country recover from the disaster. Obama’s visit to Poland is emblematic of a growing front in the administration’s engagement in Europe, as the U.S. expands its economic and security relationship with Central European nations. Robert Kupiecki, Poland’s ambassador to the United States, says Central Europe’s experiences in moving toward democracy offer many lessons that are “directly applicable” in the Middle East and North Africa, and that Poles and others in the region are anxious to help the democratic movement spread. Lech Walesa, the former Polish president who founded the Solidarity freedom movement, has visited Tunisia, and Walesa will meet with Obama in Poland to talk about the experience. Obama can point to Poland, with its stable government and growing economy, as a benefactor of democracy’s virtues.

Read the full article →

June Carbone: Changing Marriage Patterns Reflect Economics and Class

May 20, 2011

New research shows that women are getting married at later ages – and that the divorce rate is going down. The results reflect some good news — later marriages are more likely to last. Most importantly, however, these figures correlate with widespread changes in the American family. First, the decrease in the divorce rate does at least in part reflect later marriages. Teen marriages have always been risky and most studies suggest that the increase in maturity from the teen years to the early twenties bodes well for the stability of relationships. Delay from the early twenties to the late twenties and thirties, however, is more controversial. While these later marriages are also more likely to last, economist Stephane Mechoulan found that the increase in the age of marriage in itself accounts for only a small part of the falling divorce rates. Instead, they reflect the increasing tendency of the well-off to marry similarly well-off partners and those marriages are more likely to last at any age. Second, the overall statistics hide the class-based dynamics at the core of the shift. Historically, college educated women were less likely to marry than high school graduates. Today, male and female college graduates have become substantially more likely to marry (and stay married). At the same time, marriage has effectively disappeared from the poorest communities. In the middle, pregnant teens like Bristol Palin have become much less likely to marry the fathers of their children. It is hardly surprising therefore that overall divorce rates have fallen as the highest divorce risks (pregnant teens among them) have become much less likely to marry. Third, the later age of marriage for the for college graduates does suggest a new middle class strategy: invest in women’s education and earning capacity as well as men’s, push back the age of marriage and childbearing from the low ages of the anomalous fifties, and reap the benefits of two incomes. This strategy, of course, began in the sixties and seventies and produced much more independent women. Today, it also reflects a new marriage strategy. The only portion of the American population substantially better off than a generation ago are high income men, and it easier to tell who will be successful (think of those Wall St. bonuses) and who will not at thirty than at twenty. At the same time, for less spectacularly successful men, two substantial incomes are essential for middle class life. Today, becoming established means not only college graduation and graduate school, but the right internships, entry level jobs, and often repeated moves between positions, cities and sometimes career paths. These investments pay off in terms of a stable investment for family life, but they are rarely in place before the thirties and earlier marriage and childbearing often makes them harder to establish. As the economy becomes more perilous, the risks of early marriage increase. Fourth, with the disappearance of relatively stable and high paying manufacturing jobs, working class women may have greater opportunities than working class men and they have also become pickier about marriage as a result. Women have become more likely to graduate from high school and college and the jobs they choose — teaching, health care, retail sales, administration — tend to be more stable than those available to men. Construction workers, for example, often earn more than Walmart employees, but they are also more likely to be laid off. Studies further show that while unemployed women spend more time on the home and the children, unemployed men spend more time moping, drinking, watching TV, and lashing out at those around them. The new data confirms that the Great Recession has slowed marriage rates and earlier studies show that financial stress greatly increases the divorce rates of young and working class couples with the most traditional attitudes toward gender roles. In today’s economy, these couples have become less likely to marry. Fifth, a delay in marriage and a decrease in divorce might be a good thing, but only if it also produces a drop in non-marital births. For the middle class, later marriage continues to mean later childbearing, and later childrearing tends to lower overall fertility. Women’s workforce participation increases the opportunity cost (and the family tensions) of having more children. The combination of the suburbs, with their dependence on the automobile, and the disappearance of stay-at-home moms dismantled the community networks that had supervised children, placing more emphasis on the role of individual parents. Modern studies of family time indicate that while mothers today spend substantially less time on housework than they did a half century ago, they spend as much time with their children and their husband spend more. Today’s “helicopter” parents invest enormous amounts of time overseeing homework, coaching sports teams, escorting their children to after school activities, and addressing their emotional needs. Working class women, however, have become more likely to have children without marrying. If the father is chronically unemployed, uncommitted to the relationship, immature or simply unreliable, young mothers may decide that they are better off on their own. It is hard to assess the impact of falling marriage rates therefor without examining the nature of childbearing. The changes of the last quarter century indicate that marriage is increasingly becoming a marker of class — the delayed marriages of the middle class produce steadily lower divorce rates, very few non-marital births, and substantial resources to invest in a falling number of children. For the rest of the country, the statistics may simply confirm a greater move away from marriage altogether. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Art Levine: GOP-Style Democrats Slash DC Budget: Homeless Moms Already Given Bus Tokens, Not Shelter

May 17, 2011

Except for white Republicans in Congress opposed to home rule, few people outside of Washington, D.C. — and even some white liberals who live in the District — bother to pay much attention to Washington’s local political battles. But that changed briefly last month, when Mayor Vincent Gray and six members of the city council were arrested in high-profile protests against a Republican-driven federal budget deal that prevents the city from spending its own funds on abortions for low-income women. Congress has traditionally had authority over the Democratic-run District’s budget, but rarely directly interferes in spending. “Why are we the sacrificial lamb?” Gray had asked. Progressive media outlets praised Mayor Gray for seeming to stand up to Republicans and their distorted budget priorities. Yet Mayor Gray and much of the rest of the city council are moving on their own to make the city’s disabled, youngest and neediest citizens the sacrificial lambs of the proposed new city budget, with two-thirds of the cuts targeting the poor. And those programs make up less than a quarter of all city spending . It’s yet another troubling sign of the rightward shift of state and national Democratic Party leaders. It’s a trend that can be seen everywhere from Democratic legislators in Massachusetts voting to strip public employee unions of the right to bargain collectively to national Democrats meekly accepting until it’s too late GOP messaging on deficit cuts and tax breaks for the rich. Here in Washington, city services are already so strained before the proposed cuts that even families with young children seeking emergency shelter are routinely turned away, and have often been given instead bus tokens to ride the buses all night with their toddlers and infants. As Eric Sheptock, a literally homeless homeless activist working with a donated laptop, described a recent hearing on the crisis: One mother cried as she explained how that she, with her 3 children — ages 5, 3 and less than a year-old — in tow, was told by an employee of the Virginia Williams Family Intake Center that there were no shelter spaces for them and that she was given bus tokens so she could ride the city bus all night with her children in order to stay warm. Other mothers testified that they also were given bus tokens so that they could use the bus as a de facto shelter. (DC Law states that, if there is no shelter space available for a homeless family with small children, then they must be put into a motel room) The Mayor’s proposed budget would essentially close down all shelters for everyone except when the weather falls below freezing. The mayor’s justification? ” In some quarters, we have created a culture of dependency that does not encourage residents to take control of their lives,” he declared in a speech nonetheless proclaiming a vision of a compassionate “One City” uniting all. Unlike the original welfare reform plans passed by President Clinton, though, these new meat-ax approaches to social services don’t provide any transitional assistance. As activist Kesh Ladduwahetty with the all-volunteer DC for Democrac y, a DFA affiliate, asks, “How does turning people out into the streets and eliminating child care programs help residents to take control of their lives, educate themselves, and become self-reliant?” Some councilmembers may seek to restore a portion of the $20 million to be cut in homeless services, but are doing relatively little to fight for $110 million in other vital services on the chopping blok, including mental health and other programs for the nearly one-third of District children who are poor. Prospects for protecting these programs are even worse than in the fights over social programs at the national level, because local safety-net advocacy groups are mostly under-funded, poorly organized and have no media savvy, making it even easier for the mainstream media to largely ignore the devastation these cuts would cause. Journalists here focus, at best, on councilmembers bickering over taxes . The Washington Post , for instance, doesn’t even have a reporter anymore covering the social services beat. The Mayor has asked for a slight rise in taxes for those earning over $200,000, but even that’s being resisted by a deadlocked City Council claiming it would discourage businesses and upscale residents. All told, his revenue-raising proposals could add about $127 million , but other ways to boost revenues as much as $104 million more, including increasing taxes for the very richest and closing tax exemptions for buying out-of-state bonds, are considered by council insiders to be off the table. This same city council spends more on itself — both per resident and per councilmember — than any other city in the entire country, according to the Pew Foundation . As the Washington City Paper reported: “The District came in first in costs in relation to both the number of city residents and the number of council seats. The council has a total budget of $19,434,000, including employee benefits–that averages out to $1,494,923 per seat, and $32.41 per resident.” But they don’t seem to mind kicking a few thousand people from shelters or cutting emergency assistance for the low-income disabled in order to preserve virtually all of their own perks — and keep costs down for the city’s richest citizens. Indeed, at a city council meeting on Monday, council members even opposed raising fees for wealthy Washingtonians who own three cars or to increase downtown parking fees. As the influential Greater Greater Washington blog pointed out: “At times, the discussion became quite heated, particularly when some members were defending the rights of people who own 3 cars and make over $200,000, yet wouldn’t consider driving downtown for dinner if it cost them $4 to park.” Analyst David Alpert added, “In a budget that makes very deep cuts, there was more passion for keeping parking cheap and for keeping taxes on the wealthy low than anything for keeping people off the street and from going hungry.” Yet as one progressive, Mary Beth Tinker, an SEIU pediatric nurse and a DC for Democracy member, pointed out in her testimony (full document here ) last week about the impact of raising taxes modestly on those earning over $100,000: For the price of a cup of coffee, you can save childrens’ lives. That is the increased cost in taxes per week, $1.80, that a DC resident making $125,000 would pay if their tax rate went from 8.5% to 9%. For the price of a latte, you can retain essential services to DC’s children. That is the cost in taxes per day, $3.60, that a DC resident making $350,000 would pay if their tax rate went from 8.5% to 9.5%. You can judge a society by how it treats children… The status of children in DC is a human rights shame by any indicator: infant mortality rates, graduation rates, soaring poverty rates. Amazingly, there are now proposals that would make things even worse: cuts of over $600,000 in programs to high-risk youth, cuts to summer school and grandparents struggling to raise their grandchildren, cuts in substance abuse programs for mothers. And, to put salt on the wound, there is even a proposal to cut $2.5 million in mental health services for traumatized children. But we do have alternatives. We can raise funds for children by reversing the tax break given to upper income earners in 1999. All for the price of a cup of coffee. On Wednesday, an alliance of progressive advocacy groups, including Save Our Safety Net and D.C. for Democracy, are planning a “Safety Net Reality Tour” to protest the cuts — and they’re going straight to the heart of the D.C. government, the Wilson building on Pennsylvania Avenue. The alert asks, ” Engage Councilmembers to remind them that we need additional revenue in order to restore funding to the programs that keep DC residents safe, housed, and healthy.” Yet that perspective gets little attention in the media or among Democratic politicians. Plus, business groups have also opposed plans that would close some loopholes allowing companies to pay lower taxes. And theater groups have opposed a modest 6% sales tax on tickets. Presumably, the extra cost of tickets would somehow deter upscale patrons from attending searing dramas about social injustice. Naturally, the $2.3 million in revenue it could generate would be wasted on sheltering homeless mothers who don’t have the good taste to appreciate Strindberg revivals. The clout of the theater crowd seems well on its way to overwhelming any lobbying by liberal advocacy groups, and council staffers say the proposal to tax theater tickets is all but dead. All these pressures make restoring vital services to the needy even less likely, especially because advocates have to overcome the myth that businesses and residents are over-taxed compared to other jurisdictions. In fact, surrounding affluent suburbanites pay higher total taxes than D.C. residents earning over $150,000 do, and the city’s tax burden is the 25th lowest of major cities. Right-wing leaning reports have also ranked the District as among the least competitive places because of high taxes. But as Natwar Gandhi, the chief financial officer of the city, has observed, ” In the District, almost two-thirds of businesses pay only the minimum of $100 a year. When actual business taxes paid are ranked, the District falls in the middle of the pack.” Amazingly enough, the city population is so liberal and Democratic that a new poll by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute found that 90 percent of taxpayers earning over $100,000 favor raising taxes on the wealthy to help pay for social services. That’s a level of affluent professionals’ supporting raised taxes you’d be hard pressed to find outside of an Upper West Side cocktail party hosted by The New York Review of Books in honor of Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine . Even so, D.C.’s African-American Mayor has proposed a draconian budget attacking the $330 million deficit that apparently borrows its underlying theme from Rep. Paul Ryan’s GOP budget plan: balance the budget on the backs of the poor. “The similarity of our Democratic politicians with Republicans is that they put a greater emphasis on budget cuts,with the poor bearing the biggest brunt of it — and the safety net is seen as something without value. It’s just seen as a cost with no value,” says Ladduwahetty, a leading organizer with DC for Democracy. This GOP-leaning tilt has been exacerbated by the vacuum of strong leadership coming from the White House and the Democratic Party in recent years defending the importance of government and safety-net programs; instead the ground has been ceded to Republicans on the issue of the deficit and tax cuts for the rich. A startling two-thirds of all the $187 million in D.C. cuts are aimed at programs serving the most vulnerable residents of the city: the homeless, poor kids needing mental health services, working adults who need subsidized child care, the disabled and the very poorest families needing emergency cash assistance. Even before these cuts that could throw nearly 2,400 homeless families and single adults into the street , basic services have already been so shriveled that the city’s primary intake center , the Virginia Williams Family Resource Center, is turning away families seeking emergency shelter — and just calling their relatives on their behalf or giving them bus tokens to ride the buses all night as a way to catch some sleep with their babies in tow. One of those young women is Denise Gibson, a 26-year-old woman who was holding her month-old newborn in her arms when she testified in March at a hearing before Councilman Jim Graham, chair of the human services committee. After surviving as a ward of the state in foster care and other arrangements until 21, she’s been homeless since 2006. “I’ve been a nomad,” she said about her search for housing. Sometimes, she’s able to stays inside her mother’s one-bedroom apartment, but that only allows her to sleep on the floor with her baby boy and she soon has to leave. Most of the time, she explained, “Some nights I stay in my storage place, some nights I stay at the Greyhound like I’m waiting for a bus. Since December, 2010 when I went to Virginia Williams, they told us we can’t stay anywhere [in shelters] unless it’s hypothermia; there’s no room at the shelter. They didn’t bother to find us [temporary] hotels, they just give us bus tokens and send us off.” Earlier, officials at the intake center turned her away when she was pregnant, claiming that they couldn’t help her until she was a single mother. After she gave birth,”They can’t help me now that my son is here.” In his first of month of life, he virtually never slept in a regular crib or bed. Under supportive questioning by Graham, more disturbing details emerged of life for the poor in a city where, as in the White House and Congress located a few blocks away, austerity instead of compassion and job creation is accepted as a political fact of life. But Graham, at least, wasn’t accepting that philosophy and asked, “Where have you been living?” Gibson responded, “I sometimes stay in my mother’s apartment building.” “Do you go to your mother’s apartment?” “No, there’s no security there [ in the building] and and it’s easy for us to stay there. I go to the stairwell, and I have my bags.” The day before the hearing, she stayed all night at the Greyhound station, even after begging a “Miss Croft” at the Virginia Williams center for help in finding an overnight spot for her and her baby. A stunned Graham recapped: “You went to Virginia Williams with a baby, and you’ve been sleeping in a stairwell and a bus station and you spoke to Miss Croft, and there’s nothing to do?” He furiously called in front of him the acting director of the Department of Human Services, the same agency that Mayor Gray once led, and berated her for the agency’s inaction. In typical bureaucratese, the interim director, Deborah Carroll ,explained, “During hypothermia season, any participant who meets the definition of homeless should get shelter. We’ll have to investigate each case.” Of course she left unspoken the reality that if the weather is below freezing the DHS officals feel free to ignore requests for shelter from families, let alone individuals Eventually, after pressure from Graham, a space was found in the city’s one family shelter — but it will be almost certainly closed down except in sub-freezing weather if the Mayor’s budget proposal becomes law. Her dramatic case has, so far,been ignored by all major broadcast and print media outlets in the city, except for the dedicated blogging of Eric Sheptock, the “homeless homeless” advocate working with a donated laptop and cell phone, building thousands of “friends” and “followers” on Facebook and Twitter . But his online advocacy doesn’t start until after he walks or takes a bus each morning to get a breakfast handout four miles away. Sheptock has a stark, up-close perspective on the DC government’s new War on the Poor (as opposed to LBJ’s War on Poverty): “To make a long story short, they want to push the poor out of the city,” he says. “They don’t want a place where the poor and homeless can come.” He adds, “They won’t want to wait to end the culture of dependence: they just want poor people to get out of town. They’re defunding affordable housing , they’re decreasing housing production, they’re shutting down shelters, breaking down encampments. You don’t prevent homelessness, you don’t cure it, you don’t want to shelter them.” As a list-ditch effort in the face of political indifference, he’s starting to try to organize the homeless themselves. He also wonders, “I don’t know why Mayor Gray is so callous.” Yet to today’s new pro-corporate state and national Democrats, reflecting the winner-take-all political trends that have accelerated during the Obama era, “These people are seen as sort of dispensable, and don’t deserve the social safety net. It’s part of an increasingly conservative trend in the Democratic Party,” says Kesh Ladduwahetty. Janelle Treibitz, the chief Campaign Organizer for Save Our Safety Net DC adds, “We’d like council members to take a stronger stance opposing cuts.” A few councilmembers, especially Jim Graham, have been very outspoken, but most of the efforts to restore some cuts are being done behind closed doors with little effort to rally the public behind them. Advocacy groups, including DC for Democracy and Save our Safety Net, have a total of a few thousand supporters, and while they’ve generated hundreds of emails, they haven’t been able so far to deluge the government with phone calls, reframe the debate or garner extensive media coverage. That could start to change next week, when S.O.S. is organizing with its allies next Wednesday, May 18th what it’s calling a “All-Hands-On-Deck-Action Day” inside the DC government main building, the Wilson building. But the harsh realities of the new Democratic politics remains, even in this most liberal of cities. At a hearing on the budget this week, led by by the scandal-plagued Chairman of the City Council, Kwame Brown, best known for demanding a “fully loaded” $1900- a- month leased SUV from city officials, activists challenged his opposition to raising taxes, the deadlocked council’s complacency, and the council leadership that has ignored public opinion favoring preserving social programs. “Some members of this Council have stated their opposition to any income tax increase. They owe the public an explanation as to why they would sooner ask a homeless person to live on the street rather than ask our wealthiest residents to pay taxes in line with their suburban counterparts,” Kesh Ladduwahetty argued. Even an otherwise liberal council member, Mary Cheh, a respected law professor who represents the 70%-plus white Ward 3 that’s the city’s richest, opposes raising taxes even to save social services. While declining to be interviewed for this article, she posts on her website for constituents her GOP Lite opposition to raising taxes, mixed with vague promises to find revenues elsewhere. “It is vital for our continued growth and prosperity that we shed our reputation as a high tax jurisdiction, and we have struggled very hard to do that over the past few years. Increasing the rate on incomes over $200,000 will send precisely the wrong message,” she says. “But, rather than support the income tax rate increase, I am looking at other ways to generate revenue or save money that will allow us to avoid the hike in income tax rates and restore some of the human services cuts.” Jeremy Koulish, who chairs DC for Democracy’s budget committee, directly challenged Council Chairman Kwame Brown and his allies on their allegiance to what used to be Democratic Party values. Noting the poll that showed 85% and above approval for raising taxes, he declared, “Certain politicians and a chunk of the city’s establishment are not listening. Who are you listening to? Grover Norquist? The Chamber of Commerce? The Wall Street Journal editorial page? They’re all powerful forces, but that goes against the concerns of the people who live here. What we’re hearing from you is the kind of rhetoric we hear from Republicans.” And, like the fate of the national budget fight, the ability of local progressive groups to effectively organize will not only determine the outcome of this one local budget, but become a symbol of what’s needed to get even Democratic cities and states to serve people in need, not just corporations. ********************************** This article is updated from a piece that originally appeared on the Truthout.org website.

Read the full article →

Healthcare Costs Double In Less Than A Decade

May 16, 2011

U.S. healthcare is so expensive that records are broken even when cost increases slow. According to a new report by Milliman , a global consulting and actuarial firm, the total cost of healthcare for the average family of four, if covered by a preferred provider organization, is now a now a record $19,393. That might be only 7.3 percent higher than last year’s average cost of $18.074, which is the smallest year-over-year increase in almost a decade. But it’s also the highest year-over-year increase in total dollars spent per family at $1,319. Trends over the last decade more completely illustrate the toll taken on the average American by rising healthcare costs. “In 2002, American families had healthcare costs of $9,235, and those costs have now doubled in fewer than nine years,” said Lorraine Mayne, Milliman principal and consulting actuary, in a press release. “As costs continue to grow — and even as the cost trend decelerates — the total cost of care for American families constitutes a larger and larger portion of the household budget.” Of that $1,319 increase, employers were paid for 48.6 percent of the increase, while the additional 51.6 percent was the responsibility of employees. That’s only slightly different from trends of the last five years. Over that period, employers have absorbed $3,023 in additional healthcare costs, employees themselves absorbing only slightly less, at $2,988. Take away costs paid by employers, and the employee’s share of costs has still doubled. In 2010, the average employee paid $8,008 for his family’s healthcare, up from $3,634 in 2002.

Read the full article →

As Flood’s Path Widens, A Treasured Local Market Goes Under

May 16, 2011

YAZOO CITY, Miss. – At the far end of this sleepy town with Magnolia-lined streets, Hines Grocery has served up heaping plates of smoked pork ribs and homemade sausages for more than a quarter century. It’s the domain of John Hines, 72, and his wife, Eva, who live within eyesight of the wood-paneled meat market. Just down the two-lane highway is their “hog parlor,” where the pigs are raised and fed to supply fresh meat for customers. As of Saturday, the store and the parlor were beneath several feet of river water. The hogs were shipped away to higher ground, and after nearly 30 years of business, the family may be closing up shop for good. “It’s just bad news all around,” said John Hines, sitting on the back of his pickup truck, eyeing the lake across from his house that two days ago was a dry cotton field. “Everything we worked for over the years is going to get wet.” Saturday evening was the first night he and his wife were forced to stay elsewhere. The utility company cut the power to their house. And water from the swollen Yazoo River was lapping at their back porch, bringing logs and debris from miles away into the yard. “We woke up, saw the water and said, ‘It’s time to go,’” Eva Hines said. For now, they’re staying with their son-in-law’s family. But they’re looking for a place to rent on higher ground, as it could be more than a month before the floodwaters begin to recede. The crest of the Mississippi River is supposed to reach Vicksburg, Miss., on Thursday. That’s where the Yazoo River normally feeds in. But the historically high Mississippi has forced smaller tributaries like the Yazoo to essentially flow backwards, spilling over into farmland and low-lying neighborhoods. ( CLICK HERE to see photos of the flooding along the Mississippi ) The fertile, sun-splashed farmlands of Yazoo County have quickly begun to resemble a sea, crisscrossed with an occasional road. Driving around this section of the Delta is a frustrating endeavor, as roads that were open half an hour ago can close on a whim. The Hines home is on a road marked “closed,” as is the grocery store. On Sunday, the couple was enjoying the final few hours before the house and all roads leading to it were submerged. “We’re going to pack up a few more things in the truck and then get to high ground,” John Hines said. “We don’t know what’s next. One day at a time.” Unlike a tornado or a hurricane, which can destroy everything in a split-second, this kind of disaster plays out in slow motion. Excruciatingly slow motion. A few friends drove by on Sunday to check on the couple. “Just watching the water rise,” John Hines said. “It’s almost like watching paint dry.” The submerged Hines Grocery Hines has been a cotton and soybean farmer most of his life. Up until four years ago he still tended to the fields across the road from his home and near where he kept the hogs. But when he first bought his home on the outskirts of Yazoo City in the mid-1980s, he and his wife noticed the abandoned hog stables down the highway nearby. “We decided we might kill a few of them hogs and see if we could sell ‘em,” he said. That grew into the grocery business that has become a favorite among locals, specializing in a range of meats, from smoked pork to deer sausage. All the work is done on site: the meat is processed and smoked in the back of the store. Locals rave about the lunch specials: pork chops on Tuesday; smoked ribs on Friday. “That’s about the best place to eat anywhere around here,” said farmer Zack Killebrew, who works the fields just behind the store and reflected on lunches of ham and pulled pork. Now the store is essentially gutted. The stainless steel cutting machines, tables and dishes are all sitting in an eighteen-wheeler in the Hines’ church parking lot, up in the hills of Yazoo City. “Twenty-five years of it, all in that trailer,” Eva Hines reflected. “We’ve just got to refocus now.” As local spectators drove the near-flooded highways, snapping pictures and video of land giving way to water, John Hines took a seat on the gate of his pick-up truck, while his wife reclined in a lawn chair. “We’ll just sit here and watch the water rise,” he said.

Read the full article →

2011 College Grads Moving Home In Record Numbers, Saddled With Historic Levels Of Student Loan Debt

May 13, 2011

NEW YORK — While one’s college graduation is normally a time of jubilation, Megan Muller can more than relate to the sense of defeat that now hangs over the class of 2011. Muller, 26, graduated from Kean University in Union, N.J., yesterday with a bachelor’s degree in communication. She is the first person in her family to graduate from college. Like many graduates, she’s now faced with the larger worry of living back at home while also paying down vast amounts of debt. All along, money’s been a chronic source of anxiety. In order to finish, Muller took out more than $70,000 in student loans and has another $10,000 in credit card debt. Midway through college, after transferring and taking a few semesters off, Muller moved back in with her parents in order to save money. And until she can move out and find her own place, it’s the credit cards she must first pay down — in addition to beginning repayments on her student loans. “Trust me, you don’t want to be 26 and still living at home with your parents,” explains Muller, who, daunted by the expense of college, struggled with whether to finish at all. She currently makes about $25,000 as an assistant editor at Federal Practitioner , a peer-reviewed medical journal. Muller is hardly alone in her ongoing quest to establish an independent life. In addition to the normal job worries, the class of 2011 is saddled with a dual set of other obligations: moving home and paying back debt . A study conducted by Twentysomething Inc., a consultant firm specializing in young adults, reports that 85 percent of this year’s graduating class will be forced to move back home . Meanwhile, 2011 graduates also face historic amounts of student loan debt — or an average of $27,200 for graduates that borrowed money in order to finish school. “We tell people they need to get a college education in order to succeed, but then we put all of these roadblocks in their way by then making it practically impossible to repay what you owe,” says Michael D. Hais, who, along with Morley Winograd, coauthored the forthcoming book “Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America.” The two men describe the number of 20-somethings moving home as “historically unprecedented.” Andrew Sum, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, couldn’t agree more. “This is our country and this is our future and we’re failing them,” says Sum, who reports a record number of 2011 graduates returning home to their parents’ nest. As a consequence, Sum sees young graduates not only delaying the formation of their own households, but consequently unable to achieve a desirable standard of living. Apart from the longer-term consequences associated with moving home, Sum’s data reveals another concern altogether. Namely, that young people face high amounts of debt and a lack of decent jobs. Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sum reports that as many as 50 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 are underutilized, meaning they’re either working no job at all, working a part-time job or working a job outside of the college labor market — say, as a barista or a bartender. Mark Kantrowitz, who came up with the $27,200 figure based on the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and publishes the financial aid sites Fastweb.com and FinAid.org , is concerned that debt at graduation is outpacing starting salaries. It’s a worry that Muller and many of her classmates also share. Going to school while working full-time required that Muller learn to survive on fewer and fewer hours of sleep. Coffee became her fuel. Name the job — whether working as a nanny, as a waitress, behind the counter at a beauty supply store or at the front desk of her local gym — and she’s done it. And while Muller realizes she’s fortunate to have a job, her paycheck is hardly enough to repay her existing debt while she saves to get her own place. Meanwhile, Muller is toying with whether to go into more debt in order to finance a graduate degree, hoping that more qualifications might lead to a bigger paycheck. “But so what if I’m $100,000 in debt and living in a smaller house and not able to afford the nicest clothes?” asks Muller, whose to-do list remains longer than her shopping list, despite yesterday’s high of finally receiving her diploma. “One day, it’s all going to pay off.”

Read the full article →

Using Technology to Make Better Real Estate Decisions

May 12, 2011

Drive Times Technology has taken a giant leap forward the last few years by expanding the traditional tool of demographic research into an analysis of lifestyles and consumer spendin read more

Read the full article →

Penny Herscher: What Women Want: To Make Money!

May 11, 2011

In a world where women still make less money than men for the same job, iVillage and Today.com have released a survey that shows — shock horror — that salary is the most important criteria for a woman choosing a job. “97% of working moms surveyed saying that salary is most important to them, followed by a family-friendly work environment (91%), job enjoyment (91%), flexible hours (86%), a short commute (83%) and health insurance for the family (81%)”. Why is this news? The report attributes this to “today’s fragile economy” and this is infuriating. Women are equal in the workplace and, like men, are ambitious, want to make money and want to grow their careers. The desire to make money has nothing to do with the “fragile economy” and everything to do with professional women finally coming of age. Why do women continue to perpetuate the worldview that women are not as mercenary and tough as men? Lisa Barone of Outspoken Media wrote a hilarious “Letter to Women in Tech, I Let You Down” where she writes that she never got the memo to be meek and weak. The perpetuation of the concept that we are in any way less able or less ambitious is women hurting women for no good reason at all. I certainly never thought for a moment that I would not succeed, make equal money, run the meeting, set the strategy, lead the company — why wouldn’t I? Because I don’t have a Y-chromosome? Seriously? It is true women have to work hard. In our society they still do the majority of the household chores. As the iVillage survey reports “All moms, whether they are working or not, continue to be responsible for the majority of the household chores. In two-thirds of dual working families, moms are responsible for 75% or more of all the household chores, with 97% of those surveyed responsible for half or more of the duties in the house.” Yes, a harsh side effect of the aforesaid missing Y-chromosome today but get over it ladies. Like breastfeeding in the middle of the night there are some things that are not going to change in our generation so the best strategy is deal with it, let the dust bunnies build up and, when you can, pay for extra help around the house. Yes I had moments of guilt building my career but I want to be a role model to my daughter and every other nerdy, techy young woman out there that they can be anything they want to be — and yes still be happy and have a family. Technology is a fantastic place to grow your career as a woman because, in the end, all that really matters is how smart you are when you are designing systems and writing code. We must help young women keep going and get all the way to the top. Women are still scarce as CEOs (especially in tech!) and in the board rooms which are still Male, Pale and Stale — as reported by BNET and Catalyst — and this is a direct result of the low numbers of women in the top jobs. There are enough women at the top now to show young women coming up that there Are No Limits. I refuse to apologize for being an equal member of society and for wanting the same opportunity as any man. I expect to compete — I’d want no less. I watch men compete hard and ferociously for advancement and so should we. And when we win it’s not news. It’s equality.

Read the full article →

Celebrated Entrepreneur and Philanthropist Red McCombs Named to the Board of Directors of Cinsay, Inc. Following a Significant Equity Investment in Austin-Based eCommerce Technology Developer

May 10, 2011

AUSTIN, TX–(Marketwire – May 10, 2011) – Celebrated Texas businessman, philanthropist and sports team owner Red McCombs has joined the Board of Directors of Cinsay, Inc., the Austin-based new technology company whose proprietary portable web-based video player eCommerce platform has attracted agreements with a wide range of national and international business brands. McCombs’ appointment to the Cinsay, Inc. Board of Directors comes following a strategic investment in the company by McCombs Family Partners. The announcement was made by Christian Briggs, Cinsay Founder and Chairman of the Board.

Read the full article →

Dr. Sasha Galbraith: The Wage Gap Plot Thickens

May 9, 2011

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal blatantly states that there is “no male-female wage gap.” Among other things, the author, Carrie Lukas (executive director of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum ), points out that women work an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, versus men, who work 44.4 minutes longer each day. This difference, she says, explains over one third of that wage gap. Really? This just goes to show, statistics can be misleading. While often useful, they are also great at hiding a multitude of evils, as well as giving us nonsense. Take, for example, the fact that rich families spend more on groceries than poor families. So what? I guess then, the extra hours that women put in at home in unpaid family, elder and household care count for nothing in that wage gap. In fact, Lukas cites one group of people — single, childless urban female workers between the ages of 22 and 30 — who earn 8 percent more than similar men. And that’s my point exactly! According to a University of Michigan study of U.S. families, married women with three kids or more logged an average of 28 hours of housework per week. Compare that to the 10 hours per week put in by their spouses. In fact, getting married creates seven hours per week more (unpaid) work for the wife. Fine, you say, most married women with loads of kids don’t work full-time outside the home. True. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , 43 percent of married mothers work full-time outside the home, about half the ratio of married fathers. But among married fathers and mothers who work, women spend twice as much time on housework (two hours per day) than men. Why should we care if people work for no pay? Because ignoring unpaid work distorts our Gross Domestic Product and the assessment of our national living standards. If a mother goes into the paid workforce, she has to arrange for someone to take care of the kids. In some cases, it might be a relative who probably will do this work for free, or it might be a childcare center for which she has to pay. Similarly, the family will probably have to pay someone else to clean the house and cook meals (restaurants and take-out services). While all those paid services count toward the GDP, they also overstate the implied benefits to our standard of living — which is usually assumed to track with the rise of GDP. Why should we care if women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job? Because women invest their earnings differently than do men. According to a UNICEF report , women spend more money on the education, health and welfare of their families. This, in turn, benefits the economic well-being of the country as a whole. If women were paid the same as men, the U.S. GDP would be 9 percent higher (and Europe’s would increase by 13 percent, according to a UN report ). I’ve often wondered what would happen if all the women in the world decided not to do any of their unpaid work for a day. Oh wait, I think that’s called Mother’s Day. Happy Mother’s Day, ladies. Crossposted from Forbes.com .

Read the full article →

‘Giving Pledge’ Billionaires Gather For First In-Person Meeting

May 9, 2011

What do dozens of American billionaires talk about when they get together? Their topic this week was of course money; not how to make it, but how to give it away. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Friday that a private gathering was a great chance for the billionaires who have pledged to give away at least half their wealth to meet each other, compare notes, eat and laugh. The media was banned from Thursday’s first meeting of the group that has accepted the giving challenge by Buffett and his friend Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. Since last June, 69 individuals or couples have made the giving pledge. Buffett knew only about 12 of the 61 people at the dinner at the Miraval Resort in Tucson before the famously gregarious Berkshire Hathaway CEO worked the room and made 40 new friends. “They all more than fulfilled my expectations,” Buffett told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said she was delighted by the openness of the virtual strangers. At one point, conversation at her table drifted toward the biggest mistakes people had ever made as philanthropists. “One of the things about being a philanthropist, in many ways it’s rather a lonely job,” said Tashia Morgridge, a retired special education teacher. She works with her husband, Cisco Systems chairman John Morgridge, to give money to improve U.S. education through the Denver-based Morgridge Family Foundation. George Kaiser, a Tulsa, Okla., philanthropist who aids early childhood education and social services programs, said the giving pledge helps philanthropists who don’t want to just throw money at causes and instead want to explore the best ways to invest money to tackle the world’s biggest problems. “Being able to share with other people who are agonizing about the same decisions is extraordinarily useful,” said Kaiser, the chairman of BOK Financial Corp who has been an oil and gas industry executive for four decades. He led a session on applying analytical business practices to philanthropy. The goals of the organization do not include working together to pool philanthropic dollars. Still, the meeting in Tucson that ended Friday included sessions where different philanthropists shared their passion to improve education, the environment and other causes. Philosophies of giving and ideas for collaboration among the billionaires were also shared throughout the event, said Jean Case, CEO of the family foundation started by her and her husband, America Online founder Steve Case. “There’s a strong desire in this group to learn from each other,” said Jean Case, who offered to host the event at their Tucson resort after Melinda Gates talked to her about the possibility of the meeting. The mother of five children also led a session on children and families in philanthropy. Steve Case gave a talk on using social media to encourage giving. All the sessions at the meeting were led by members of the group. Some common themes emerged from the event. The participants are looking to do more impactful, more effective philanthropy and to inspire average people to give money away, Jean Case said. Sharing ideas about giving also took place informally. Melinda Gates said she talked to two people who were devoting money for work on state pension issues and criminal justice – problems Gates had previously not thought about. Chuck Feeney, a New Jersey philanthropist Buffett called the spiritual leader of the group, spoke about his plans to give all his money to charity. “He wants his last check to bounce,” Buffett said. ____ Online: The Giving Pledge: http://givingpledge.org/

Read the full article →

Optimism In Decline: Hope For 20-Somethings Hits Historic Low

May 4, 2011

NEW YORK — Noelle Aldrich never planned on moving back in with her parents after graduating from college. Aldrich will graduate from Oklahoma Baptist University next Friday. Once the ceremony is over and her mother and sister board a plane home to Claremont, N.H., she and her father will make the return trip by car, with all of her belongings nestled in the backseat. Aldrich, 21, considers herself to be a consummate planner. Possibly more unnerving than anything else, she says, is the lack of knowing what comes next. “It’s going to take me years to ever make what my dad makes now,” said Aldrich, who wants to work as an elementary school teacher, but has yet to find a job. “Eventually I hope I’ll get there.” Aldrich is hardly the only 20-something questioning whether or not she’ll be able to build a better life than her parents. For nearly three decades, pollsters have been asking, Will today’s youth have a better life than their parents’ generation? According to a recent Gallup poll , for the first time in the history, a majority of Americans now believe that today’s youth will unlikely achieve the same standard of living as their parents. Since 1983, polling organizations have posed the same question : “In America, each generation has tried to have a better life than their parents, with a better living standard, better homes, a better education, and so on. How likely do you think it is that today’s youth will have a better life than their parents — very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?” In Gallup’s April poll, only 44 percent answered in the affirmative . The survey broke down respondents according to age. While 57 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds thought today’s youth would have a better future than their parents, optimism waned as respondents got older. For instance, only 37 percent of those 65 and older shared the same sense of possibility. Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old president of Our Time , a national membership organization for Americans under 30 which has about 300,000 members and grows by 2,000 members each week, sees a different story in the results. He thinks that many members of his generation still believe in the social and upward mobility associated with the American Dream. “Something that is unique and that we’re still trying to figure out is in light of war, in light of a terrible recession and in light of staggering student loan debt, is why we still have this lingering sense of optimism that things will get better,” Segal said. Still, Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, doesn’t see 57 percent as a reason to be overly sanguine. “You’d hope, as a country that believes in the American Dream, that those numbers for young people would really be a lot higher,” said Sum. “We don’t want them walking around with a rain cloud over their head, but when this many don’t think they can meet mom and dad’s standard of living, we should be concerned.” Sum referenced a poll released in April by AP-Viacom of Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, which indicated that young people are skeptical about the notion that life would necessarily improve with each generation. It reported that four in 10 predicted it would be difficult to raise a family and afford the lifestyle they desired. But the same poll also found that in the face of such odds, 90 percent anticipated finding careers that would bring them happiness. For the time being, Aldrich, who owes about $50,000 in student loans, is doing her best to remain positive. She is willing to relocate to whichever state will offer her a teaching job and has a color-coded map of cities where she either knows people or states that offer loan forgiveness for individuals that elect low-paying professions. While neither of her parents went to college, her family as always viewed higher education as a ticket to a better life. Her father works as a safety director at a custom cabinetry business; her mother is a receptionist at the same company. “It’s not that I don’t think my parents led a great life, but they’ve always instilled in me the notion that I should have bigger and better things than they had,” said Aldrich, adding that “it’s not about extra comforts. I just want financial security.”

Read the full article →

Why Getting A Job Could Mean The End Of Your Marriage

May 4, 2011

When Penn State sociology professors Paul Amato and Brett Beattie began studying the repercussions of unemployment on marriage in the aftermath of the Great Recession, they expected to find that joblessness destabilizes marriage. But, after analyzing data from all 50 states between 1960 and 2005, Amato and Beattie were surprised. Prior to 1980, when unemployment numbers spiked, divorce followed suit. But, since the 1980s, when unemployment rates have risen, divorce rates have dropped. In March 2007, before the bubble burst, 4.6 percent of the labor force was unemployed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Three years later, the unemployment rate jumped to 10.2 percent. Divorce, on the other hand, decreased by 1.4 percent between 2007 and 2008, according to the report, and then by another 2.8 percent between 2008 and 2009. While these results could indicate that couples pull together in times of crisis , experts are less sure. “Since the 1980s, the standard of living for, not single people, but married couples has gone up substantially,” Amato said. Family homes have increased in size, cars per household are on the rise and the steady integration of women in the workforce has added an extra income to the family pot. “Some research has shown that even though standards of living have increased, their satisfaction hasn’t increased at all,” Amato continued, speculating that divorce decreases when unemployment rates climb because couples are not ready to give up their standard of living by having to pay for one extra household with one less salary. “They wait; they put it off,” he said. Laurel Starks , a realtor who specializes in property of divorced couples, says that divvying up a family home is difficult enough when dealing with a dual income couple, let alone when one client is unemployed. She recalled an incident where a woman tried to sabotage the sale of her family home by stealing all the light fixtures and telling potential buyers she would squat at the house until evicted. “It used to be that there was equity in the house or that [couples] had good credit or one spouse could easily buy out the other, but now that the housing crisis has come crashing down … options have become much more limited,” Starks said. “People across the board delay divorce; I see more people living together … trying to stretch it out as long as they can.” In fact, couples who are separated emotionally but not physically, or “upstairs/downstairs” couples who are estranged but share the same house, is a growing phenomenon. Elinor Robin, a divorce mediator who works out of Boca Raton, FL, has had numerous clients live together — in homes where the house’s debt is often larger than its value — while contemplating divorce. “This is a different kind of unemployment than in the past because unemployment means you might not be working in a year,” Robin said. “We see a lot of people who are still living together, and one reason is that when house is in foreclosure they can stay in it easily for three years. It’s going through a lengthy process and this is free.” Unemployment poses many other issues for a couple that hopes to divorce, noted Linda Lea Viken, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). Many can’t afford to hire a lawyer, for example. “In 2008, 24 percent of our fellows saw a reduction in the divorce numbers, and it was up to 51 percent who saw a reduction in 2009,” Viken said. But there’s no need to worry. As the economy seems to be improving, divorce looks to be on a rebound , according to NPR. As the economy bounces back , Vikens reports that the members of the AAML are reporting that they are starting to get more business. “[Divorce is] coming back and circling around,” Vikens said.

Read the full article →

Local Splash Welcomes New Director of Customer Service

April 28, 2011

Andrea Beidl Joins the Local Splash Family as Director of Customer Service

Read the full article →

Madoff Chronicler Discusses The Mind Of America’s Most Notorious Swindler

April 26, 2011

Perhaps the only individual more qualified than veteran New York Times financial reporter Diana Henriques to write the book on Bernard Madoff’s epic Ponzi scheme is Madoff himself. Hardly a stranger to the devastation wrought by white-collar crime, Henriques covered the Enron aftermath and a host of financial misdeeds and foul-ups and twice has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Henriques was born in Texas, grew up in Virginia and has lived in Hoboken, N.J. with her husband since 1988. Over tea in the study of her Hoboken brownstone, she discussed her experience writing “ The Wizard of Lies .” She said the book, for which she interviewed over 100 sources, was the most difficult project she’s ever undertaken. Unflinchingly cordial, Henriques speaks with a measured, authoritative tone, occasionally pausing to contemplate her answers. Every now and then, for a fleeting syllable or two, the remnants of a southern accent make their presence known. In “Wizard of Lies,” out today , she describes her prison meetings with the disgraced financier in detail, identifying what she calls the “Madoff magic,” and attempts to uncover what Madoff’s wife Ruth and his two sons knew about his decades-old scheme. She said the family made characters “straight out of Shakespeare.” You were the first reporter to visit Madoff at Butner Federal Correctional Complex and interview him face-to-face. I was. The Financial Times reporters visited him in March, but I was the first. It took about 18 months to set it up. Tell me about how you got the interview. Well, I started asking for the interview when he was at MCC [Metropolitan Correctional Center] in Manhattan, right after he pleaded guilty. I had a mailing address for him. I wrote him my first letter requesting it and I just kept after it. Note to young reporters: never give up. I kept asking and then he was moved to North Carolina, and I kept asking again. I didn’t even get an answer back for months. Then, I got a letter in September ’09, handwritten from the prison, full of flattery, saying that he’d followed my career, admired my professionalism — all this stuff. He wasn’t free to talk right now, he said. But when he was, I would be at the top of his list. So I folded that up and continued research on the book, assuming I was going to have to write this book without Bernie Madoff. So I interviewed everybody in the world that I could. Finally, in the early summer of 2010, his lawyer reached out and suggested to me that it was looking a little more promising that he would talk to me. He eventually agreed and then it took a month to get the prison paperwork done because the warden has to approve any media visit. Eventually the warden approved it; I got a call that gave me six days notice to be down there on the particular day. That was in August 2010 and that was my first visit. It was a little over two hours and I still had pages of questions. And he volunteered — he said, “Write them out and I’ll answer them by letter.” And he did. I exchanged letters and then emails and a phone call or two between that visit and my visit in February, which was my second visit. And we continue to trade emails. I just got one from him yesterday. Have you given him an advance copy of the book? No. So he has no idea. He hasn’t seen it yet. And do you expect that he’ll read it? He says he wants to. He’s asked if the publisher can ship him one. They have restrictions in prison on what they can receive through the mail. But he certainly wants to get one. He didn’t like the title, though. He did tell me after the interview in February he thought the title was “too sensationalistic.” [Laughs] Come on? A Times reporter sensationalizing the title? I didn’t pick the title, but, you know, we changed the title actually, after the first visit. It was originally going to be called “A World of Lies” to reflect this global Ponzi scheme, this web that he had stretched from Palm Beach to the Persian Gulf. But after I visited him that first time and really got a taste of the Madoff magic, and began to see how he tried to manipulate people and how he dealt with selling his story, it was clear to me and my editor that he belonged at the center of the title, because he kind of shifted the center of gravity for the book. So that’s when we changed the title to “The Wizard of Lies.” And once I heard it, I knew it was the right one. I like it even if he doesn’t. How did he strike you at first as a human being? Well, I had known him slightly, before he was arrested. He had been a middling prominent figure in a topic I covered for the Times back in the 1990s, when stock exchanges were going through this great upheaval, similar to what newspapers are going through now — where technology was radically changing the way of doing business, the cost of doing business. And Madoff was quite visionary and quite a pioneer in the effort to computerize stock trading. And I covered a number of conferences where he was on the panel or he was a keynote speaker. I talked to him. I got to know his firm because they were pioneers in after-hours trading. When he was first arrested, the name instantly rang a bell with me and I immediately went to the [ Times ] business editor and said, “We’ve got something big here. Bernie Madoff’s just been arrested for fraud.” So, I knew him before. And then I thought of him as a very down-to-earth, plainspoken, very approachable person. A typical trader, a typical roll-up-your-sleeves, up-from-the-neighborhood kind of guy. When I first met him in prison, my first impression was how polished he had become since I had known him 15 years earlier, even in his prison uniform. Every crease is crisp, every button is buttoned. His belt is shiny, his shoes gleam. Very much the dandy, even in prison. And very much in control of our conversation. He had a very engaging, low-key style. Never took his eyes off of me. [He] leaned forward and was very interested in everything I had to say. A few little jokes, a little bit of flattery. But very much on-message. When I saw him the second time, after his son’s suicide, I was stunned at the change in him. From across the room, I would not have recognized him as the same man. So much thinner. In fact, the uniform involves one of the those web belts and he had the belt pulled so tight that the end of it was folded under to keep it from flopping. One of his buttons on his shirt was undone and he didn’t notice it until about halfway through. He buttoned it up. This had been an immaculately groomed, crisp, confident man back in August. In February, he seemed to holding on to his control with both hands. Fiercely. No jokes. No humor. Barely a smile. And this was two months after his son’s suicide. He was clearly devastated by that. I want to come back to that, but you mentioned a minute ago the “Madoff magic.” Can you elaborate on that? Is he a charming guy? You know, he isn’t. And that makes him a very unusual Ponzi schemer. I’ve covered at least half a dozen Ponzi schemers during my career. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them around. Nothing on this scale, of course. But they are typically bon vivant, swashbuckling, charismatic guys. They’re the guy over in the corner telling the funny stories that everybody wants to hear. Madoff was never the most charming man in the room. But, he could make you feel like you were the most charming person in the room. That was the magic. He could reflect back on you a very attractive image of yourself that made you feel good. I felt it. I’m sitting there interviewing him in this prison and I’m feeling like I’m one of the best reporters he’s ever known. He bounces it back — that feeling of, “Oh, you’re so interesting, you’re so competent, you’re so professional.” It’s an amazing gift. And I’ve never before met a Ponzi schemer who’s so low-key in terms of his gregariousness and yet able to sprinkle that pixie dust on you and make you feel like, suddenly, you were so special. It’s an amazing gift. And he is so believable. I did not ask him to grant me an exclusive interview. But when he asked that the interview in August and emails and conversations be embargoed for use in the book, and his lawyer explained why, I agreed to that. But I also explained to him that an embargo is a two-way street. If he broke it, then I’m off the hook. He repeatedly assured me that he would not talk to any other reporters, that he would not let any other interviews get ahead of my book. Well, of course he was lying. But you know, he had me for just a little while. Here I know he’s the biggest liar in North America, but for just a little while, I said, “Phew, there’s one less thing I have to worry about. Good. That’s fantastic. Thank you, Bernie!” And, of course, it wasn’t true and I realized the next morning, you wake up and say, “Oh yeah, that’s Bernie Madoff giving me this promise. I can’t rely on it too heavily.” He is a fascinating character. Do you like him? Did you find that you built a rapport with him after the meetings and emails and phone calls? No, I did not. To be candid, he frightened me a little because he was so unpredictable and so untrustworthy. Absolutely no predictability. And he’s extremely intense. When he seizes on a topic, it’s hard to pry him away. But, I didn’t expect to like him. It was relatively easy to work with him, but I was always uneasy about it because he was so unpredictable and untrustworthy. I owe it to him to say that he’s an extremely bright man, he’s extremely intelligent. So there’s a level at which you can converse with him about things that is satisfying. He knows an enormous amount about financial history, which is one of my favorite topics, so we had that in common. He is smart and engaging to talk to. On that level, I felt we found a little common ground. But just in terms of dealing with him as a human being, [there was] something uncomfortable about him. Were you able to interview any of his immediate family members — Ruth and his kids — for the book? Everyone I interviewed on the record is identified by name in the book. People who are not identified by name in the book — and the immediate family members are not — either did not talk to me or spoke with me in confidence and it would not be fair to either group to start playing guessing games like that. But my research about the family was pretty intense and pretty broad. And I feel confident that I have a fairly clear picture of the family dynamics. There’s no doubt the family has been shattered by this crime. It’s almost a blinding glimpse of the obvious to say so. Madoff’s sons were deeply upset that Ruth did not walk out on him. I worked very hard to try to understand, through as many confidential sources as I could, why she didn’t go. And I asked Madoff himself why she stayed. That’s the one point in the first interview where he broke down and cried. And I do think it was genuine. He didn’t even have a Kleenex with him. His lawyer had to find some little paper napkins in the snack bar area. But he said all her friends told her she should leave, which I knew to be true. He told her she should leave, that she didn’t have to stay. As the firestorm of criticism and vitriol was growing, he could see that it was hurting her to stay with him. But she would not walk out on him. And, as I understand it, how she has explained it, is that she had a love affair with this man for 50 years and she just felt she couldn’t abandon him at this time of his near destruction. You know Larry and I have been married for 42 years and I can sort of understand it. I don’t think younger couples can. She met and fell in love with Bernie when she was 13 years old. He was a lifeguard, she wasn’t even in high school yet. Pretty girl. And he was handsome, sun-bleached hair. She fell in love the first time she met him and married him at 18. You have to keep that in mind when you weigh the decisions she made after his arrest. It was a lifelong love affair. Everybody who knew them agreed that they were still like sweethearts. One person said that the only person who thought more of Bernie than Ruth was Bernie. She really worshipped him. Do you believe the story that she had no idea about the Ponzi scheme? I do. What about his sons? I do not believe they knew and I explain in the book my reasoning. My goal with “The Wizard of Lies” was to assemble the available evidence, offer my analysis of it and let the reader make the decision. My starting point was: innocent until proven guilty. Fairness requires that. And then as a reporter, I began looking for the evidence that would change that verdict, if you will. I couldn’t find it. I couldn’t find one victim that could ever remember talking to Ruth, Mark or Andrew about their investments. And there are some pretty strong and, to me, convincing bits of evidence that argue in the opposite direction. For example, Frank DiPasquale, Madoff’s key lieutenant, is facing a 125-year sentence, having pleaded guilty. He has given grand jury testimony that has resulted in five indictments of people who worked at the firm, none of them are Madoff family members. None of the employees who have been indicted have made any move to try to get leniency or to cut a deal to make a plea bargain by providing evidence implicating the Madoff family members. But even more telling to me, there’s a scene in the book where Bernie is notifying Ruth, Mark and Andrew that it’s all falling apart, that the firm in insolvent, that he is ruined, that it is all a fraud. Now, if they’re his accomplices, what happens next? They pack their bags, they empty the bank accounts, they take the keys to the private jet, they fly off to the ocean-going yacht in the Mediterranean and they wind up in some country with no extradition treaty with the United States and live the life of the comfortable fugitive. I mean, it’s worked for [indicted commodities trader] Marc Rich for decades. That didn’t happen. They had the means to flee. They had the time to flee. And if they were his accomplices, they certainly had the motive to flee. Nobody fled. That’s pretty telling to me. After he confessed to his sons and his wife, they acted like people who suddenly learned they were financially ruined. They did not act like people who expected to be arrested and locked up for the rest of their lives any minute. And if they were his accomplices, it’s hard to believe that would not have been their fear. Frank DiPasquale was in a lawyer’s office within less than 24 hours of Madoff’s arrest. Everybody on the staff was hiring lawyers and looking out for themselves. The reader will make their own decisions. I could not find any convincing evidence, really almost no evidence at all, that they knew. I pored through every lawsuit that’s been filed against them, both by the Madoff trustee and by the private litigants. There’s not an email, not a conversation, there’s nothing presented in any of that litigation that casts any doubt on them at all. My conclusion is the odds-on likelihood is that they didn’t know. How does that speak to the pressure he was under, not being able to share the secret with his wife, his kids, who worked for him? Did you sense a really strong individual when speaking with him? He is a strong-minded man. Even after Mark’s death, in the first few emails we exchanged, there was no mention of it. There were things he wanted to talk to me about, questions he wanted answered, research he wanted me to do about something he remembered reading that he thought was significant for his case. He’s operating on this completely cerebral level and only about the third email after Mark’s death did he even acknowledge that I’d sent a condolence note. He is what psychiatrists call a very well-defended mind. He has defended himself against that which with he cannot cope. I think that defense — his ability to lock things away and not acknowledge them — which I’ve seen dealing with him in prison, is the same quality that enabled him to live with what he was doing on a daily basis. Were you able to interview Harry Markopolos, who repeatedly tried to notify the SEC that something was up with Madoff. I know Harry. In fact, I attended Harry’s book party when his book came out. Harry was helpful to my research. I think that’s as much as I can say. After being brushed off by the SEC many times, why do you think he didn’t seek out a reporter? Or did he? It’s a wonderful question and I put it to his lawyer and everyone who knew him. It almost seems like you’d want to do something like that just to stick it to the SEC for rebuffing him so many times. There are any number of places that might’ve taken his accusations, if acted on. But he didn’t, and I have never found his explanations particularly satisfying. He claimed that he and his investigative friends were in fear for their lives. That Madoff had so much to lose that he would think nothing of snuffing them out in order to avoid detection. And yet he kept reporting this allegedly murderous criminal to a civil regulatory agency that doesn’t even carry handcuffs. The explanations never made any sense to me. He publicly acknowledges that he’s a failed whistleblower. What’s the state of the SEC today? Have they improved since the Madoff scandal broke? Certainly they’ve addressed many of the management problems that the Madoff case exposed. It’s a much flatter management pyramid. More boots on the ground, fewer people behind desks. They have recruited some very impressive talent. Trying to hire top-flight accountants, forensic lawyers and investment experts at a time when the economy is so bad is pretty easy. They were able to pull in some talent they might not have been able to get in an earlier age. They have really amplified their technology, their computer analysis, their ability to use data analysis. They certainly have become far more aggressive about the cases they’re taking on. If you look at the cases they’ve brought in the two years since Madoff, look at who’s been sued and settled: Goldman Sachs, UBS — I could go on and on. I think the foundation is there to rebuild, but the SEC wasn’t undermined in a day and it won’t be rebuilt in a day. It’s going to be a process that’s going to take time and continued budget commitment. And that’s what I’m not sure we’re seeing — a continued commitment by Congress to provide the SEC with the money everyone thought it should have in the aftermath of the financial meltdown and the Madoff scandal. Stay tuned to see whether the promises of reform at the SEC get financed. Do you think there’s another similar type of fraud out there the SEC doesn’t know about, but is kind of under their nose like Madoff was? I would be surprised for this reason: A whistleblower like Harry Markopolos knocking on the door of any SEC office in this country today is going to get a very different reception. One of the things the SEC did was to completely revamp how it deals with incoming tips, whistleblowers, anonymous letters. It has created a new structure for incoming tips and whistleblowers so that they don’t get lost and don’t fall off the table. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I can guarantee you that there is another Ponzi scheme out there that we haven’t heard about yet. Ponzi schemes are, to me, one of the most fascinating crimes on Wall Street, one of the most fascinating financial crimes that there is. The air they breathe is trust. A Ponzi scheme cannot grow in an environment that’s devoid of trust. Nothing else can either, so in order to eliminate Ponzi schemes, you’d have to create a world completely devoid of trust. And when you’ve got a world like that, number one, none of us wants to live in it. And, number two: You can’t run a modern economy without a minimal level of trust. But that level of trust is exactly the level of trust a Ponzi schemer needs to get away with it. Now, Ponzi schemes are a peculiar crime in that you don’t feel any pain until the very end. I think the Madoff story introduces a new species of Ponzi scheme. Traditionally, we’ve thought of Ponzi schemes as the classic, too-good-to-be-true fraud. Fifty percent returns a month. Double your money in 10 days. The classic Ponzi scheme, all the way back to the first one in the 1920s, appealed to our greed. The get-rich-quick itch. The Madoff scheme did not appeal to people’s greed; it appealed to their fear. Through most of the Madoff scam, you could’ve made more money somewhere else. There were years when the Magellan Fund at Fidelity was producing much better results that Madoff’s investors were getting. It wasn’t that they were greedy: He was so consistent. He was so safe. They felt safe with Bernie in an increasingly volatile, scary, complicated market. If a Ponzi scheme appeals to your greed, a Madoff scheme appeals to your fears. I can’t tell you how many people told me, “He made me feel safe.” Those are the kinds of frauds I worry we’re going to see more of. Should the SEC just hire Bernie Madoff to help investigate tips that come in? No, I don’t think we would go there. Why not? When they finally caught up with him after all those years, the FBI hired Frank Abagnale, Jr. to help it investigate forfeiting crimes. Could Madoff do the same for the SEC? That’s an intriguing question. No one’s ever asked me that. I guess it’s a two-part question. Would he want to do something like that and would the SEC ever entertain something like that? I think he would. In fact, some academics have written to him in prison and asked him to contribute his thoughts on Wall Street ethics. They essentially are asking him, “What do you think would have helped alert people to what you were doing?” And Madoff has told me he’s interested in talking to them, corresponding with them. So, I do think he feels like he’s got something to teach. But I don’t think he understands himself well enough yet to teach people how to avoid con artists like him. Would the SEC ever entertain the idea? Not in this universe. Is there any way he can redeem himself, even in the smallest sense? Is that something he’s expressed to you that he’s interested in doing? He does. He certainly says he wants to. He claims he’s tried to help the bankruptcy trustee recover assets for Madoff victims. Would that amount to a form of redemption? Well I think Irving Picard could say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Picard and his legal staff are doing a pretty remarkable job of going after assets without much help from Madoff, although I think that Madoff has provided them with some information. I know that Picard’s lawyers have met with him and spent 16 hours interviewing him in prison a couple of weeks before I was down there. And I’m told he was a confirmatory source, as lawyers say. He confirmed much of what they thought they knew, confirmed that, in some cases, they were on the right track. But he has subsequently said things that in many cases contradict the allegations they are making in the lawsuit they’re filing. He told me in the very first visit something that shocked me so that I included it in the prologue of the book: He said that with the money that investors had already gotten out of the Ponzi scheme and with the money that the bankruptcy trustee was going to be able to raise for them and return to them, his victims were probably going to make out better than people who were legitimately invested in the stock market during the meltdown of 2008. He thinks that about all of them? Not the ones who committed suicide and their families. Not the ones who’ve had to uproot their entire lives and sell their beloved homes. The human cost of the crime is part of the equation that he just doesn’t see. He’s utterly in denial about that. And what should the finance industry, lawmakers and America at large take away from this story? A moral if there is one? Self-deception is an extremely dangerous practice. Lying to ourselves is how we get in the most trouble. If there is a lesson, it is the oldest human lesson. To thine own self be true. If people take nothing else away from the book, I hope they take that. Lying to yourself is a luxury that you just can’t afford. How’s it feel to get this project done? I’ve never worked harder on any project. This is my fourth book, but without a doubt the most laborious, most fascinating. This is like a novel, but it’s true. Bernie had four near-death experiences before he was finally caught, some of which people will read about for the first time in the book. I fell in love with the story. At the beginning of this process, I kind of flippantly said that to do this story justice would take a collaboration between Shakespeare and Woody Allen, without the jokes. But it truly is such a timeless drama. I felt kind of humbled at the challenge of trying to live up to the potential.

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Are the Rich Greedy?

April 25, 2011

Are the rich really greedy or is this just what those that aren’t rich say about those that are? And can a person’s income or net worth determine whether that person is greedy or not? When a person is promoted from a $60,000 a year to one paying $250,000 do they suddenly become consumed with greed? It is preposterous to think that that amount of money a person earns or the wealth they control have anything to do with greed! Greed is defined as the excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one’s self. Greed by definition is then determined by desire and intention not by a person’s net worth. It seems that the rich are most often labeled greedy by two groups: 1) those that haven’t created financial success. 2) those with political agendas. This labeling is created from myths and misinformation about the rich. The misconception that the rich don’t help or don’t do their part or that they are greedy only demonstrates a misunderstanding, even an ignorance about the rich and wealth. This thinking stands in the way of entire classes of people from ever improving their financial situations. The Obama administration asserts that financial literacy is a ‘national crisis’ . Surveys suggest 75% of all workers don’t know how much money they need for retirement. Multiple studies of 12th graders produced consistent failing scores of only 50-55% on practical money questions. In my seminars I often hear, “if I had $1 million I would use it to help the less fortunate.” I always respond, “The most effective way to help the less fortunate is to quit being one of the less fortunate!” If you don’t come from wealth, I didn’t, then the only way to create it today is through hard work, risks, entrepreneurial effort, innovative thinking and by saving and investing! Those that create wealth honestly should be admired not labeled. Go to any third world country and financial success is admired and perceived as an ethical issue — a duty, obligation, even a responsibility to ensure the survival of their futures. Be honest, do you have a resentment of rich people? Do you believe rich people are greedy, shallow, unhappy and dysfunctional? Do you believe that the rich got rich by stepping over others? Do you believe the rich made money their god or that they don’t care about the less fortunate? If you harbor any of these beliefs creating financial security for yourself and your family is going to be almost impossible! And what about all the misinformation and myths about the rich. Consider the most simple of facts that if you are reading this from a computer you are rich compared to most people in the world. 1/3 of the people on this planet live on less than $166 a month making even those at poverty levels in the USA wealthy by comparison! The median income in the USA is $44,000 a year but the world median income is $2000 a year. The next time you say, “the rich are greedy”, by world standards, you are talking about yourself! Also, we determine who is rich and who is not. You may resent the hedge fund guys on Wall Street or the CEO’s of the big banks but it is you and me investing in their funds and banks. Steve Jobs’ net worth is in the multi-billions and was determined by all of us buying his products and downloading apps onto iPhones and iPads. Not even a criminal, is able to create riches without the help, trust and support of the marketplace. Others suggest that the rich are greedy and don’t give their fare share. The top 1.4 million earners in 2008 paid over 38% of ALL the income taxes collected by the IRS. Also just those earning incomes over $1 million a year were responsible for over 50% of all charitable donations? I have been studying the wealthy for years and one of the biggest differences is a willingness to work with no pay in hopes of some bigger payoff later. The poor and middle class see working for nothing unthinkable. At the age of 29 I went into business for myself and my income dropped by 1/3 from my previous job with me working 20 hours a day. Minimum wage may have made a bigger middle class but it also trapped entire classes of people to think in terms how much they get per hour rather than their financial freedom. Before you jump on the ‘rich people are greedy’ bandwagon consider the facts: 1) Rich has nothing to do with greed. 2) They pay most of the taxes collected. 3) They are responsible for 50% of all charitable donations. 4) Resenting the rich guarantees that you will always be poor or you have a political agenda! Grant Cardone, NY Times Best Selling Author The 10X Rule-The Difference Between Success and Failure

Read the full article →

Laurie Gerber: Why Self-Deception And Leadership Don’t Mix

April 23, 2011

When I talk to leaders, I find out that a lot of them struggle with feeling like frauds. After all the work you do to succeed, do you sometimes still end up feeling like a fraud? Recently my leadership capacities took a leap forward when I realized that I was being a hypocrite. I was telling other people to speak the truth to their parents, and I wasn’t standing up and speaking “my truth” to my dad on the subject of his smoking. As soon as I started dealing with that head on, I experienced more confidence in front of large audiences and in front of the camera. I know another great leader who, despite tons of success as an internationally known fitness instructor, still felt like she didn’t really know what she was doing. She opened up and began talking about it in front of her classes and realized that she had been thinking that her unique version of exercise was some how “less than” other more established brands. However, in revealing that, and in rethinking it, she realized that it was in fact even more special because it was different. But then there was this other compounding issue of updating her certifications, which she also admitted needing to do. Clearing that up, she experienced a whole new level of success and confidence. She stopped hiding her internal dialogue (which we all know is so often wrong ) and started telling the truth about her trials and triumphs as part of each class she led. As she made transparency her policy, she was forced to deal head-on with anything that was troubling her and was loved through her process by her students. The public nature of this type of leadership caused her to correct things in her life and to be an inspiration in ways she had only dreamed of doing “on her own” or with just a therapist. What a gift to have “a public.” What an inspiration she was to her public. I know a spiritual leader, similarly, who was shocked and appalled to realize that she was teaching a message of peace and acceptance while regularly losing control with her young son and yelling at him. On some level, how could she not feel like a fraud? But we don’t say to ourselves, “I am a fraud.” Instead, when thinking of taking the next leadership risk, we think things like, “I am just shy,” or, “I’m not good enough yet,” or even, “I don’t really want/care about that.” The truth is, we do want more and we do care. Many of you have a vision for something you want to see happen. It could be a reconciliation or improvement in your family or in your marriage. It could be a better household system with your kids. It could be teaching the art of breathing or pottery or architecture or law to a group of students, or it could be working with a non-profit or company that has a local, national or global mission to fulfill. To get the job done, you need to be free to lead, confident in yourself, your ability and your right to command others to listen and follow you. Consider that you want someone to follow your lead. In order to hold your head high and ask for that, you need to really trust yourself. The first step in building self-trust is telling the truth about where you are right now. If you are stuck in your leadership, ask yourself if you have one or more of the issues I brought up in my first three examples. You might be a hypocrite on some level. You might be unresolved about an incident that happened to you that clouds your view of what is possible. You might be staying quiet about something you need to speak up about. When you start talking about it to others (truthfully), you are forced to deal with it. * * * * * Dip your toe in to this process by first confessing something on my life coaching blog . Leave a comment and I’ll respond. And if you haven’t already, I recommend that you schedule a free life coaching session .

Read the full article →

Vivian Diller, Ph.D.: Boomers Supporting Boomerang Children: A Positive Trend?

April 23, 2011

When your grown-up kids drop by to visit, do they still come with bags of laundry? How often do they leave with bags of leftovers — and maybe even a bit of cash — alongside their neatly folded, clean clothes? According to a recent Reuters report , there are many Baby Boomer parents in this country who are supporting their adult kids in lots of ways, with moms being the go-to person 60 percent of the time when offspring run into economic problems. The report was based on an online survey in Florida conducted by a research firm called Kitchen’s Group. They found that “of women with children over age 18, nine percent said they had adult children living back home for indefinite periods. Twelve percent were primarily responsible for their adult child or children’s financial well-being and 31 percent said they had children who returned home, relied on them but expected to become independent.” Although parents are not legally obliged to support children over the age of 18 (and in years past, few parents did), and although 86 percent of the Boomer moms in the survey were financially independent by the time they were 25 years old, it is clear that many parents today will do what they can to help their adult children. AARP confirms this new trend, saying the stats from the smaller Florida survey are in line with their own larger ones, which have shown that 69 percent of their members currently provide some level of financial support to their adult children. So what are the reasons behind this cultural shift? Is it a positive trend indicating that more young adults feel free to seek support from their parents as they struggle to establish themselves in their careers? Does it suggest greater closeness between moms and their kids, a kind of intimacy that was less common in previous generations? Or is it less positive, indicating an increasing over-dependence by children on their parents and vice versa? Perhaps, more worrisome, does it reflect a reluctance among 20-somethings to stand on their own two feet, resulting in a culturally induced laziness enabled by Boomer parents? High Unemployment The most apparent reason for young adults taking longer to become financially independent is clearly the current state of our economy. The Millennial generation reached their 20s just as the stock market crashed and a global economic downturn began. They entered the workforce as unemployment was rising, jobs were being eliminated and a college degree no longer ensured career opportunities. For many, moving back home or asking for financial help gave them the option to pursue unpaid internships, seek further schooling or simply wait out the recession. Although most of these young adults say that they would prefer to live on their own and be financially independent, when their parents offer help, most take it. Some have little choice. Others want to maintain the kind of lifestyle they were used to — or feel entitled to — and hope to avoid taking jobs they believe are beneath them. And parents go to great lengths to help meet their children’s wishes. One financial website writes that “mothers and fathers don’t always plan to be paying for their child’s expenses” after they reach the age of adulthood and find themselves filing for bankruptcy as they accumulate debt trying to help their kids become independent. Empty Nest vs. “Empty Next” Consider, too, that requests for financial help by adult children tap into the already existing ambivalence many Boomer mothers feel about this phase of their lives. Moms who have spent their 20s, 30s and 40s caring for their children feel pulled in opposing directions as their midlife approaches — to hold on or move on. While they may begin preparing for their years ahead without children and even look forward to spending more time on themselves, there continues to be a strong pull to hold on to what is familiar — the full house, even if messy bedrooms and empty fridges are left behind. Instinctively, many Boomer moms yearn for (or can easily be lulled back into) their role as caretaker — the go-to person. Being needed helps some women maintain their sense of purpose just as they face fears about becoming invisible, both physically and emotionally. (I like to call this phase the “empty next,” so that women focus less on losing their nest and more on what can come next; see chapter seven in my book, ” Face It; What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change .”) Supporting children during this time can be viewed by some women as fulfilling, even if at the same time it financially drains them. New Family Structure Then there’s the fact that in the last 20 years, our family structure has become a great deal more child-centered, even as those children become full-fledged adults. No longer is Dad at the head of the table as Mom serves the meals and tells the children to go off to play quietly — think “Father Knows Best” being replaced by the kind of gatherings in “Brothers and Sisters.” Not only is the family dinner a thing of the past, but most mealtimes, weekends and vacations are now oriented around the kids’ activities: soccer practices, ballet classes, tutors, camps and other extra-curricular interests. Often both parents work, some even taking on extra jobs or second mortgages, just to finance their kids’ active and enriched lives. With children growing up assuming that parents will make these kinds of sacrifices, it isn’t surprising that they expect them to continue right through adulthood. Helicopter parenting can lead to overly dependent children who are loathe to give up their hovering but supportive families. We have to ask ourselves whether the wonder years have become the wander years, with too many young people ultimately lost because they were coddled too long. Generational Differences That Boomers remember their young adulthood differently isn’t difficult to understand. These women were raised by post-depression parents who emphasized the importance of financial self-reliance. Boomer women were also pioneers of the feminist movement. Economic success was not only about financial security, but served to ensure that they would avoid the dependency their mothers felt on men. These moms were among the first to break many of the glass ceilings that their Millennial children now take for granted. The result? Young adults today — especially 20-something women — view financial dependence neither as a failure nor as a betrayal of their political beliefs as many of their mothers might have. They are less embarrassed about what they see as a temporary and transitional stage. And since some of these moms wrestle with residual regret having pursued careers while leaving kids at home, indulging them now can meet needs all around — relieving moms of their guilt while helping out their grown children No doubt, the statistics indicating that more Boomer mothers support their adult kids reflect complicated psychological and cultural issues. And this recent Reuter’s report doesn’t even begin to explore the father’s role in this family dynamic. Is it possible that moms are the go-to person, viewed as having a softer touch, while dads are the go-away ones, more likely concerned about money matters? Are fathers hesitant to offer support because they worry that it will foster dysfunctional dependency? Do different attitudes about this issue contribute to marital problems in addition to financial stress at midlife? Maybe more importantly, given that many Baby Boomers have not planned for their own personal and economic futures, this trend raises questions about the long-term impact on how it will all work out in the end — for parents and children alike. We can all benefit from a better understanding of this cultural phenomenon. What do you think about adult children being financially supported by their moms or dads if they are in the position to help? * * * * * Vivian Diller, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in New York City. She has written articles on beauty, aging, media, models and dancers. She serves as a consultant to companies promoting health, beauty and cosmetic products. ” Face It: What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change ” (2010), written with Jill Muir-Sukenick, Ph.D. and edited by Michele Willens, is a psychological guide to help women deal with the emotions brought on by their changing appearances. For more information, please visit www.VivianDiller.com . Continue the conversation by following Dr. Diller on Facebook (at facebook.com/Readfaceit ) and on Twitter.

Read the full article →

Mattel Loses Huge Suit Over Popular Dolls

April 21, 2011

SANTA ANA, California (Nichola Groom) – Mattel Inc, after waging a seven-year legal war against a tiny California company, swallowed a surprise defeat on Thursday after a U.S. jury decided that MGA Entertainment Inc is the rightful owner of the once-billion dollar line of pouty-lipped Bratz dolls. The astonishing loss for the world’s largest toy maker concluded a case that began in 2004, when MGA’s line of dolls was all the rage among teen and preteen girls. Mattel accused Van Nuys, California-based MGA of stealing its designs by hiring away a key employee. Mattel CEO Robert Eckert sat stone-faced, staring straight ahead as the verdict was read on Thursday in a Santa Ana, California, federal courtroom. He said afterward that he was disappointed by the verdict. “We remain committed to protecting the intellectual property that is at the heart of business success,” Eckert said in an email. MGA Chief Executive Isaac Larian, meanwhile, said the case has been a prolonged battle for his family. “It very well shows that in America, even huge corporations are not above the law,” Larian told Reuters afterward. A federal jury in 2008 ordered MGA and Larian to pay Mattel $100 million, but a federal appeals court threw out that ruling last year. MGA then accused Mattel of gaining entry to toy fairs with false credentials to steal trade secrets and concealed evidence of these activities. The jury found Mattel misappropriated trade secrets from MGA and awarded MGA $88.5 million in damages. The jury also decided MGA had interfered with Mattel’s contract with designer Carter Bryant, but awarded only $10,000 in damages to Mattel. BMO Capital Markets analyst Gerrick Johnson said the failure to settle will go down as a “tremendously bad decision” by Mattel management. “It means they wasted $400 million or so of shareholder money to get zero return,” Johnson said. At the height of its popularity, in 2005 and 2006, the urban-chic Bratz dolls — sporting short skirts and flirty, midriff-baring tops — ate into Mattel’s market share and were viewed as a threat to Mattel’s key Barbie franchise. The craze died down, however. MGA accused Mattel of costing the company hundreds of millions in litigation. U.S. District Judge David Carter said the trade secrets damages could be lowered to $88.4 million due to a calculation mistake by the jury. Wells Fargo analyst Tim Conder said he expected Mattel to appeal, but called the likelihood of a material change “doubtful.” Mattel’s shares fell as much as 2.8 percent to a low of $26.17 after the verdict was announced, before bouncing back slightly to stand 0.9 percent lower at $26.70. The stock had been roughly flat throughout the morning session. The case in U.S. District Court, Central District of California is Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 04-9049. (Reporting by Nichola Groom and Dhanya Skariachan; Writing by Dan Levine; Editing by Maureen Bavdek, Gerald E. McCormick and Matthew Lewis) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Walmart Execs Spy On Target Behind Enemy Lines

April 21, 2011

ROGERS, Arkansas (Jessica Wohl) – When the guy who runs the rival store up the road drops in for a visit, a lot of “shop talk” can be expected — especially if that guy is Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke and you are running the only Target store for miles around. For Chuck Simmons, that visit could happen at any time. The Target Corp store he runs in Rogers, Arkansas, is just about 5 miles as the crow flies from Wal-Mart Stores Inc’s head office. Simmons spent two decades in retail, including time at Wal-Mart while attending college, before uprooting his family from Texas to open the Target store on Wal-Mart’s home turf in March 2009. “I knew exactly what I was getting into when we moved up here,” Simmons said recently as he walked around the store in Target’s signature red shirt and khaki pants. The store’s location gives everyone from Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke to thousands of Wal-Mart employees — or “associates” — easy access to scope out the competition. It is also a constant display of how Target is doing for companies from Coca-Cola Co to Walt Disney Co that have offices in the area because of the business they conduct with the world’s largest retailer over in Bentonville. One day while organizing the seasonal back-to-school area, Simmons turned around to see if a shopper, or “guest” in Target’s lexicon, needed some help. That guest was Wal-Mart CEO Duke. In late December, Simmons saw him again, this time checking out the seasonal candy area. Simmons said he and Duke have walked around the store, and called him a “fantastic guy.” The competition in the area is fierce, especially in electronics. A Best Buy is just steps away. At 4 a.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving some Wal-Mart senior vice presidents of electronics visited the Target, and Wal-Mart buyers also come through to check things out, said Simmons, who in Target parlance is “store team leader”. Wal-Mart is checking on competitors such as Target more often these days as it promotes its guarantee to meet other stores’ advertised prices. Of course, Simmons and his team also visit Wal-Mart stores to scope out the competition. He says his store tries to stay within 1 percent to 2 percent of Wal-Mart’s prices. That’s an essential strategy here as thousands of potential patrons get even lower prices at Wal-Mart stores with their 10 percent employee discount. THE WAL-MART CONNECTION The Rogers store is one of nine Target stores in Wal-Mart’s home state, where Wal-Mart has 97 stores. Wal-Mart and Target each have 74 stores in Target’s home state of Minnesota. Simmons, who lives in Bentonville, said he has not felt a bitter rivalry. “It hasn’t been an adversarial relationship at all,” Simmons said. “The community has been very responsive.” A Wal-Mart employee shopping at the Target one night recently said she visits her rival for apparel and home goods. While he would not divulge details, Simmons said he has been pleased with sales growth in Rogers. The store, he said, has some of the strongest apparel sales he has ever seen, with patrons even asking when new collections will be available. Apparel is one area where Wal-Mart has struggled against Target, whose founders first ran department stores. The chain has long attracted shoppers with chic designs. Wal-Mart, which failed to lure many U.S. shoppers with trendy clothing, is now more focused on basics such as T-shirts and jeans. Wal-Mart, though, is well ahead of Target in areas such as food. While packaged foods sell well at Target, Simmons is hankering to add fresh food to his store to better compete with Wal-Mart’s big grocery sections. And he still hasn’t figured out how to get Duke to buy anything. While the Wal-Mart CEO has checked out Target’s Archer Farms nuts and other goods, Simmons said he has not seen Wal-Mart executives buy anything when they visit. Some, however, do stop by the Starbucks Corp kiosk on their way out. “It’s kind of a neutral purchase,” Simmons said. (Reporting by Jessica Wohl; Editing by Ted Kerr) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Odysseas Papadimitriou: Why Credit Card Branding Is Costing Small Business Owners

April 20, 2011

So, what’s the difference between business credit cards and regular consumer credit cards? This might at first seem like a stupid question, but think about it and try to come up with the answer. Is it that a business credit card is opened under a corporation’s name and used only for business spending while anyone can get a consumer credit card and use it for anything? Is it that an individual is held liable for the misuse of a consumer credit card while a business credit card shields both a small business owner and his employees from personal liability? Perhaps the difference simply lies in how each type of card is reported to the major credit bureaus. According to a study by CardHub.com , however, none of these seemingly-plausible reasons actually hold water. Business and consumer credit cards are actually more similar than they are different, the study says, a contention which therefore begs the question, should the Credit CARD Act of 2009 apply to business credit cards? In order to truly answer this question, we must take a closer look at the law itself. As it turns out, Congress made a distinction between the two card segments, structuring the CARD Act so that it applies to “open-ended consumer agreements” and directing the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to study the law’s future applicability to the business credit card market. In case you’re wondering, an open-ended consumer agreement is legally defined as credit extended to a natural person for the purpose of making personal, family or household-related transactions. Thus, it’s pretty clear that the protections enumerated in the CARD Act do not apply to business credit cards, right? Wrong. According to the Card Hub study, every major business credit card issuer holds the individual who opens such a card liable for use in addition to the small business he represents. Six of the 10 largest issuers in the U.S. also report usage information to the individual cardholder’s credit reports (Wells Fargo, HSBC, and U.S. Bank refused to be transparent about their practices, so this number might actually be even higher). And any prospective business credit card user must provide personal financial information on his application. It’s therefore obvious that credit is extended to a natural person, and since a small business owner uses his credit card to provide for his family and earn a living, it would seem that so-called business credit cards qualify as open-ended consumer agreements under the language of the law and should therefore be extended protection under the CARD Act. Either that or personal credit cards should not receive these protections when used for business spending. Ultimately, the answer to the original question about the nature of the difference between business and consumer credit cards therefore seems to be branding. There is no fundamental difference between the two. Eligibility for both is based on an individual’s credit history and income; both can be used to make the same types of purchases; both have individual liability; both relay information to an individual’s credit reports. One simply has the label “business” attached to its name and the other does not. As a result, the Fed must remove the wool from before its eyes, forget about labels and apply the CARD Act with some sort of consistency. In order words, either all consumer-based credit cards receive its protections, or none do; either every card used for business spending is exempt, or none are. Until this happens, small business owners can simply exploit the imbalance of the law’s application by using personal credit cards to fund any business purchases that will not be paid for in full by the end of the month. Odysseas Papadimitriou is the founder of Card Hub, a website that helps consumers and small business owners find the best credit card deals .

Read the full article →

Newly Graduated and Scrambling For Full-Time Jobs

April 15, 2011

NEW YORK — For David Cristello, the jobs are catch as catch can. Cristello, 23, currently holds down five part-time jobs. Come summer, when he starts a tennis camp in his native Natrona Heights, Pa., he’ll be at six. Since graduating from the University of Pittsburgh last June, Cristello’s job search has yielded several part-time jobs, but no full-time work. “The worst part of it is that I’m always worried I’m spread too thin,” he says. “I’m never able to produce my best work at any one job.” While Cristello appreciates the freedom of not being chained to the same desk for 10 hours each day, he craves the stability and benefits associated with a regular, consistent paycheck. Cristello is not alone in his quest to establish a permanent economic foothold. Of the 700,000 jobs added to the economy during the first three months of this year, Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, reports that 80 percent of these jobs are for part-time work. And of these part-time workers, Sum says that college graduates under 30 have weathered a disproportionate share of the burden. “The younger you are, the worse you’ve been hit — no question,” says Sum. He’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years and uses data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to arrive at his calculations. “It’s a catastrophe and there’s no other way to describe it.” Last year, during an average month, there were more than 9 million employed persons working part-time jobs — even though they desired full-time work. And of these part-time laborers, workers under the age of 30 accounted for as much as a third. Cristello and his classmates may be experiencing what’s known as bad economic timing. “It’s absolutely true that people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but have trouble catching up,” says Paul Oyer, a professor of economics at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. Oyer counts not only skill, but also luck, as essential components of a successful employment search. Till von Wachter, an associate professor of economics at Columbia University, says it can take an average college student graduating into a recession up to 10 years to recover the wages they might have made during more robust economic times — and possibly longer. “Starting out, having a part-time job doesn’t condemn you,” says von Wachter. “But the key is being flexible and willing to make compromises in the short-term if better, full-time jobs aren’t at first available.” But Cristello’s difficulty in securing a full-time job is not for lack of trying . Depending on the given week, his time is split between providing support services to children with autism, working as a landlord, and teaching students how to play the drums. On Sundays, he sells refrigerators, mattresses, and stoves at his family’s appliance store. In any leftover free time, Cristello also works at an entrepreneurial start-up, where the payment is sporadic. In all, Cristello brings in between $1,000 and $1,500 each month. His rent, car, utilities, cell phone and food add up to about $800 a month. Cheap rent in nearby Pittsburgh is his saving grace. Until he’s 26, since none of his part-time jobs provide health insurance, he can still receive benefits as a dependent under his parents’ coverage. But Sum sees underutilized 20-somethings like Cristello as indicative of a larger, more troubling pattern. Recently, Sum and his team of researchers have unearthed a phenomenon they call the “age twist effect.” Over the past decade, between 2000 and 2010, they’ve discovered an upside-down effect in the labor market: The younger you are, the more likely you are to get thrown out of it. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Additionally, if the labor market behaved like it did back in 2000, Sum says there’d be an additional 7.5 million young people working today. “Doing something is better than nothing,” confirms Sum, of the part-time job-hopping routine. But what troubles him even more is the tendency for recent graduates to find jobs outside of the college labor market altogether. Specifically, of the more than two million college graduates under the age of 25, 700,000 have a job that doesn’t require a degree — whether working in retail, bartending or waiting tables. Such work has long-term, low-paying consequences. It results in college graduates not only moving back home, but staying there. Sum sees them delaying marriage and giving birth to more children out of wedlock as a consequence. For now at least, Cristello feels luckier than most. For one, his mom took on more hours so that her son could avoid assuming any student loan debt. He also keeps his credit-card purchases to a minimum. “As long as I hit my rent and have a little spending money, I’m solid,” explains Cristello, in between cleaning carpets as part of his duties as part-time landlord. “But if I don’t have something with benefits that pays decent money by the time I’m 26, I’ll be really disappointed in myself.”

Read the full article →

Akhtar Badshah: Creative Capitalism, a CEO’s Viewpoint

April 14, 2011

I had a pleasure of moderating a discussion with Arunas A. Chesonis, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of PAETEC, founded in 1998. I sought to understand why he — as a CEO and business leader — invests in the city of Rochester, New York, and why he has developed a culture of investing back into the community at PAETEC. Chesonis, an MIT graduate and an entrepreneur, is a visionary who thinks outside of the box regarding how to build a business and how to build a community around him. He told the audience at the BCLC Corporate Community Investment 2011 conference in Philadelphia that one of his company’s four guiding principles is “caring culture,” a concept in PAETEC’s objectives and a metric for performance evaluation. Chesonis said: “If you have two managers and both are very good, but one is involved in the community, he’ll drive more business and will build more relationships within the company, outside the company, and with clients. That’s the manager who will get the promotion. People like that get to move up in the organization because they’re the ones who do business better.” Community involvement at the individual employee level, he said, not only helps managers excel — their success helps to grow the business. In our talk, he explained that PAETEC also uses the same criteria when considering procurement bids from his partners. With price being more or less equal, PAETEC wants to know how engaged potential business partners are in investing back in the community. He wants to know how they’re investing in communities, how they’re giving back, how they’re making the country do better. For Chesonis, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a strategic weapon. He said that if you’re not doing CSR, if you’re not engaged in CSR, then you’re not going to be as successful, you’re not going to optimize your stock price, you’re not going to optimize your performance, and you’re not truly, fully engaged with all your team members. In short, it’s better business to be engaged in CSR. So how does Chesonis make sure engagement is constant and thorough? First, he sees engagement in CSR as building an extended family among a range of stakeholders (even the name of the company stems from the first letter of the names of the Chesonis family). He said he came to Philadelphia for the BCLC conference to lend support to those who are in the CSR business. “Maybe,” he said, “I’ll give you some tricks that we’ve used to trick people within our ecosystem into seeing why this is important for all of us.” Second, engagement in CSR work should be decentralized. At PAETEC, Chesonis lets his community relations managers decide where to focus the company’s CSR efforts instead of dictating what to do with a top-down approach. “I feel like I’m the match.com for CSR at my company. It’s my responsibility to connect my employees with our community,” he said and noted that he wants connections to grow organically between his community relations managers and the local organizations. Building your own community is important, and connecting your community to other communities in common goals is the next step in building capacity. Chesonis asked, “Wouldn’t it be great if there were a BCLC in all communities?” Organizations that convene and connect, he said, are needed at the local chamber level so that local corporate citizens and community leaders can come together, learn, and expand their capacity. Having a network of local BCLC-like organizations, he said, would encourage public-private partnerships. Chesonis said: “It’s hard for SMEs to travel to national conferences and major events like this — that makes local collaboration level so much more needed. People could develop their own approaches at the local levels and decide what fits best with their communities and businesses.” While his community relations managers guide the company’s strategy, the Chesonis family is building its own legacy in environment and energy research — the need for intense research in these fields is astounding, he said. With the belief that researchers should be allowed time to fail and experiment to find the best, most innovative solutions, Arunas and his family are funding long-term research spots for post-grad MIT students. Most Nobel Prize winners in science, he noted, made their discoveries at the age of 28: “We need to be funding young, energetic people who have time and inspiration to immerse themselves in their research 100 hours per week.” He ended the thought that corporate responsibility should be a strategic priority for all companies. “Don’t be a ‘dumb philanthropist’ and just write checks,” he said. “Work on the strategic piece-what’s good for a company can be good for a community and vice versa.” For those in business still sitting on the fence, this is a good piece of advice.

Read the full article →

Kevin O’Brien: America Comes Together to Support Military Families with Joining Forces Initiative

April 14, 2011

The men and women of our armed forces are always in our hearts and prayers… but oftentimes their loved ones are forgotten. This week, the President, the First Lady, the Vice President and Dr. Biden launched the Joining Forces Initiative to mobilize all sectors of society — from citizens to businesses to communities — to give service members and their families the opportunities, resources and support they have earned to make the deployment of their loved ones a little bit easier. While one percent of Americans are fighting in US wars, I am a strong believer that ALL Americans have the obligation to commit to support military families and help make a difference. “I’ve met so many of these military families. What you realize when you talk to them is that these families serve as well. Often we see the men and women in uniform and it’s very clear to us the sacrifice they make. But we forget that when they go to war so does their family they are enduring these employment but they are doing it with such grace and courage,” said Mrs. Obama. Mrs. Obama added, “This campaign is about all of us, all of us joining together, as Americans, to give back to the extraordinary military families who serve and sacrifice so much, every day, so that we can live in freedom and security.” The strength and resilience of military families is so strong. We as Americans need thank these families for their service and lend a helping hand. Whether it’s cutting the grass, helping with carpools or assisting with securing a suitable job… every little bit helps because it is one less thing a military spouse needs to worry about. Without the support of our military and their families we would not be able to live in a free nation. President Obama said, “Our nation endures because these men and women are willing to defend it, with their very lives. And as a nation, it is our solemn duty and our moral obligation to serve these patriots as well as they serve us.” Joining Forces is partnering with top corporations and nonprofit groups to bolster health care, employment and educational opportunities. Helping military spouses find employment is critical for the stability of military families. According to the November 2009 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 8.4 percent of military wives were seeking jobs and couldn’t find one, compared to 5.3 percent of women in civilian families. In addition, military families move on average every 2.9 years, this makes it difficult to pursue a career. In conjunction with Military Spouse Appreciation Day, Sears Holdings Corporation is partnering with UBM’s Milicruit to present the Military Spouses Virtual Career Fair, which will be hosted on May 6, 2011 from 1PM – 4PM EDT. Joining Sears Holdings will be dozens of military-friendly employers who also recognize and value the contributions military spouses provide to the defense of our nation. The virtual career fair will allow spouses the opportunity to meet and interact with employers from all over the country from the comfort and convenience of their home. The virtual career fair will allow the spouses to learn about employment opportunities, chat with recruiters, view/apply for jobs, and perhaps even video interview. The Military Spouses Virtual Career Fair is free of charge for military spouses to participate. Those interested in attending the virtual career fair can register at www.militaryspousecf.com. Sears Holdings is one company that understands the plight of military spouses. The company employs over 30,000 military personnel, veterans and spouses across all levels of the organization. The “PCS Promise” is an effort that covers all military personnel and spouses employed at Sears Holdings to provide transfers in the cases of Permanent Change of duty Station (PCS), retirement or separation, depending on job availability and performance. I am proud to be a part of Milicruit — helping military veterans and spouses find suitable employment. How do you plan to thank a military family? Employers wishing to participate in the virtual career fair can send requests to Kevin O’Brien at kobrien@milicruit.com This story is part of Military Families Week, an effort by HuffPost and AOL to put a spotlight on issues affecting America’s families who serve. Find more at jobs.aol.com/militaryfamilies and aol.com .

Read the full article →

Don McNay: Wisdom from a Wealth Wizard

April 10, 2011

Investment guru Pete Mahurin of Bowling Green is often described as “the Warren Buffett of Kentucky.” Tom Eblen and Al Smith compared Mahurin to Buffett in their newspaper columns. Lexington Mayor Jim Gray, who serves with Pete on the board of Gray Construction, has also used that description. Mahurin was a high school physics teacher who got into the investment business and became one of Hilliard Lyons’ top producers. He owns banks. He sits on the boards of major industrial companies. He made a great fortune but has spent all of his seventy-plus years in small town Kentucky. I once emailed Pete about the Buffett connection, and he wrote, “I never took a business class in school and have read very few business books. Things by and about Buffett interest me. Books about high functioning people interest me. From Roosevelt (Teddy and FDR), Lincoln, House of Morgan to Johnny Unitas, things about how people achieve, fascinate me. People like Ervin Houchens, Bill Gatton, Owsley Brown as well as high functioning people the age of my 30 year old daughter, stimulate and motivate me.” Jim Gray passed along a quote from Pete, in which he said, “The best utilization of an extra bucket of feed is to give it to your best milk cow. In other words, do what you do best. Focus on what’s important, nurture that service or product with resources, and improve, improve, improve.” Focus on high achievement and gifted people seems to be part of Pete’s DNA. He puts his money where his mouth is. He and his wife, Dixie, funded an endowed professorship in Gifted Studies at Western Kentucky University, one of the few such endowed professorships in the country. They stepped up to the plate again last year to allow the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children to move from the University of Winnipeg to Western’s campus. Like Warren Buffett, Pete is a lifelong Democrat and champion of the capitalist system. In his Courier Journal piece, Al Smith quoted Mahurin as saying, “I consider the Democrats still a party of hope and opportunity. I was poor on a farm, but Democratic programs enabled me to slip in the side door, or kick in the back door, and attend this great party called capitalism. Today, my family and I can walk in the front door anywhere in the country.” Pete has the common sense of a man who grew up in Short Creek, (Grayson County), Kentucky and achieved higher than those from wealthy families and Ivy League pedigrees. What he learned from childhood was that one has to seize opportunity when it is front of him. Jim Gray passed along a story in Pete’s own words: “When I was young, all the little communities in my area had a baseball team. One Sunday afternoon someone on the other team hit a little pop fly that at least 3 of us were close enough to catch. Three of us ran toward it, and all stopped, waiting for another person to catch it. No one did, and the base runners ran around the bases. We lost. Fifty years later I realized why that memory remained fresh and bitter. It was not that we lost, or that an error was made. Losing because I failed to act stuck with me forever while failures made attempting to execute faded away.” I’ve spent nearly 30 years around the financial business. I’ve known a lot of “paper gurus” who can talk a decent game but really don’t practice what they preach. Mahurin walks the walk with his numerous contributions to charity and encouraging other entrepreneurs. But his talk when he talks, Gray compares to “divine wisdom.” In a previous Huffington Post piece, I called Pete, “the person we should be moving our money to.” I would feel better about Pete running the economy than the Wall Street bankers who pushed us to the edge of disaster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-mcnay/the-person-we-should-be-m_b_841520.html Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond, Kentucky, is an award-winning columnist, structured settlement consultant and Huffington Post Contributor. He is the author of the book, Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win the Lottery. He has appeared on the CBS Evening News With Katie Couric along with numerous other television and radio programs. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Hall of Distinguished Alumni of Eastern Kentucky University. McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Smart Uses for Your Tax Refund

April 8, 2011

Each spring, millions of Americans look forward to receiving a hefty income tax refund. And it truly is “hefty” with the average federal refund in 2010 hovering around $3,000. That’s a lot of money to be giving the government through what is essentially a year-long, interest-free loan. If you regularly receive large tax refunds, you’re probably having too much tax withheld from your paycheck. Instead, you might want to withhold less and put the money to work for you, by either saving or investing a comparable amount each month, or using it to pay down debt. Your goal should be to receive little or no refund at the end of the year. Ask your employer for a new W-4 form and recalculate your withholding allowance using the IRS’ Withholding Calculator . This is also a good idea whenever your pay or family situation changes significantly (e.g., pay increase, marriage, divorce, new child, etc.) Just be careful, because if too little is deducted, you might end up owing more tax next April, and possibly even interest or penalty fees. IRS Publication 919 can help guide you through the decision-making process. Some people received larger-than-normal tax refunds in 2009 and 2010 thanks to the Making Work Pay credit, which expired December 31, 2010. In its place, most taxpayers will see a 2 percent reduction in the amount being withheld for Social Security in 2011 paychecks as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Another change this year was a U.S. Department of Treasury pilot program that offered 600,000 randomly selected low- and moderate-income families an opportunity to have their tax refunds direct- deposited into a MyAccountCard Prepaid Debit Card offered by my employer, Visa and issued through Bonneville Bank. The pilot explored ways to save the government money (a direct deposit costs 1/10th as much to process as a paper check) as well as to give people with no bank account easier and more cost-effective access to their tax refunds. If you will be receiving a large refund this year, here are ways to put it to good use: Pay down debt. By increasing your payment amount on outstanding loan or credit card balances you can significantly lower the total amount of interest paid. Say you’re paying $80 a month on a $2,000 credit card balance at 18 percent interest. By doubling your payment to $160, you’ll reduce the payoff time from 32 months to 14, and shave $295 off the total amount of interest paid. In effect, you’d be getting the equivalent of an 18 percent return on your money. Start an emergency fund . To protect your family against the impact of a layoff or other unexpected financial crisis (such as a medical emergency, car accident or theft), set aside enough cash to cover at least six months of living expenses. Save for retirement. If your debt and emergency savings are under control, add to your IRA or 401(k) accounts, particularly if your employer matches contributions; remember, a 50 percent match corresponds to a 50 percent rate of return. Invest in yourself. Enroll in college courses or vocational training to ensure you have additional skills to fall back on should you lose your job or want to change careers. And ask whether your employer will help pay for job-related education. Invest in your family’s future . Another good use for your refund is to set up a 529 Qualified State Tuition Plan or a Coverdell Education Savings Account to fund your children’s or grandchildren’s education — all while ensuring your contributions will grow tax-free until withdrawn. Visit the websites of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Introduction to 529 Plans and the IRS’s Tax Topic 310 – Coverdell Education Savings Accounts for information. Spend money to save money. If you’ve got older appliances such as refrigerators, washer/dryers or dishwashers, consider replacing them with energy-efficient models that will pay for themselves through lower utility bills. The government’s Energy Star website can help you find Energy Star products. And finally, if you want to check on the status of your refund, go to the IRS’s Where’s My Refund site. You can usually get information about your refund 72 hours after the IRS acknowledges receipt of your e-filed return or three to four weeks if you filed a paper return. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Chief Gets $19 Million Raise

April 8, 2011

NEW YORK (By By Clare Baldwin and Jonathan Stempel) After piloting the No. 2 U.S. bank through the financial crisis relatively unscathed, JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon is now being extremely well rewarded. Dimon’s total compensation jumped nearly 1,500 percent to $20.8 million in 2010 from $1.3 million a year earlier, based on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s compensation formula, a regulatory filing showed. Dimon did even better in terms of the value of money and shares actually received: his salary, bonus and stock and options from grants made largely in previous years that were actually exercised in 2010 were worth around $42 million. By way of comparison, real median U.S. household income was just $49,777 in 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Large pay packages for bankers who oversaw transactions that brought the world economy to the brink of collapse in 2008 have become a flash point for investors. Anger has eased, but banker pay remains a sensitive issue, especially toward lenders that took taxpayer bailout money. Many analysts view JPMorgan as the healthiest of the largest U.S. commercial banks, having skirted the worst of the credit losses that hurt many rivals including Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc. They credit the 55-year-old Dimon, who became chief executive on December 31, 2005, for having enabled JPMorgan to quickly repay its $25 billion of bailout money. JPMorgan is also one of the first big banks to raise its dividend after passing a second Federal Reserve “stress” test. However, Dimon has criticized regulatory reforms by the Obama administration, saying they could crimp growth. In his annual shareholder letter posted on the bank’s website, Dimon said JPMorgan could earn $22 billion to $24 billion in a “more normal” environment, up from $17.4 billion in 2010. He said profit has fallen short because mortgage losses have been “extraordinarily high,” at $4 billion a year and that such losses will remain “elevated” for a while. THREE YEARS TO SELL HOME Dimon’s 2010 salary remained at $1 million. He was also awarded a $5 million bonus, nearly $8 million in stock awards and $6.2 million in option awards, according to the SEC’s compensation formula. His 2010 compensation also included $579,624 worth of perks, including $421,458 of “moving expenses,” $95,293 to use company aircraft and $45,730 for personal automobile use. Most of the rest went toward home security. Like many Americans who have had trouble selling their homes, Dimon did too. The moving expenses relate to the sale in 2010 of Dimon’s Chicago-area home, in which he had lived while heading Bank One Corp that was sold to JPMorgan in 2004. Dimon put the home up for sale in 2007 when his family moved to New York. Dimon’s total compensation in 2010 fell short of the $35.8 million he was awarded in 2008, according to the SEC formula. Goldman Sachs Group Inc Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein saw compensation jump to $14.1 million in 2010 from $1 million, another regulatory filing shows. Other bank CEOs had lower compensation in 2010. Wells Fargo & Co’s John Stumpf saw compensation fall to $19 million from $21.3 million. Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan saw compensation fall 70 percent to about $1.9 million, although in early 2011 he got a $9.1 million bonus. Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit’s compensation was $1 in 2010, but his salary alone has risen to $1.75 million in 2011. JPMorgan shares closed down 0.5 percent at $47.40 on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin and Jonathan Stempel; editing by Tim Dobbyn, Martin Howell and Dhara Ranasinghe) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Behind New York’s School System Shakeup

April 8, 2011

NEW YORK — It was a day of tumult for the leadership that presides over New York City’s classrooms. Cathie Black, New York City’s Schools Chancellor, is leaving just as quickly as she came. On Thursday morning, the senior staff of the city’s Department of Education gathered for an emergency meeting. Similar to an identical gathering held in November, when Black was announced as then-Schools Chancellor Joel Klein’s replacement, news of her departure again came out of left field. Word quickly spread. At an 11:30 a.m. press conference, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that former publishing executive Black was out and longtime deputy mayor Dennis Walcott was in, pending a waiver from the state. Walcott held court over his new staff at an open-press meeting later in the day. Speaking at a news conference, Bloomberg said he and Black had agreed it was “in the city’s best interest” for her to step down after just three months on the job. Her tenure was marred by ongoing controversy — getting lost between school visits in Queens, political gaffes and, most recently, abysmal approval ratings that sank to a low of 17 percent, according to a Marist College/NY1 poll. Later on Thursday, it was revealed that New York State Education Department Commissioner David Steiner was also stepping down from the post he’s held since 2009. Steiner told the New York Times that the timing of the two announcements was merely a coincidence. While the infrastructure of the city’s schools was jolted to its core, it’s unclear whether Bloomberg’s missteps will have larger national implications. The appointment of Black, who had no prior experience in public education, baffled many both inside the New York’s classrooms and across the country. It has proven to be one of the most public embarrassments of the Bloomberg administration, now in its controversial third term . “It hasn’t worked out as either of us hoped and expected,” admitted Bloomberg, who said it was a time to look forward and not back. Further, the events surrounding Black’s departure may foretell the limits of mayoral control. “We’re seeing in the last year or so that the silver bullets are starting to lose their luster — charter schools, merit pay and mayoral control,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers and a major figure in the country’s debate about the role of teachers’ unions in public education. Despite Walcott’s emphasis that he will continue executing Klein’s policies and Bloomberg’s vision for his 1.1 million students, Weingarten sees the shakeup as an opportunity to “reset the clock.” Bloomberg’s follies might cause other cities on the hunt for a new schools chief to think twice before tapping someone with, for example, little experience in the classroom. Currently, Chicago, Atlanta, Providence, Detroit and Newark are seeking education leaders. “What happens in New York always has repercussions elsewhere,” said Diane Ravitch, a New York University education historian and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education who has since become a critic of what she sees as the corporatization of education policy. “The superintendents come and go with great rapidity,” she added. Black and Steiner aren’t the only ones who have fled New York City’s school system. Since Bloomberg appointed Black, roughly half of the city’s education officials have left their jobs. Just yesterday, Deputy Chancellor John White also announced his exit. White is headed to New Orleans, where he’ll succeed the departing Paul Vallas as head of the Recovery School District. Added to the list of the recently departed: Eric Nadelstern, the former deputy chancellor for the division of school support and instruction, Photeine Anagnostopoulos, the finance director, Elizabeth Sciabarra, the admissions and school choice advisor and Santiago Taveras, a deputy chancellor. David Bloomfield, who chairs the education department at the College of Staten Island, was not the only education expert who likened the exodus of Black’s knowledgeable support staff to rats deserting a sinking ship. “This will go down in history as Bloomberg’s education blizzard,” he predicted. Bloomfield joined others in viewing Black’s resignation as long overdue. “The day Cathie Black was appointed, I was hearing from insiders that people were planning on getting out as quickly as they could,” said Aaron Pallas, a professor of sociology and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College. Nadelstern, 55, said he left his post to spend more time with his family, for a more reflective job at Teachers College and to access his pension. He added that Klein’s striking reforms brought attention to the district and its personnel, allowed White, for example, to be poached by another large city. He also noted that having eight deputy chancellors at one time was the result of formerly generous budgets. “I don’t think Black was in the position long enough for us to understand what she might have been capable of,” said Nadelstern of his former boss. Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, recently met with Black and was taken with her charisma. At the time, he said she had every expectation of sticking around for the long haul. At the afternoon gathering Thursday, Walcott said he intends to work with Black in whichever way she desires. He will become chancellor once Steiner signs a waiver allowing him to serve despite his lack of official state superintendent certification. This time around, securing Steiner’s go-ahead is likely to be less controversial than it was for Black because no one disputes Walcott’s classroom credentials. Walcott has long been a trusted aide on education policy, having served in the Bloomberg administration for nine years. He formerly taught kindergarten and was C.E.O. and president of the New York Urban League. A veteran of city’s public school system, he graduated from Francis Lewis High School in Queens. Further, Walcott has two master’s degrees — one in education from the University of Bridgeport and another in social work from Fordham University. Walcott’s nomination figures in stark contrast to Black’s Park Avenue address and public perception as an elite outsider. “I’m just a guy from Queens, I’m just a city guy,” said Walcott at Thursday’s press conference. Some wondered why Walcott hadn’t first been appointed, allowing Bloomberg to avoid the Black debacle altogether. “Rather than pick a darling of reform movement, Bloomberg has chosen someone that doesn’t have to come in and learn the city,” said Jeffrey Henig, a professor of political science and education at Teachers College. “He’s thinking about it more clearly than he had the last time around.”

Read the full article →

Retail Sector Adding Jobs, But Not Always Careers

April 5, 2011

Erin Abell left a job in finance to volunteer for John McCain’s presidential campaign in early 2008. She had hoped to return to the industry after the election, but by then Wall Street was on life support, and Abell had to live off credit cards until joining a friend’s startup. So she started working part-time at Banana Republic to help cut her debts. Yet Abell was paid less at age 30 than she made in a retail job in her early 20s. She also says she had to promote high-interest credit cards and sometimes work until 1 a.m. “Management made it very clear they could replace you tomorrow,” Abell says. As the economic recovery gains steam, the retail industry is expected to be one of the strongest for job growth this decade. But the quality of jobs selling clothes, computers and other goods has declined in recent years to the point where few can be classified as careers. Erratic part-time hours often make a second job impossible and complicate the work-life juggle. Pay has shrunk. And the recession created hordes of overqualified job seekers, leaving existing staff with little power to demand better conditions. With unemployment still high at 8.8 percent, many people feel fortunate to land any job. But not all jobs contribute the same to economic growth. Employers may be hiring more, but they are hiring disproportionately in retail and other service-sector positions with low wages and few benefits. High-paying fields like real estate and finance accounted for 40 percent of the 8.8 million jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 14 percent of the jobs created in the year that followed. Lower-paying industries like retail constituted 23 percent of jobs lost but almost half of the recent growth. This shift “could make it much harder for workers to find family-supporting jobs,” says Annette Bernhardt of the National Employment Law Project, who analyzed the data. Even in the “jobless recovery” after the 2001 recession, high-paying industries accounted for nearly one-third of new jobs in the year after the recession ended. Elizabeth Murphy, a recruiting manager for Crate & Barrel, says she’s receiving three times as many applications as she did a year and a half ago. The increase reflects, in part, a surge in applications from unemployed real-estate agents, accountants and other professionals. “In the past, college grads would say, `I won’t even talk to you if you’re paying less than this,’” Murphy says. Stores are under pressure to trim their expenses, and labor, the biggest expense after inventory, is one of the few costs they can control. In 2006, the median hourly wage for retail salespeople was $9.50, the government says. In 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, that figure was $9.74 – a 4 percent drop after adjusting for inflation and more than $5 less than the U.S. median for all occupations. For full-time retail workers, the median annual wage was $20,510 – half made more, half less. That’s well below the federal poverty line for a family of four. The trend is evident in the broader economy. The government’s March unemployment report showed that after adjusting for inflation, wages are falling – one reason spending growth has been slow. Retail workers aren’t just teenagers seeking pocket money. Much of the industry’s work force depends on the income for their livelihood, says James Parrott, chief economist at the Fiscal Policy Institute. In New York City, for example, 78 percent of retail workers are 25 or older, and more than a third are their family’s sole provider, Parrott found. Three of the six occupations expected to grow the most by 2018 are customer-service representatives, food-service workers and retail salespeople, according to government data. Retail is expected to create twice as many positions as software and computer-application engineering. The sector’s largest employer, Walmart, already accounts for 1 percent of all U.S. workers. Critics, though, say the company skimps on pay. Last year, Ohio state Rep. Robert Hagan, a Democrat, calculated that Buckeye State taxpayers spend roughly $67 million a year on food stamps and Medicaid for Walmart employees. Spokesman Bill Wertz says the store offers competitive wages and benefits and every day “helps people move off unemployment rolls.” At Walmart and across the country, retail workers are finding it harder to get by, especially lately, because of higher food and gas prices. Connor Skyggen, a recent college graduate who worked full-time in a Macy’s jewelry department last year, says his average take-home pay was $240 a week. He had to spend some of that on suits, pressed shirts and shoe shines to meet the dress code. On what was left, “it’s really hard to support yourself,” he says. Not every retail employee is struggling. At Nordstrom Inc. stores, commissioned salespeople are highly trained, and top performers earn six figures, says spokesman Colin Johnson. But electronics stores that offer workers a cut of sales, like hhgregg and P.C. Richard & Son, have had to lower prices to compete with Amazon.com, squeezing staffers’ take-home pay. “As electronic goods essentially turn into commodities, the commission model is not viable,” says Chris Tilly, who directs the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. The Internet has armed consumers with so much price and product information that stores now need salespeople more to sell extended warranties than to explain how products work. Advances in technology have helped stores optimize workers’ schedules, too, so they have more workers on duty during peak sales times without being overstaffed during lulls. But one consequence is inconsistent work schedules for the employees. And workers complain that computers don’t weigh factors like seniority or a lengthy commute. Sheena Dixon, 26, a former theft-prevention manager at a Target in New York, said her store “used scheduling as a weapon,” shuffling hours so it was difficult to take a second job or make personal plans. If the store called on a day off and you declined to come in, your hours were slashed, she says. Dixon left the company in January to pursue a real estate career. Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder says scheduling was “thoughtfully crafted to provide flexibility for our team members and excellent service to our guests.” High-turnover work forces mean retailers must spend money to recruit and train. Yet those expenses pale compared with the cost of providing benefits, analysts say. The new federal law meant to expand health insurance coverage could make full-time hours even harder to get. Companies will be penalized for not providing insurance – but only for employees who work at least 30 hours. Securing a promotion, meanwhile, is already a challenge. When Caitlin Kelly’s newspaper laid her off, there were few job options for a 50-year-old reporter. So in August 2007 she took a part-time job at a North Face store in suburban New York. Kelly says she consistently beat her sales targets and regular customers asked for her by name. But when an assistant manager position opened up, she says, she was denied an interview. Some stores prefer not to promote from within, believing homegrown managers won’t command as much respect from sales-floor workers, says Nikki Baird, an analyst at retail research company RSR. To move up, you often have to be willing to move. What Kelly found most dispiriting, as she writes in her forthcoming book, “Malled,” is that no one ever solicited ideas from her or other staffers. “The people on the sales floor have tremendous knowledge, but the company presupposed we’re stupid,” Kelly says. “I would know the minute I unpacked a box whether (it) was going to sell.” The North Face, which sells outdoor gear like all-weather jackets and backpacks, declined to comment. Analysts say overlooked staffers are a problem endemic to the field. Retailers track each purchase to guide marketing and inventory. Yet they make little effort to determine why some staffers are more productive. At most companies surveyed by the National Retail Federation last year, customer-service scores didn’t affect sales associates’ pay. “Better-performing associates drive sales,” Baird says. “But it’s hard to do that analysis to say, `Sales were up this week because we had all our A players.’ ”

Read the full article →

Scott Mendelson: The Shot Heard Round the Industry… Studios’ doomed plan for pre-DVD Video On Demand.

April 5, 2011

I know when I saw that fantastic Green Lantern footage on Saturday, my first thought was “Wow, I can’t wait to watch that in my home just sixty days after theatrical opening day for just $30!”. Fox, Warner Bros, Sony, and Universal have announced today that they will begin offering ‘first-run’ theatrical features on Video On Demand through DirectTV just sixty days after their theatrical release. Other outlets, such as Comcast and Vudo, will eventually join the fray in a limited capacity, but for now the first shot has been fired. Ironically, the two studios which will likely have the heartiest summer, Disney and Paramount, have for the moment abstained. Disney has Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides just at the start of the summer. Paramount has an uber-strong slate the entire season, with Thor , Kung Fu Panda 2 , Super 8 , Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon , and Captain America . Point being, they’ll be counting money from May to August, so there really was no incentive to piss off the exhibitors. And the theater chains are indeed mighty pissed. First off, the launch will begin in April, with Unknown (Warner Bros), Just Go With It (Sony), and Cedar Rapids (Fox) being available to rent (?) for $30. The short version is that theatrical releases, apparently on a pick-and-choose basis, will be available on this service just 60 days after theatrical release. As of now, Fox claims that all of its Fox Searchlight films (of which Cedar Rapids is one) will go VoD sixty days after wide release, which is interesting considering how few of them actually end up going wide ( Cedar Rapids has yet to top 600 screens and is already bleeding auditoriums). It’s no secret that most mainstream theatrical films do the majority of their business in the first seventeen days or so. All studios onboard are claiming that any film that is still playing strongly in theatrical will not-so-quickly end up as a home rental option, and said policy will not apply to the would-be mega franchise pictures. Of course, that puts theaters in even more of a pickle, as they have no way of knowing if a given film will end up as a Video On Demand option until after the film opens in theaters. But the real question is how exhibitors will treat the theatrical runs of films that, in all likelihood, will end up as a at-home rental option in just two months anyway. Since two of the majors and (at this point) all of the mini-majors (think Lionsgate, Weinstein Company, and Summit Entertainment) are abstaining, will theaters give preferential treatment to the studios who don’t yet take part in this program? Will Lionsgate’s Madea’s Family Reunion get more and bigger theaters on April 22nd than Fox’s Water For Elephants ? And the weekend after that, will the theater chains conspire (for lack of a better word) to slightly level the playing field for Weinstein Company’s Hoodwinked Too and Disney’s Prom against Universal’s Fast Five ? Will The Hangover 2 end up in just 1,500 screens while Kung Fu Panda 2 gets 4,000 a day prior? Will, as David Poland suggested , the theaters limit the opening weekend potential for major franchise pictures like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II by simply not running the film on as many screens? And just what will happen when a studio’s major theatrical release gets kneecapped because everyone is staying at home watching their previous theatrical release from 60 days ago? This is going to get very interesting, and possibly quite a bit bloody. But all of this speculation presumes that audiences are even interested in ‘premium pricing’ On-Demand rental services. And the system as set up seems doomed to fail for one very specific reason: the very people who can wait 60 days to watch a movie at home are generally the kind of people who can wait 90-120 days to watch that same movie at home. The ‘wait for Netflix’ crowd are willing to wait precisely because they don’t need to see a movie right when it comes out. They can wait and see it in a three-to-four months when it becomes available in their queue. And, generally speaking, these casual moviegoers are damn-sure not going to pay $30 a pop to watch a movie in their home when they can wait and see it for basically $1. I’m a movie nerd, and I’ve said before that I’d gladly pay a premium price to watch a new release at my home… over opening weekend. When you toss in two tickets plus babysitting for a few hours, you’re already over the $30 threshold, so paying $30 to watch Water For Elephants at home would be a great deal for me… if it were right when the movie came out. But if I’ve already decided to wait for a specific film, either because my wife wants to see it and getting a babysitter isn’t possible right away, or I just don’t need to see it in theaters, I’m probably not going to pay $30 just to see that movie thirty days earlier than I otherwise would for basically nothing (I rent my films through Blockbuster Online, which is a flat monthly fee). And if I’m going to pay $30 to see a movie long after its theatrical premiere, I am generally going to wait for the Blu Ray and pay to own said movie for all time. But let’s pretend that I’m willing to pay $30 to see Water For Elephants in mid-June (after all, it’s no secret that I have a new baby due right then). After all, my maybe my wife wants to see it and I, as a film nerd, have a certain disposition to seeing movies as quickly as convenient. Maybe some of you who read this blog feel the same way. But would your friends, neighbors, or family give a crap about seeing a film 30-60 days earlier than they would on DVD for a 30x up-charge? The studios are always babbling about ‘more options’ when it comes to entertainment, which is how we end up with same-day releases on DVD, Blu Ray, OnDemand, iTunes, etc. But this new system doesn’t give audiences more options. It merely ends one option earlier than normal and forces audiences to choose between paying $30 for a secondary viewing option now or $1-5 for that same viewing option a month or two later. If ‘premium’ theatrical Video On Demand is going to work, regardless of whether it SHOULD work, it has to be within the first ten days of opening weekend, if not right on opening weekend. If you’re a sports fan, ask yourself: would you pay $60 to watch a prize fight or NFL playoff game even 48 hours after it happened? But studios are loathe to commit to basically cutting off their primary distribution source, and they know that the theater chains would eventually just stop booking those films anyway. In the end, and this applies to the current pricing system as announced today as well, the films that will get hurt are the smaller pictures, the genre thrillers and character dramas that are so difficult to get funded anyway. So I’ll end this by asking you, the reader: what do you think of the new Video On Demand system? What would you be willing to pay when for alternatives to theatrical viewing of a given film? How do you think the theaters should respond? Is this the beginning of the end, or merely the end of the beginning? Scott Mendelson

Read the full article →

Janet Ritz: The Non-Mandated Society: Why Obama’s Mortgage Programs Fail

April 5, 2011

To expect banks to care about Americans over their global shareholders is asking banks to become ‘persons’ rather than corporate persons. When programs come from Washington as guidelines rather than mandated, banks use them to maximize profits at the expense of those the initiatives are meant to help. That would seem a harsh statement until one takes into account disturbing reports that support such a conclusion. It’s become more evident recently with a multi-billion program the Obama administration sent to states hardest hit by the recession to provide emergency mortgage loans to the unemployed. It was not altruism. This was initiated to save the tax base in middle class neighborhoods — an essential ingredient to economic recovery. The program had been anticipated by struggling homeowners who’d waited a year for their states to initiate the program that would give them loans to cover their mortgage payments for up to two years. President Obama established the Hardest Hit Fund in February 2010 to provide targeted aid to families in states hit hard by the economic and housing market downturn. Each state housing agency gathered public input to implement programs designed to meet the distinct challenges struggling homeowners in their state are facing. States were chosen either because they are struggling with unemployment rates at or above the national average or steep home price declines greater than 20 percent since the housing market downturn. While investigating the program’s implementation in California, I came across what may be the primary reason that the Obama administration mortgage programs out of their Treasury Department have such an abysmal track record of achieving their stated goals. The California program’s stated goal: Administered by the CalFHA Mortgage Assistance Corporation . The U.S. Treasury Department has approved nearly $2 billion in federal funding to help California families struggling to pay their mortgages. Four key programs: unemployment mortgage assistance, mortgage reinstatement assistance, principal reduction, and transition assistance. When the unemployment mortgage assistance program, however, was unveiled, it was accompanied by an eligibility test that required — wait for it — the unemployed to prove they’d not yet exhausted their unemployment payments, as so many have, and that they did not have a second or equity line, whether they could tap it or not. Based on your answers to the eligibility questions, you do not qualify for the Keep Your Home California program for the following reasons: A cash-out refinance or home equity line of credit is not permitted under this program. For those who know the real estate market, it’s not uncommon for a buyer to have utilized an equity line or second to help with their down payment. That source was tapped even more during the recession as struggling homeowners sought to pay their bills from the only bank that would give them credit — their homes. The condition that unemployment benefits cannot be exhausted as the Congress refuses to extend those benefits was in other states, as well. From Alabama’s site: You may qualify if [for Hardest Hit Alabama’: • you are eligible to receive Unemployment Compensation Benefits. • your total household income is less than 75,740 at time of application. • you owe no more than 258,690 on your home’s mortgage. These are conditions that block many the program was meant to help before it even got off the ground. How could that have happened? From the CalHFA site: NOTE: These programs are only available to homeowners whose mortgage servicing company agrees to the terms and conditions governing the use of these funds. If your servicer is not currently participating in Keep Your Home California, you may want to call them and encourage them to do so. A homeowner cannot receive assistance if their servicer has not signed an agreement with CalHFA MAC. See a list of participating servicers and which programs they are currently offering I contacted CalHFA, the department administering the new program, and asked for the decision makers behind the two conditions blocking participation in the UMA program. After a series of misdirections to Treasury, who pushed it off on HUD, a CA congressman’s office both in CA and in Washington, D.C., and a return to CalHFA, I was told the decision had been made by the banks. Further investigation into the national Hardest Hit Fund produced similar evidence of roadblocks by banks across the eligible states. Again from Alabama : Although your application for HHA assistance may be approved, several servicers have imposed additional requirements before they will accept Hardest Hit funds. We are working diligently with each servicer to provide assistance to all homeowners as soon as possible. A call to JP Morgan Chase led to a confirmation by two different executives: For those who had exhausted their benefits (a growing number around the nation), they are no longer considered unemployed — a requirement for their participation in the CalHFA program — by the bank. That puts Congress’ decision to deny extensions to those who’ve exhausted their unemployment benefits in a new light. Not only have they taken the unprecedented action to deny extensions when unemployment is over seven percent, they’ve given the banks and those who tabulate the unemployed the precedent to codify those who’ve exhausted their unemployment as no longer unemployed. I also came across another blockbuster condition aimed at the unemployed — anyone who has been unemployed during the recession— that had to do with refinancing or granting new loans. The condition, as relayed to me by Chase, was that a borrower must now show two years of uninterrupted qualified income to qualify for a loan or refinance. If there are any periods of unemployment within that two years, they do not qualify, even if they are currently working . When I expressed concern that denial of formally unemployed borrowers coming out of a recession with second mortgages or equity lines (set to rise as soon as interest rates come off their historic low) would cause them to be priced out of their homes, I was greeted with the facelessness of a bureaucracy that saw nothing but their own policies as dictated from their boardrooms and no sense of corporate citizenship to help the economy recover its tax base. That means the well-documented failure of HAMP as managed by banks/servicers is now joined by: the banks’ — as cited in the Chase example — codification of unemployment benefit recipients as unqualified for standard loan servicing until they have two years of uninterrupted income, the codification of those who’ve exhausted their unemployment benefits as no longer being unemployed, and, therefore, not eligible for any programs put forth to help the unemployed, the ineligibility of the hardest hit homeowners to qualify for emergency loans if they have a previously tapped second or equity line, even if they can’t tap that line. Is this the banks’ fault or are they just doing what they do in their faceless bureaucratic way? Banks answer to their global shareholders’ requirements for maximum profits. When these programs come from Washington as guidelines rather than mandated, is there any surprise the banks turn the guidelines over to their number crunchers to look for ways to continue to maximize their profits? When programs come down from Washington as guidelines rather than mandates, should anyone be surprised if the banks do what’s in their global interest rather than America’s interest? Would mandates at least give denied borrowers recourse? Perhaps not as much as they should, but without mandates, the programs are blocked to too many of those they’re intended to help. Even with mandates, the banks would turn over the programs to their number crunchers to find ways to get around the intent. But mandates would give the consumer somewhere to turn. A status change of the unemployed to a protected class would break the bank’s codification against them and perhaps change a growing perception of the unemployed as unworthy of support. The actions against those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own are supported by a growing prejudice against the unemployed in banks, in Washington and around the country that translates as a lack of empathy (or even good business when it means saving tax bases) — an us-and-them-better-them-than-me near-theology that seems to be holding whole sections of our population in its non-empathetic thrall. Unless their intent is to create Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine . Then their success is legion. Are the unemployed and formerly unemployed now to be Oliver Twist, punished for holding out their empty bowls to the banks while asking, “please, Sir, may I have more?” Is that what the administration has been doing with the banks? It’s not only the banks. Too many Americans, including in government, those in the throes of money woes, disconnected due to Internet relationships and 24/7 punditry, and, above all, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I mindsets, are losing or have lost their capacity for empathy — one of the most important components of a successful society. They’ve become open to the drumbeat of the other. The first ‘other’ was the unemployed… Were the shock doctrinaires shocked they got away with demonizing them — our neighbors, our family members, our spouses? Apparently not for long, since they were soon on to their next target: unions. The lack of mandates from Tim Geithner’s Treasury on the guidelines to banks undermines economic recovery and puts the 2012 election at risk. The undercurrent of anger in November, 2010, was not the Tea Party asking for cuts, no matter how much that spin is believed by the incurious. It was the desperation of Americans, a full 81% who know someone unemployed , crying out to their representatives and to their president, Help us . If programs like the Hardest Hit Fund had the mandate to require that the banks include anyone who’d received unemployment compensation and had not yet found work — even if they’d exhausted those benefits — those closest to losing their homes in middle class neighborhoods would be better able to weather the storm until jobs return. Of course, that would mean Washington would have count those who’ve exhausted their benefits (the so-called 99ers ) as unemployed and those numbers could be staggering. Reelection politics aside, if the banks were mandated to stop demonizing the unemployed in unemployment recovery programs and anyone who’s shown any unemployment in the prior two years, that would allow programs to have a better percentage of success than their current rate of failure. The additional example of the exclusion of those with second mortgages or equity lines — even those the homeowner can’t tap — also needs immediate investigation as to the intent and consequences of that exclusion. When you put that together with the denial of bank services to those who’ve been unemployed within the prior two years of their refinance request and the inevitable rise of interest rates on their second mortgages and lines, the need for investigation takes on urgency. Finally, the government needs to recognize that banks have codified those who have received or who have exhausted unemployment benefits within a prior two year period as ineligible for their services and mandate that such discrimination is not only un-American but a threat to economic recovery. For more on this topic, visit THE ENVIRONMENTALIST . Follow The Environmentalist: on Twitter: @environmentlst on facebook: www.facebook.com/environment.org

Read the full article →

Van Jones: ‘This Is Not America’: SWAT Team Evicts Grandmother, Community Fights Back (Video)

April 1, 2011

Day after day, the media and government ignore an ongoing national tragedy: a tsunami of foreclosures is still sweeping millions of Americans out of their homes. As many as three million American families this year will hear a terrifying knock on the door: a law enforcement officer will tell them to get out, because a bank won’t work out a fair deal and allow them to stay. But one remarkable grandmother this month refused to go quietly. And her brave example — including her willingness to stand up, along with her neighbors, to a SWAT team — finally got elected officials to intervene. A modern day Rosa Parks, her courage may well spark a national movement. Grandmother and longtime Rochester resident Catherine Lennon was evicted from her home on March 28. It was a moving scene captured on the video below. But Ms. Lennon should never have been booted out. Her problem was simple enough to solve: her husband died in January of 2008, leaving her with no will and her home ownership in legal limbo. She acknowledges missing some payments. But then, because her name was not on the house’s official mortgage paperwork, she says her bank refused her checks and returned them to her. She says she has the ability to make her payments.* But believe it or not: Fannie and Freddie wouldn’t accept her money. Fannie Mae, which now owns Lennon’s home, received $90 billion in bailout money. According to Max Rameau of Take Back the Land, “In order for banks to get their mortgage insurance money, they must evict the families. Instead of a system or laws that try to keep families in their homes, banks have a perverse incentive to evict them. We should be rewarding banks that keep people in their homes, not the ones that kick people out.” Instead, according to Ms. Lennon, the bank called in the police. A SWAT team came to evict her and her 11 children and grandchildren. Neighbors stood with Ms. Lennon throughout the ordeal. “This is not America,” said one shocked neighbor. Take Back The Land Rochester, a local group providing eviction defense, attempted to stop the eviction. Seven people were arrested, including a 70-year-old neighbor, still in her pajamas. Take Back the Land Rochester is a part of an impressive national network of volunteers who are standing on the frontlines and helping those facing eviction and foreclosure. After Lennon’s eviction, Rochester residents increased their calls and letters to their elected representatives and the media. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter intervened and got Lennon on the phone with Fannie and Freddie to begin negotiations on the mortgage. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also called Take Back the Land Rochester to offer their support. Lennon’s story is both a light of hope and a warning. In the next week or two, Lennon may get her home back. We hope to see a video of the celebration as Ms. Lennon and her family are allowed back into their family home. But tonight Lennon and her family are in a homeless shelter. And today across the United States, more than 8,000 people will lose their home to foreclosure. They are grandmothers, husbands, sisters and aunts. They are the fabric of our community: the teachers, the janitors — the same workers who are under attack in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and elsewhere. The time has come in the United States where we all must be brave like the volunteers of Take Back the Land, where we all must be eviction defenders. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally established to help US citizens fulfill the dream of owning our homes. In a time when communities are hurting, we must stand together and demand policies that will save American families from losing their homes. We must stand together to protect and rebuild the American dream. *An earlier version of this post stated that Catherine Lennon was making payments. UPDATE: Bank of America today said that Ms. Lennon had fallen behind on her payments. In response to the Bank of America statement, Ryan Acuff (an organizer with Take Back the Land- Rochester, the community group supporting Ms. Lennon) released the following statement: After Catherine Lennon’s husband died of brain and lung cancer in 2008, the Lennon family, understandably, experienced the same financial harship many people are facing today. As a result, Catherine did miss some mortgage payments to Countrywide/Bank of America, just as we have stated in our press releases and public statements. However, Catherine not only met with the Housing Council, the local HUD approved mortgage counselors, but attempted to engage with Bank of America. In fact, Catherine sent a payment to the bank, but the bank returned the check and refused to negotiate with her because the mortgage was in the name of her deceased husband, who did not leave a will. While Catherine was, indeed, delinquent, the fact remains that Bank of America refused her attempts to pay and efforts to negotiate modifications to her mortgage for the reasons stated above.

Read the full article →

Howard Steven Friedman: Gladwell’s Views on Entrepreneurs

March 31, 2011

Last night, I was privileged to listen to Malcolm Gladwell discuss innovation at an ICAP Ocean Tomo dinner for entrepreneurs. In his speech, he proposed that innovators are operationally conservative but socially nonconforming. This contrasts with the vast majority who tend to be socially conforming — constantly looking for acceptance from their families, peer groups, co-workers and even strangers. The operationally conservative part of innovators specifically refers to the idea that innovators are better at identifying the true risk of a situation and are more willing to fail than others. One example he gave was Ted Turner. Turner had inherited Turner Advertising Company, a highly profitable billboard business from his father. In 1969, Turner purchased a defunct television station and put it back on the air with inexpensive programming while promoting it using his billboard business. The synergies between his businesses helped this television station eventually became the super-station, a cash machine which funded many of his future ventures. Operationally, Turner’s move into a defunct television station was conservative in that he understood the synergies between the billboard and TV advertising business, but socially he was highly criticized in the Atlanta business community. Additionally, Turner’s outspoken personal style has continued to earn him public enemies but his business moves have generally been built on carefully analyzed insights. Mark Zuckerberg fits this model of operationally conservative but socially nonconforming as well. Zuckerberg founded Facebook in 2004. Soon after, he dropped out of Harvard and moved to California to pursue his business goals. Dropping out of school is generally socially nonconforming as so many of us are pushed to graduate from top colleges and graduate schools. For Mark, dropping out may have been particularly nonconforming given the significant educational accomplishments of his family — his father is a dentist, mother a psychiatrist and he had recently graduated from the prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy. But operationally, dropping out was reasonably conservative. Zuckerberg had interest from entrepreneurs like Sean Parker and investors such as Peter Theil (who invested $500,000 by late 2004), there was good reason to feel confident in the customer base growing (based on initial successes like Facemash and the limited version of Facebook that was operational) and he could re-enter a top university sometime in the future if Facebook failed. There is selection bias in Mr. Gladwell’s discussion, much like in his book Outliers . After all, his lecture focused on examples of successful innovators, with no discussion of those who misestimated risk and failed perpetually. Nonetheless, there is a broader point about social conformity. How often do we avoid taking an action not out of the fear of failure itself, but rather out of the fear of other people’s opinions of our failure? On a personal note, my greatest regrets have never been in my abject failures, but rather in the times where I simply didn’t try.

Read the full article →

Ohio Collective Bargaining Restrictions Prevail, But Unions Vow Fight

March 31, 2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio lawmakers have had their chance to vote on a bill limiting collective bargaining rights for 350,000 public workers across the state. Next will be the public’s turn. Even before the contentious Senate Bill 5 – in some ways tougher than Wisconsin’s – had cleared the Legislature late Wednesday, unions and Democrats in this once-proud labor stronghold vowed to put it on November’s ballot as a referendum. “O-H-I-O! S.B. 5 has got to go!” protesters chanted ahead of a final Senate vote of 17-16 that sent the bill to Gov. John Kasich for his signature, expected this week. The vote followed a day filled with Statehouse demonstrations by about 750 people, who raucously chanted and shouted throughout the process. After a House vote of 53-44, opponents spewed expletives at House members. The vitriol wasn’t limited to the Statehouse. Leo Geiger, 34, a Republican who works as a sewer inspector for the city of Dayton, said he’s “deathly afraid that this is going to affect me, my family and the entire state of Ohio in an incredibly negative way.” He believes the bill is political payback for unions’ support of Democrats in November’s election. “I find this to be loathsome,” he said from Dayton on Wednesday night. He didn’t attend protests because he couldn’t take the time off. “I find this to be disrespectful to Ohioans and disrespectful to the process of democracy.” The measure affects safety workers, teachers, nurses and a host of other government personnel. It allows unions to negotiate wages and certain working conditions but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. It gets rid of automatic pay increases, and replaces them with merit raises or performance pay. Workers would also be banned from striking. A ballot challenge would stall implementation of the law that Republicans championed as vital to Ohio’s economic future. “This state cannot pay what we’ve been paying in the past,” House Speaker Bill Batchelder said during a news conference ahead of Wednesday’s vote. “Local government and taxpayers need control over their budgets. This bill, as amended and changed, is a bill that will give control back to the people who pay the bills.” He said House Republicans were launching a website, sb5truth.com, to correct what they see as falsehoods about the measure. Republican Gov. John Kasich has said his $55.5 billion, two-year state budget counts on unspecified savings from lifting union protections to fill an $8 billion hole. During House debate, state Rep. Robert Hagan, a Democrat from Youngstown, took issue with the notion that the bill was aimed at saving money. “Don’t ever lie to us and don’t be hypocritical and don’t dance around it as if it’s finances, because you know what it is: It’s to bust the union,” Hagan told his fellow lawmakers. Democratic state Sen. Charleta Tavares, a recent Columbus city councilwoman, called the bill “paternalistic, patronizing, disrespectful and condescending” to city leaders who balance their budgets annually, not every two years as Ohio does. Pickerington teacher Patricia Kuhn-Morgan said she was confused by connections being drawn between the bill and job creation. “As teachers, the best way we can have to job creation is to educate the public,” she said. She predicted Wednesday’s votes will hurt GOP lawmakers on Election Day. “I’ve spoken to a lot of educators who are typically straight-ticket Republicans that have said to me that they won’t ever vote for another Republican because of how this bill’s been pushed through and the democratic process has been abused,” she said as she awaited the Senate’s vote. Though protests were much larger in Wisconsin, Ohio unions claim they hold the hearts of a majority of voters in their political swing state. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill this month eliminating most of state workers’ collective bargaining rights. That measure exempts police officers and firefighters; Ohio’s does not. The Ohio bill has drawn thousands of demonstrators, prompted a visit from the Rev. Jesse Jackson and packed hearing rooms in the weeks before the Senate passed the earlier version of the measure. Its reception in the House had been quieter, as unions resolved themselves to its approval and shifted their strategy to the fall ballot. Democratic state Sen. Joe Schiavoni said the way the bill had been rushed through the legislative process without union input was unfair – but he said voters would have the last word. At the ballot box, he said, “all Ohioans will get the opportunity to right the wrongs they committed in the last election, and, ladies and gentlemen, that is fair.” ___ Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and JoAnne Viviano contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Peggy McColl: Success or Failure: Which Fear Is Really Holding You Back?

March 29, 2011

You are months, or even weeks away from launching your product or services online and you are ready to abolish the entire idea. Yikes! You might be surprised at how many other internet marketers, authors and solo-preneurs share your same doubts and fears. Many of my clients and I have experienced these negative issues associated with putting ourselves out there in the marketplace and wondering what will happen if…. if we fail, and if we succeed. Do these thoughts sound familiar? It’s not going to work I’ve spent all of this time and money building it and what if no one wants it? Why would anyone want to buy anything from me? My content is on X and I am not a perfect example of X Once I launch and it’s successful, the microscope will be on me to walk the talk and I may not be able to keep up with demand. One of my clients candidly confessed, “I don’t know if I am afraid of failure or afraid of success.” This is natural. There is a fear to fail because you’ve put so much into it, including your name, your brand and your reputation. The other side of the coin is what if it is a big success? Is it going to take her away from her family more than she’d like? If she’s feeling overwhelmed now, even before it launches, what will her life look like if it does take off? This coaching call reminded me of similar experiences I’ve had with feeling overwhelmed. In my earlier days of releasing some of my first books I felt like pulling the plug on the entire concept because I questioned who cares what I have to say. It brought back memories of my own fears. I wasn’t as concerned about failing as I was about succeeding and what that meant because then I’d have to step up, follow through and consistently deliver. That was a lot of pressure and I didn’t know if I wanted to set myself up for it. Is the fear of success better or easier to overcome than the fear of failure? Not really. Fear of any kind can be an immobilizer and you have to be able to stare it in the face and go for it anywhere. Here are the recommendations I made to my client and the strategy that can work for you: Understand your fears are natural so don’t be upset with yourself because these thoughts come up – it’s okay to feel it. Some of the most successful people in the world had that experience. Come from your heart, remember why you are doing it and reconnect to the passion that started the whole process in the first place. Continue to give the best of who you are Don’t worry that you are not perfect at what you are teaching others -you are human and that will resonate with your customers. Think about when a high-profile golfer has a tough match and when he is interviewed, he admits to not playing his best. We don’t fault him for that, we know how difficult it is to be on top of your game at all times. Don’t be afraid of sharing your own challenges – people will connect and respect your vulnerability. Let them see the real you. Make a conscious choice to put the fun back in to the process. There is tremendous value in asking yourself great questions such as: What do I like or enjoy about this? How will I make this more enjoyable? What am I grateful for in this experience? What am I most grateful for in my life right now? (This is a Biggie!) Put a reminder in front of you to stay connected to what you are enjoying most about this experience What am I learning? How am I growing? There will always be the one moment in time when you want to throw up your hands and give up. Remember it is just a moment, a day or a week and it is a temporary feeling. Take a break and do something else for a while until the feeling passes. I remember when I sent my first manuscript to my editor and when she said it was a great book my response was, “Really???” She laughed and said, “Oh you authors are so insecure.” We are all very similar when it comes to taking a risk and putting ourselves out there. Two decades ago Susan Jeffers published her book, Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway . It is still true to this day!

Read the full article →

Nearly A Tenth Of Japanese Farmland Affected By Tsunami, AP Says

March 26, 2011

SENDAI, Japan — The rice paddies on the outskirts of this tsunami-hit city are ankle-deep in a black, salty sludge. Crumpled cars and uprooted trees lie scattered across them. His house destroyed, rice farmer Shinichi Shibasaki lives on a square of blue tarp on the top floor of a farming cooperative office with others like him. He has one set of soiled clothes. But all he can think about is getting back to work. “If we start washing the soil out now, we can start growing our rice seedlings at the end of April at a different location, and plant them here a month later,” the 59-year-old farmer said. That may prove overly optimistic, but agriculture experts – as well as Indonesian farmers hit by a tsunami in 2004 – say a quick recovery is possible, maybe within a year. A key factor will be how long it takes for the salt to wash out from the fields, some still flooded with seawater. Whenever it comes, the return of bright green stalks swaying in the breeze will be a symbol of rebirth. The affected area may represent only a small part of Japan’s overall production, but rice is a spiritual touchstone in this country. The nation’s soul – despite a modern fascination with all things high-tech – remains rooted in the soil. In the name of preserving tradition, Japan’s mostly small-scale rice farmers are heavily protected from cheaper foreign competition. The emperor plants and harvests symbolic stalks every year, and some city dwellers rent small plots to grow rice on the edge of town. The country’s mythology is filled with references to rice, and the written character for “rice field” forms part of many surnames. In the small city of Natori, Akemi Miura can only laugh as she looks at the land around her home, which her family has worked for more than a century. But the 46-year-old says they will replant, though she thinks it will take a few years for the soil to recover. A fishing boat washed more than a mile (1.5 kilometers) inland smashed into her carnation greenhouse and caught fire. Debris and a thick, sticky mud covers the fields. “I think we’re finished with carnations, but we’ll always grow rice,” she says. There are no official estimates yet of how much farmland was affected. The Associated Press made a rough calculation based on last year’s harvest in tsunami-hit towns. It indicates that at most 8 percent of Japan’s 4 million acres (1.6 million hectares) of rice farms has been hit, affecting about 4 percent of total production. Makie Kokubun, a professor at Tohoku University in Sendai, will soon accompany government officials on a trip to take samples and analyze the soil. Japan’s coastal farmland has been damaged by salt from major typhoons in the past, and farmers have been able to flush it clean. “Recovery may be faster than some think. The key is the water flow through the land, which varies by region,” he said. “There is also some evidence that light salt can actually help crops grow, though this is obviously in far greater amounts.” The 2004 tsunami ravaged rice fields in Indonesia’s Aceh province, and scientists made dire predictions of years without a crop. But many recovered quickly. “Thank God, we were able to harvest rice just one year after the tsunami decimated my rice fields,” said Sulaiman Abdullah, 55, who farms a third of an acre (1,300 square meters) in the village of Beuradeuen. “And the quality is even better than it was before, maybe because the mud, garbage and sea water brought in by the wave made the land more fertile,” he added. “The same tsunami that first destroyed our lives was in the end a blessing of sorts.” Even if the soil recovers, farmers in Fukushima prefecture – known for the light and sticky “koshihikari” strain of rice preferred by many Japanese – face another problem. Radiation from a damaged nuclear power complex has found its way into vegetables, milk and the water supply. Japanese consumers are notoriously fickle about food safety and may shun Fukushima products, even if health experts say the radiation is not a threat. Up and down the tsunami-ravaged coast, a greater concern may be manpower. Many of the tsunami victims came from coastal families that have farmed for generations. Here in Miyagi prefecture, the state that includes Sendai and Natori, farmland was converted from swamps about 400 years ago to generate funds for the local ruler. But the younger generation increasingly doesn’t want to farm. The average age of farm workers in Miyagi topped 65 last year, according to a prefectural survey. Now some older farmers, their homes gone and land in tatters, are saying they will call it quits. “I’m worried that a lot of these elderly farmers are just going to leave their fields and not come back,” said Masao Takahashi, an official in the Miyagi office of the Japan Agricultural Cooperatives, a politically powerful national network of farming groups. In Natori, 60-year-old rice farmer Kikuo Endo points to a shed full of ruined farm equipment, which he estimates was worth 10 million yen ($125,000). He doesn’t know if insurance will cover it. “People shouldn’t give up, but I don’t think I will farm again,” he says. “It’s time to pass the baton to the next generation.” There may not be one. His three sons, he said, have abandoned the fields and moved to the city. ___ Associated Press writer Fakhrurradzie Gade in Beuradeuen, Indonesia, contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Triangle Factory Fire’s Legacy Under Threat

March 25, 2011

“We have been legislated to death.” – James T. Hoyle, Secretary of the Manufacturers’ Association, explaining his opposition to new laws proposed in the wake of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. factory fire, May 19, 1914 “The regulations are killing us” – Congressional candidate George Pendergrass during the Nevada Republican primary, May 12, 2010. Susan Harris’s voice grows hoarse with emotion when she discusses last year’s BP oil spill and the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, two of the biggest industrial accidents in the nation’s history. But the 62-year-old artist from Los Angeles gets even more passionate expressing her disappointment that the two incidents have not prompted more safety rules, instead lost amid a backlash against government regulations to protect worker safety and health. “How do people become so hard? It’s disgusting,” she says. “What are our priorities as a country? It’s really ironic that this is happening right now on the anniversary of the fire.” Harris is referring to Friday’s 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire , in which 146 workers, mainly young immigrant women, were burned to death or jumped to their deaths. The workplace tragedy, which was caused by dramatically unsafe conditions and blocked exits, inspired dozens of reforms, later helping pave the way for the New Deal, and invigorated the union movement. That tragedy has a special poignancy for Harris — her grandfather, Max Blanck, was the owner of the factory and was tried for manslaughter due to the unsafe conditions, which included a locked door that trapped dozens of young seamstresses in the burning ninth-floor room of the Asch building. Haunted by the tragedy, Harris recalls how she did not even find out about her family’s legacy until she was a young teenager and stumbled across her grandfather’s name in a book — the family changed its name slightly in the wake of the accident. “It has affected me deeply. As I grew up, I reflected more on what was going on in my world,” says Harris, who has met with relatives of victims and created an art exhibit to honor the victims’ memories. “I definitely became more sensitive to workplace conditions — when I see and hear about young women working in sweatshops in Bangladesh, females who are raped on their way out of work, it has an effect on me. Look at what is happening today — people are trying to deregulate all these important workplace protections at an exponential rate.” Harris is referring to an assault that has only grown in the first few months of the Republican-led House of Representatives. The GOP’s budget proposal includes slashing $99 million from the Occupational and Safety Health Administration, a 40 percent reduction in the budget of the federal agency most responsible for making sure the nation’s workplaces are safe — Democrats claim that translates into 8,000 fewer workplace hazard inspections and 740 fewer whistleblower discrimination probes. And the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), has vowed to take a tough look at regulations that impede job growth , soliciting suggestions from industry groups that included OSHA regulations. Last month, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) led a hearing that largely criticized OSHA’s impact on business, during which the freshman lawmaker thundered about “needless rules and onerous regulations.” During Walberg’s hearing, which was dominated by discussion of the costs of OSHA regulations on corporate bottom lines, one of the most emotional moments came when Tammy Miser, an advocate for worker safety and founder of United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities, undercut the lawmaker’s thesis. Miser said she was there to deliver “a personal story of why OSHA regulations are needed” and cried as she described how her brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in 2003 in an aluminum dust explosion at a factory that produced aluminum wheels, where fires happened on a regular basis and she claimed that workers were instructed not to call the fire department “because it was costing them too much money.” Despite Boone’s death and the tragic dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery in 2008, which killed 13 and injured 42, OSHA has still not issued a final rule to regulate combustible dust. “Some companies choose to gamble with workers’ lives because there are no OSHA standards,” said Miser, in discussing the Imperial Sugar disaster. “The buzz that the regulations kill jobs … that’s just nonsense,” said Miser, noting that only two regulations have been passed by OSHA in the past 10 years. And one of them — applying to cranes and derricks — came too late for Steven Lillicrap, a 21-year-old construction worker who was killed when he was pulled into the cables of a 100-ton crane in 2009 while OSHA was still revising the standards for the rule. “It was finally issued in July and is expected to prevent 22 deaths and 175 injuries and millions of dollars in property damage per year. The benefits far outweigh the costs of this rule.” Miser paused and added, “There’s no price tag that can be put on seeing your husband walk your daughter down the aisle or seeing your baby born. I’ve talked to family members that have had children and their husbands are gone. Their babies are never going to know their father. It’s nothing like seeing your child graduate from college or holding your grandbaby.” Locked Doors, Charred Bodies On Saturday, March 25, 1911 , the end of the workweek, many of the young men and women toiling at sewing machines and cutting cloth at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory near Washington Square Park were getting ready to leave for the day when flames suddenly burst from a trash can on the eighth floor. The fire spread quickly through the factory, which had no sprinklers and where fire drills were not required, consuming the ninth and tenth floors as workers tried in vain to put it out with buckets of water. They quickly unraveled a water hose, but no water came out. Hundreds of workers raced to an exit door where a young man screamed, “The door is locked? The door is locked!” Dozens made their way onto freight elevators, whose operators risked their own lives to save 150 people, but those who were crowded out jumped down the shaft or out of the windows onto the street below. The wet sidewalks were covered with 146 bodies — mainly Jewish and Italian women struggling to earn a living making blouses in the sweatshop — many of them charred beyond recognition. Over 100,000 took part in the funeral procession, which was watched by over 300,000 New Yorkers — many of them expressing rage at the factory owners, who had put profits before safety and prevented the workers from forming a union. Two years earlier, a general strike of garment workers, mostly Jewish women, had led to improved wages and working conditions, but that didn’t change the union status of Triangle workers. It was still a dangerous time to toil in a labor-intensive industry. “About 100 workers were killed on the job every day in 1911 — mine collapses, railroad accidents, steel mill accidents,” says David von Drehle, the author of “Triangle: The Fire That Changed America.” “If you go back and read the newspapers from that period, it’s shocking how common the headlines show up.” At the manslaughter trial of Blanck and factory co-owner Isaac Harris, witnesses were galvanized when one of their employees testified that Harris told him after the fire: “The dead ones are dead and will be buried.  The live ones are alive and they will have to live.  Sure the doors were locked; I wouldn’t let them rob my fortune.” Despite the public outcry, changes were not immediate. A year after the fire, many proposed regulations and laws were clogged in legislative inertia. Though The New York Times ‘s news pages were full of graphic accounts of the tragedy and unsafe conditions at the factory, the paper’s editorial page somberly cautioned against excessive regulation, arguing, “Excited persons rarely accomplish anything … No new laws are needed.” Four years after the tragedy, one letter writer to the Times decried industry-supported amendments that threatened to gut the new laws, including one that would exempt New York City and other cities “altogether from the operation of all safeguards affecting the safety and health of factory operatives.” And factory owners Blanck and Harris were acquitted of manslaughter due to too much conflicting evidence — two years later, Blanck was fined $20 for having the doors locked at another of his garment factories. Shocked and outraged citizens demanded better working conditions, and New York state enacted almost 40 labor laws in the following three years. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act to ease union formation and protect collective bargaining and the rights of striking workers. Though previous tragedies — from the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 to the fire that engulfed the General Slocum steamboat — sparked reforms, the political consequences of the Triangle fire were the most widespread, forming a political alliance between labor, liberals and lawmakers that shaped the Democratic Party for decades to come. “There are a handful of catalytic, galvanizing moments where history really gets a big push to give us the world that we live in today, and the Triangle fire is one of those,” von Drehle said. Unlike the sinking of the Titanic, he said, “Triangle led to changes that influenced the way every American lives .” Still Unsafe To Work A century later — despite the regulations, laws and a more educated workforce — such workplace tragedies continue to happen. Within the last two months in the New York City area, these accidents occurred: Limin Min Huang was crushed to death at the dry-cleaning plant in Jamaica, Queens, where she worked, when her scarf got caught in a flatwork ironer, pulling her into the machine. At least six workers fainted and vomited after being overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning due to the lack of ventilation at a warehouse in South Brunswick, N.J. And construction workers Brett McEnroe and Roy Powell died after falling 65 feet in an elevator shaft inside a building site that lacked several safety precautions on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Among the clothing and garment industries, there remain potentially unsafe working environments, sometimes due to new hazards that didn’t exist at the time of the Triangle fire. Last September, OSHA cited New Jersey’s Miskeen Originals for numerous workplace safety and health violations, including employee exposure to methylene chloride, a hazardous chemical linked to cancer and adverse effects on the heart. But the penalties remain paltry. For one willful violation, the company was slapped with a $28,000 fine, along with a $15,150 penalty for 12 serious violations. “Even a hundred years later, workplace safety concerns are still a problem,” says Catherine Ruckelshaus, the legal co-director of the National Employment Law Project, which released a report last year concluding that workplace violations are severe and widespread in New York City’s low-wage labor market. “You hear about the locked doors at the Triangle factory and it’s shocking. But to this day, we hear about grocery store workers in Brooklyn who are locked in the stores at night and it’s a very common practice in retail and the garment industry to lock the doors — they say it’s to prevent theft, which is what the Triangle factory owners claimed.” Ruckelshaus says that though there are much better laws and regulations on the books than there were back in 1911, many of them are not being enforced and there are many parallels between now and then. “In many ways, we haven’t made much progress,” she says. “The Triangle fire was a mostly immigrant population in a very competitive business. We have that now with janitorial, home health care, security workers, the garment industry — any labor-intensive industry, you have the same pressures.” Among the NELP report’s findings: only 11 percent of injured workers file a workers’ compensation claim and 16 percent were fired or told not to file a claim when they told their employer about the injury. Every week in the city, $18.4 million is lost to “wage theft,” meaning violations such as paying less than minimum wage. “It happens all over the place — unsafe construction sites, sweatshops tucked away in all corners of NYC, just blocks from the Triangle factory site,” says Leigh Benin, who worked briefly in the garment industry. “The other part of it is, which is just as shameful, is that 95 percent of garment manufacturing is now offshore. Clothes are being made in Bangladesh, where they have very similar conditions to the Triangle factory, where workers are locked in.” Benin , whose grandmother’s cousin Rose died in the Triangle fire, says that “it was routine to lock doors, to search people when they left.” For him, the Triangle tragedy was a living memory and he would hear the details from his grandmother’s lips. “I felt that deep sadness in her and I felt close to her,” he says. “And then it came to me, that there is something I can do, to try and make sure that we will never forget them, that they shall not have died in vain. That they could look back and say, ‘They died, but we did something to make sure that won’t happen again.’” Benin, now a professor at Adelphi University, is taking part in ceremonies to mark the anniversary but says he worries that the fire’s legacy of workplace reform is under threat, partly because so many people have no memory of the fire. He cites the example of Frances Perkins, a young social worker who was having a cup of tea across the park on the day of the fire when she heard the commotion and saw women jumping out of the windows to their deaths. “From that day forward, she made the determination to make that tragedy count for something, that those lives were not in vain,” he said. Perkins, as a member of the Factory Investigating Commission, helped push through dozens of workplace safety laws that became a model for the rest of the country. She later became President Franklin Roosevelt’s first female Cabinet member, serving as Secretary of Labor and helping push through the Social Security Act, laws against child labor, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established the first minimum wage and overtime laws. The factory commission report had an enormous impact, says Kirstin Downey, the author of ” The Woman Behind the New Deal ,” a biography of Perkins. Speaking at a recent symposium on the Triangle fire sponsored by the National Consumers League, Downey held up a volume from the 13-volume report, explaining that it revealed unsafe and unsanitary conditions in numerous factories and led to workplace innovations like fire escapes, sprinklers, lighted exit signs, occupancy limits, regular fire drills and bans on smoking in factories that Americans take for granted. At the ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the Triangle fire, Perkins and Eleanor Roosevelt were at the podium, says Benin. “They could look back and talk about the legacy of reform, at all the progress that had been made in the decades after the fire. But if you look back at what’s been going on the last few years, it’s been an attempt to undo the reforms and the union movement, to return us to an era before the New Deal, even prior to the progressive era, to some new Gilded Age.” Benin argues that people don’t die of excessive regulation. “Was there too much regulation of the mining industry after 29 people died or BP where 11 people died? Let’s assume that it’s impossible to find a completely reasonable approach to everything and that inevitably we’re going to err on one side — I’d much rather err on the side of too much, because too little ends up harming people or killing people,” he said. Considering the lobbying forces marshaled by corporation and industry groups, Benin says that it’s an unequal fight. “The forces arrayed against regulation are the wealthy and powerful, whose vision doesn’t extend beyond the bottom line,” he said. “The largest question is, ‘Who is responsible for the public good? Corporations are only responsible to their shareholders or to their own egos. So, it can only be government officials.” Similar to the anti-regulatory zeal displayed in the industry response to Rep. Issa’s recent request for lists of burdensome regulations, there was an “incredible litany of business lobbying groups in New York state and New York City who had the exact same arguments as the Chamber [of Commerce] has today,” says Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College and HuffPost blogger. Describing the arguments found in transcripts of the factory investigation commission hearings, Dreier recounts: “‘If you make us put fire sprinklers in,  if you require fire escapes’ and other things we now take for granted, ‘industry will leave New York and it will become a ghost town.’” Dreier is alarmed by today’s anti-regulatory climate. “If today’s Chamber of Commerce were around in 1912, they would say fire sprinklers are burdensome government regulations that will drive out jobs,” he said. “They would call for voluntary corporate responsibilities to fix mine safety and oil rigs. … What we learned from the Triangle fire is you have to have a set of rules and standards that protect workers.” The Chamber strongly disputes that characterization. The preeminent business lobby’s executive director of labor law policy, Marc Freedman, says that the group supports OSHA and that workplace safety is a primary concern of employers. Freedman argues that there are valid questions about how OSHA spends its money and whether it overemphasizes enforcement at the expense of efforts to work with employers on compliance assistance. “What I seem to be seeing from a number of voices is to connect the Triangle tragedy with some of the contemporary efforts surrounding unionization or other workplace accidents and disasters,” he says. “Clearly, Triangle Shirtwaist had a deep meaning and resonates as one of the signature events that triggered workplace reforms, and it’s a good thing we’ve moved on since then.” He adds that companies have made serious investments to achieve the goal of no workplace accidents or fatalities, explaining that “there are going to be employers worthy of enforcement by OSHA, but the question is whether the agency is only going after employers who have truly disregarded the safety of their workers.” Freedman argues that the chamber’s focus on regulation is more about what the Obama administration is trying to do and not about the rules and regulations that are already on the books, adding that some of OSHA’s regulatory ideas are not well-founded. The legacy of the Triangle fire is palpable to every American, says Benin. “If you’re sitting in a workplace right now, you’re enjoying safety regulations that came about because of the fire — sprinkler system, fire drills, clear exits,” he says. “Over 30 fire safety laws came about and we are all benefiting from the loss of those 146 lives and what that tragedy did to shake up the country.”

Read the full article →

Nicholas Carroll: Shifting the Focus From "Strategic Default" to "Prudent Walkaway"

March 25, 2011

A “strategic default” currently means walking away from an underwater home even though the owner could afford to pay the mortgage. However, this represents far less than half of walkaways. The vast majority of foreclosures happen to people who cannot afford to pay the mortgage. Portrayals of strategic default in 2009 were typically of homeowners who “used their home as an ATM,” or “deadbeats.” Even news stories describing the positive side of default didn’t entirely shake those images. One of the earliest semi-positive stories was in the Wall St. Journal , titled ” American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent .” This article described a couple who had defaulted, cut their housing costs from nearly $4,000/month to just over $2,000/month, and were living in a bigger house with “a swimming pool with three waterfalls.” Another strategic defaulter in the same article found the benefits of default-and-rent included the discretionary income to go out to dinner more often, and hang on to his series-6 BMW. These are not the people I meet in the course of interviewing and writing about surviving tough times. The people I meet are laid off, or from two incomes down to one, or on their way to medical bankruptcy. They cannot imagine a swimming pool, much less a waterfall — they just have bills they can’t pay, one of which is the mortgage. Some are slow in adjusting to the “new normal,” and still eat out regularly, but others have already cut back to eating out four times a year. Their home may be underwater — or they may have equity. Often it doesn’t matter, when the bottom line is that they have to choose between the mortgage and medical insurance — because losing medical insurance in America is potentially lethal. For this group, it is not a matter of cunningly defaulting to maintain a latte-sipping lifestyle. It is a matter of prudently walking away from the mortgage that is dragging their family and future under the waves. The benefit for people who act both prudently and decisively can be startling. Taking a fairly typical example from people I’ve interviewed, this is the family’s financial situation: Primary income of $3,000 net per month is gone, with one laid off. Secondary income of $2,000 net is still coming in. $40,000 in cash and savings, including the 401K. $20,000 in credit card debt. One car fully paid for. Second car — $10,000 owed. They have done a careful financial projection. The total monthly expenses are $5,000, right down to the last dime — which includes $2,500/month on mortgage and credit card bills. That says that if the main breadwinner is not fully employed in 14 months, they will lose the home — and of course take a dip in their credit rating. And if the job doesn’t come until the 13th month, it had better be at the same salary as the previous job, or they’ll lose the home anyway. Scenario A: Betting on a job, and continuing to pay the mortgage (a.k.a. “doing the right thing,” according to the moralists). They guess that they will be fully employed again in time to save the home. They continue paying mortgage, car payments, and minimum monthly credit card payments. If their bet is wrong, their trajectory is shown by the red line below. Scenario B: Prudently walking away . They decide that getting a job might require a career shift or relocation, with some time and money invested in re-education. They immediately stop paying the mortgage and credit card payments. In this scenario, they cut their expenses by $2,500/month (which rises to $3,500/month when they move out and start paying rent). If there is real equity in their financed car, they sell it and buy a used car to replace it. Worksheet online in MS Excel format or PDF The difference between A and B is incredible. If the family bets the primary bread-winner will be working within the year and is wrong, they could be leaving their home without enough money to rent a decent apartment in 14 months — exhausted, frightened, and possibly running on bald tires. (People who “do the right thing” tend to leave long before they actually get legal notice to move.) The family that bets the primary bread-winner will not find a job in 13 months and stops paying the debts will be leaving their home with $33,000 cash in hand, move to a rental (usually in the same school district, if need be), and will have three years for the primary bread-winner to find a job . And that’s their worst scenario — it’s quite likely they’ll be in the house for 18-24 months without making any mortgage payments. Conclusion: when the writing is on the wall, the best plan is often a prudent walkaway — an escape to the future, equipped with enough cash to get there.

Read the full article →