Commentary on’Merging Black Colleges; Discrimination or not?’

To slightly disagree with one of the statements made; The article does discuss a local white college merging with another white college as well.  So it seems as though the state is trying to save money all around not just merging ‘black’ colleges or ‘white’ colleges.

To bring up the discussion in class that we had today, what actually constitutes as a ‘black’ college today?  What constitutes someone to be white? What is the difference?

What makes a school considered to be a ‘black’ school and a ‘white’ school?  While I understand there is history behind these schools when segregation did exist, the last time I checked, it’s 2009 and segregation no longer exists.  So why is this college still considered a ‘black’ college and others in the area are considered ‘white’ colleges so to speak?  Correct me if I’m out of line here, but the issue here doesn’t seem to be merging of the colleges, I think the real issue should be, why are certain colleges still considered ‘white’ colleges and ‘black’ colleges?

‘Congress Scrambles to Extend Estate Tax’

House Bill would extend top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than 3.5 million

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34226417/ns/business-personal_finance/

For those of you planning to make it big next year on inheritance without taxation, think again.  Congress is trying to pass a bill that will tax all estates inherited over 3.5 million at a rate of forty-five percent.  Now how fair is that?

This translates to …”If you’ve got a smaller business that’s much more service oriented, $3.5 million probably allows you to escape under the line,” Patten said. “But if you have any kind of business that requires capital, then this puts your business at risk.”

Don’t you think this will  encourage the rich to hide their money in other accounts so that those who inherit the wealth will not be taxed so hefty at forty-five percent?  Shouldn’t Congress try to keep U.S. money here in the United States?  Why can’t Congress slash the tax rate? After all, wouldn’t we all do a little less hiding on our tax returns if tax rates were a little more reasonable?

Commentary on ‘Ethics of Smoking in Restaurants’

I’m from the Washington, D.C. area, and smoking has been banned in restaurants for a couple of years now.  To be honest with you, I’ve seen more people out at restaurants with their families.  From a sales perspective, restaurants have actually increased sales due to the smoking ban because more families feel they can take their young children out and not have to worry about smoke exposure.

Personally, I believe that because smokers have made that decision to smoke, and potentially cause harm to their bodies, that they should not potentially cause harm to the bodies of others who did not make that same choice.  Why should non-smokers have to boycott their favorite restaurants because they enjoy having healthy lungs? Smokers are well aware they are not only harming themselves, but the innocent people around them, since they don’t care, why not ask them to  step outside when they want a cigarette?  Since you say it should be a choice whether or not to avoid smoke by not going to certain restaurants, then why not allow smoking everywhere including public places such as malls and movie theaters?  They don’t allow it, because it should not be a choice.

If you chose to smoke, you can smoke outside no one is stopping you.  What they are trying to stop is the loss of lives from second hand effects of smoking, the innocent people who chose NOT to put themselves at risk.  If you do chose to put yourself at risk and smoke, do it on your own watch, not on the watch of everyone else who does not.

Talk to the families who have lost loved ones because of second-hand smoke.  They might disagree with you slightly.   A non-smoker should not have to worry about where they can and can not go and what they can and can not do, because they chose to do what’s in the best interest for themselves and their community.

‘Recession adds Fuel to Workplace Gossip’

Job fears, economic woes send the office rumor mill into overdrive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34149723/ns/business-careers/

As all of us keep hearing about the recession, many people still fear for their jobs.  In response, people are gossiping now more now than ever on the clock, in hopes it gets back to their bosses, so the person that is on the chopping block so to speak, losses their job, and unfairly the instigator, the gossipers, keep theirs.

My concern, is  how is it that people that think this way (gossiping about someone else will get them fired?) actually get these jobs in the first place?  Clearly, they don’t have the best interests of the company in mind, let alone their colleagues.  What happened to checking gossip at the office door?

Here is a crazy suggestion, what if,  employees would spend more time focusing on their job instead of rumors, so that they would improve business for their company, and in turn they can keep their jobs, and if the company continues to do well, their colleagues will keep their jobs too?  What about that sense of job-satisfaction? Does it involve around the break room talking about who did what when and where?

Or is it that these employees could care less about job satisfaction and doing what’s best for the company?  Is that all people care about are themselves?

Commentary on ‘Americans are Overpaid’

I have to disagree with your statement.  I certainly do not believe Americans are overpaid.  We work a lot more than than the average worker in other countries (take a look at Europe, they have atleast triple the vacation time as we do), and more European workers are unionized.  (As we discussed in class, these labor unions create a stronger work force that benefits the economy as a whole.)

You also need to keep in mind, that the cost of living in most if not all parts of our country, are higher than overseas.   It’s the same concept as workers in New York City and Washington, DC making more money than say the average worker in Myrtle Beach,  South Carolina.  Our cost of living here on the beach, is a heck of a lot lower than the cost of living up north.  So naturally, they are going to (and deserve none the less) to get paid more to support their families  in an area where costs are higher.  The same goes  for the United States vs. European countries.  We pay far more money on housing, food, and clothing than the average European does.

So what makes someone feel Americans are overpaid?  Contrary to many opinions of  the Europeans, Americans do work very hard to support their families, and I don’t feel that this should be a concern, maybe they need to walk in the shoes of our hard-working American families, before comments are made.

‘Black Workers’ Crisis May Linger after Upturn’

High Jobless Rates Raises Concerns Even as Economy Heads into Recovery

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34068710/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Even as the economic recovery continues, the article suggests that African Americans will still have a more challenging time finding a job, because most are working class Americans, where jobs are harder to come by while the economy is making its turn.

However, some believe that finding a job after the recession is not about race, but about the drive to succeed.  That it depends on the efforts of each individual, and race has nothing to do with your ability to find a job.   After all, is that why we have rights to begin with?  We have rights are to protect us from being discriminated against not only by race, but gender, national origin, etc.  So why after all this time, would race be a factor?

Personally, I find that if families are concerned with the loss of millions of working class jobs, and being unable to find work, why not go back to school for a certain degree or skill that meets the criteria of employers looking for help right now?  As crazy as this sounds ,lots of  jobs are out there, people just don’t have the skills required to perform these jobs.  So why not spend a little time and money, (especially while the economy is slow) so that down the road, you can be more of an asset to not only your future employer, but also your family?  While in some households, money is the primary concern; there are tons of grants and loans offered solely for educational purposes to virtually anyone with a pulse.  So why not better yourself?

So where is the problem really?  Is it the employers looking for help?  Is there really an issue of racism?  Or is the problem in the individuals that are lazy and indifferent about working to support themselves and their families?

 

Commentary on ‘Mike Tyson arrested in airport scuffle with paparazzo’

Celebrities chose to be in the public eye, and a part of that job is dealing with fans (the good and unruly) and the paparazzi.  I do not sympathize in any way that they receive all the attention that they get.  (Isn’t that what they what anyway being a celebrity?)

If it isn’t the attention they want, (which I highly doubt since we are talking about celebrities) then it’s their heavy (and in some cases undeserved, ‘reality’ tv anyone?) paychecks compensate for the terrible ‘hassle’ of being a celebrity.

On the other hand, it’s situational, for someone like you or I, money can’t buy that security of privacy.   It’s different for us because we do not place ourselves on television, in front of cameras, or in on film everyday as a job; so we should expect some form of privacy in our personal lives.  However, when you put yourself on the big screen (self-proclaimed or not) you sign up for the job, and that job includes being chased by persistent fans, paparazzi, etc., on and off the job.

If Mike wants the paparazzi to stop following him,  he  should probably remove himself from the public eye for awhile.

‘Pot might ease PTSD:Study’

‘Synthetic marijuana reduced post traumatic stress in rats.’

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/addiction/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100249166&GT1=31036

After our half hour discussion in class last week about the legalization of marijuana I thought you guys would find this article interesting.  Yet another possible reason why the drug should be legalized.

As you all are well aware, post traumatic stress is a serious anxiety disorder which includes but certainly not limited to flashbacks, numbness of feelings, irritability, that can last years after the serious incident occurs.  So if marijuana can reduce these side effects why not allow it to be openly available to the public?

Let’s play devil’s advocate for a second here.  Say you think marijuana should only be in the hands of doctors who can prescribe the drug to PTSD sufferers.  There are so many people who suffer from PTSD that are too scared to come forward and ask for help.  So is it okay for a U.S. soldier that has just come home from the war and maybe scared, to seek help for PTSD to have marijuana openly available to him or her?  Would there be any serious health risk if marijuana was openly available to those who suffer from PTSD?  Could this be the reason why and will always be the reason for marijuana prescriptions to be in the hands of doctors who have knowledge of the drug and the side effects?

Would it really be so bad for the government to legalize the plant to help people?  Do the pros outweigh the cons?

Commentary on ‘Two More German Chains Caught Spying on Employees’

First of all I completely agree that in general, this is an invasion of privacy, but only by what I know, being a United States citizen working under all the privacy acts and laws of the workplace in this country.   However, I do not think that Germany has the same privacy acts and laws as we do here in the United States.  While it may be frowned upon for these employers or their government to do so, it may not be unlawful.

German employees (just as we are here) should typically be aware of the rights they have in the workplace.  The rights of German employees probably differ from the privacy acts we have here.  So this story uncovered may be a little surprise, but nothing way out in left field for these employees.  Just as much as I feel that this is an invasion of privacy because of what I know, this may not be an invasion of privacy based on what they know.

As far as something like this happening here in the United States, isn’t that far off either.  If you don’t think each and every one of us are watched and monitored  through our cell phones, hidden cameras, and other monitoring devices (let alone the problem in the article on smoke breaks and such) here on American soil, I have news for you, you have another thing coming to you.  How do you think terrorists are tracked down?  The only difference between our government and the Germans’ in this case; is that they got caught.    Their employees are probably fully aware that  they are monitored at all times, just as we are here.  Word to the wise (or maybe unwise in this case), privacy doesn’t exist today, anywhere.  Our best response is a case like this, is our continuous surrounding awareness and keeping our guard up at all times.

‘Why Saving is for Suckers’

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/why-saving-is-for-suckers.aspx?page=1

‘Your bank, with the help from Uncle Sam, is making obscene profits at your expense.’  If any of you are stashing money into a savings account maybe for a house, emergency funds, etc. sounds legitimate? Well  you may want to think twice.  The article flat out tells us how our money is being used as a ‘vehicle’ to fund the big guys into making bad decisions once again.  When you deposit your savings, it is lent to the bank at about a rate of one percent, which in turn is lent to the government for a rate of about four percent, and then lent to big companies at a rate of about six percent and even eight percent to smaller companies.  Starting to sound unfair right?

It gets better.  You aren’t the only one.  The difference between the money you receive on interest and what the banks earn is called a ‘spread.’  The spread right now is so large that banks are earning HUGE profits (so much, that they are trying to hide profits, not losses as many of us are led to believe)  off of your saved money and one percent return.

This isn’t even the worse part. ‘As banks cut back on loans to everyone (2009), companies then turn to the bond market for cheap funding. Banks don’t mind, because they are fattening up by borrowing cheaply from the public, which has been stampeded and scared into stowing income in savings accounts. The Federal Reserve eventually raises interest rates, killing the value of the carry trade (late 2010). Only then do banks start to make commercial and industrial loans, then loans to the public. Banks ultimately become more competitive with each other and the bond market and then start to go crazy again, issuing loans to any business or individual with a pulse, and that’s when the credit cycle really goes nuts again (2011 to 2012).’

Hard to believe that our personal savings accounts could possibly be a ‘vehicle’ that leads to another credit crisis in the future (predictors think 2012.)  After reading this, do you really think the banks are taking a step in the right direction, or are we just moving backward?  It seems to me we are just repeating old mistakes, and not learning from them.  What can the banks and government do that will actually help the economy as a whole and not just the ‘fat cats’ that sit on interest?

Just a heads up, the article allocates many possible options en rerouting your savings.