Wednesday, August 31, 2016

U.S. Farmers Risk Losing Everything Because Of Absurd Immigration Procedures

Three years ago, Fishkill Farms owner and operator Joshua Morgenthau found himself facing a situation that is every farmer’s nightmare.

It was time to prepare his 100-acre fruit and vegetable farm’s cherries and strawberries for harvest, but the workers he’d hired for the job weren’t there to help. His employees were many miles away in Jamaica, waiting for the green light to enter the U.S. and get to work.

Without enough hands to weed and prune the delicate crop, Morgenthau’s berries were at risk of rotting on the vine. Worse, he knew there was little he could do but wait and hope he didn’t lose his whole crop in the meantime.

Each year, Morgenthau employs eight seasonal migrant workers who travel to his farm in New York’s Hudson Valley through the labor department’s H-2A temporary agricultural worker program. The process of obtaining their H-2A visas had been relatively painless for the previous five years. But this time, he says the department changed the file number of his application without any warning. 

That meant he had to refile all the applications, creating “hours and hours and hours of more paperwork and hassle for us” and delaying the workers’ arrival by more than a month.

As a result, the farm’s cherry and strawberry production took a hit that season. His team of migrant and domestic workers were unable to make up for the decreased harvest preparation time.

“We managed to get it picked, but it was still kind of a mess,” he told The Huffington Post.

Despite setbacks like this one, the visa program is essential to Morgenthau’s farm. He works with the same employees each year and described them as “part of the farm family.” He credits them with being experts at operating the machinery specific to the crops he grows.

The H-2A program was created in the 1990s to help agricultural employers bring temporary foreign workers into the U.S. to do seasonal work that domestic workers cannot or are not willing to do. As part of the program, employers are required to offer certain wages, plus transportation and housing when necessary. The H-2A visa holders live and work in the U.S. for several months at a time but are not considered immigrants, and the program is not seen as a pathway to citizenship.

This so-called guest farm worker program is far from perfect. It has been criticized for being easy to abuse, with some employers neglecting worker safety and stealing wages while facing little recourse. However, those familiar with the visa program describe it as the industry’s sole legal option for getting temporary farm work done. 

The farming industry still relies heavily on undocumented workers, who are estimated to make up about half of the country’s 2.5 million hired farm hands, according to the Labor Department. The temporary visa program is responsible for just a fraction of the overall agricultural workforce.

Yet the program is growing increasingly popular ― due to the domestic labor shortages ― forcing more farmers to contend with a chaotic and heavily bureaucratic system that puts their crops in jeopardy. At the same time, calls to improve the program are being sounded by farmers and immigration reform advocates alike.

Credit: Gosia Wozniacka/AP
In this Oct. 12, 2011, file photo, a crew of farmworkers harvest and package cantaloupes near Firebaugh, California.

The U.S. has cracked down on the use of undocumented laborers coming into the country, resulting in a widespread labor shortage in agriculture and ballooning demand for H-2A visas. This has also meant more administrative delays in processing visa applications.

Delays of even a week can result in major crop losses for farmers. Delays of a month or more can be devastating. 

Morgenthau was able to save his harvest in 2013, the year his workers were delayed, but he knows just how easily things can fall apart. “We’re lucky to have never lost an entire crop,” he said.

Others aren’t so fortunate.

A number of farmers in Georgia reported six-digit losses this year due to delays in visa processing. Another farmer, in California, watched as one-third of his Napa cabbage rotted in the field while he waited for the H-2A workers to arrive.

Last year, a State Department computer glitch delayed workers on the West Coast, causing millions of dollars of lost revenue. Elise Bauman, executive director at Salem Harvest, a food recovery group that partners with dozens of farms in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, saw the fallout of this glitch firsthand. She and her team worked with just three strawberry farms in 2015, but she estimated seeing some 100 acres of the wasted berries with her own eyes.

“They have to be handled and harvested at exactly the right time, otherwise you get a pile of mush,” Bauman said. “Very delicious-tasting mush, but it’s not attractive.”

These issues will only compound as the visa program continues to grow. Visa applications increased by 40 percent over the past five years, according to NPR. Last year, 140,000 H-2A visas were granted. In the first half of this year, visa issuance is up another 17 percent over 2015.

The H-2A program’s issues have sent the farming industry into crisis mode, vocally criticizing the program’s backlog of visa applications and emerging as a somewhat surprising proponent of immigration reform.

In an April news release, the American Farm Bureau Federation warned of rotting fields of crops resulting from H-2A delays. Those delays, the organization says, could be avoided if the program were revamped.

So far, there hasn’t been much action on that advice.

In June, a bipartisan group of Congress members calling for H-2A reform sent a letter to the Labor Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services leaders, asking them to streamline the guest worker visa process. Their effort has yet to gain traction.  

In a media call organized by the pro-immigration reform Partnership for a New American Economy earlier this month, AFB president Zippy Duvall called for a more flexible and efficient visa program for migrant farmworkers. One solution Duvall has offered would be filing paperwork for the program electronically. Currently, paperwork must be processed through standard mail.

Failure to act, Duvall warned, would threaten the nation’s food supply.

“We’re coming to a point where the American people need to make up their mind if they want to import their food or import their labor,” Duvall said.

Other voices are calling for bigger changes. 

Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers, which represents farmers in California, Arizona and Colorado, took his call for reform a step further. Beyond streamlining the H-2A program, he would like to find a way to keep some of these temporary farm workers in the U.S., instead of sending them back to their home countries when their visas expire.

“We want to take care of the workers who are with us,” Nassif said. “They have experience, families and roots here. We want to keep those people [here] and protect them. We want some sort of legal status for them.”

In 2013, Nassif backed legislation sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that proposed a new “blue card” program that would make temporary workers in good legal standing eligible for a legal status, allowing them to stay in the country and granting them a path to citizenship. The bill passed in the Senate but did not come up for a vote in the House after being blocked by Speaker John Boehner.  

In the absence of action in Washington, some believe employers in the industry should be doing more to offer better wages and conditions to their farmworkers, Bruce Goldstein, president of the Farmworker Justice advocacy group, argues.

“If employers want to retain their workforce and attract workers to their jobs, they collectively need to improve their reputation,” Goldstein told HuffPost.

Due to many farmworkers’ undocumented status, Goldstein argues, they silently endure subpar working conditions and pay, fearing that they’ll be reported or fired if they complain. 

The average seasonal migrant farmworker is paid between $12,500 and $14,999 a year. Most lack health insurance and many work far more than 40 hours a week. (By contrast, someone working full time for the federal minimum wage earns $15,080 a year.)

Guest farm workers are supposed to earn more under the temporary work program. H-2A wages are set by the Labor Department and vary from state to state ― between $10.59 and $13.80 an hour ― based on state minimums and typical wages for domestic farm workers in the region. In Washington state, for example, the minimum wage for H-2A workers is $12.69 an hour. That’s significantly more than the state’s minimum wage of $9.47.

Some research has raised questions about whether visa-holding guest workers fare much better than unauthorized workers, however. An Economic Policy Institute study released last year found no significant difference in pay or conditions between the two groups.

As of now, farmers are able to get away with this. While advocates like Goldstein believe some employers are treating their workers fairly, the ones who aren’t continue to hinder their progress. And they need to be held accountable.

“There are many employers that comply with the law, but they are being undermined by the companies that want to reduce their cost and increase their profitability by cheating workers,” Goldstein said. “We need to create a law-abiding agricultural sector to benefit both the farmworkers and the employers that comply with the law.”

BuzzFeed has reported that the H-2A visa program and its sister program for short-term non-farm workers (H-2B) suffer from a host of other abuse problems. The Labor Department found that between 2010 and 2014 almost 1,000 companies had violated H-2 laws; however, fewer than 150 employers were banned from hiring guest workers through the program.

Still, some farmers believe the H-2A program is overburdened with regulations and expenses.

Dan Fazio, president of the Washington Farm Labor Association, connects farmers with migrant workers. He, too, described the H-2A program as flawed, but said he’s seen its popularity with participating farmworkers firsthand.

“Is it ideal to take a person from one country and bring them to another country to work? I don’t know,” Fazio said. “But I do know that the people coming to Washington state love the program and when their six months here are done and they go back, they make sure they’re on the list to come back next year.”

A lack of alternatives might have something to do with this popularity — and there’s no sign of that changing anytime soon.

But the lack of progress doesn’t mean the industry has to start from scratch to arrive at a solution, said Luawanna Halstrom, an agriculture consultant who previously served as president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and has worked with a number of national and state organizations.

She’s hopeful that a fix is on the horizon — and it may not be as complex as it might initially seem.

“People are working with this old horse because it’s all they’ve got,” Halstrom said. “It can be a good program if we could reformulate it and figure out how to make it work.”

A revamped program would be welcomed by Morgenthau, too. Another delay like 2013’s might not turn out as well next time.

“The system should be streamlined,” he said. “When you have the whims of a bureaucracy and a heated political debate that could determine pretty quickly a positive or negative outcome in terms of being able to work with the qualified employees you have been working with, it’s just one too many variables to stomach.”

―-

Joseph Erbentraut covers promising innovations and challenges in the areas of food and water. In addition, Erbentraut explores the evolving ways Americans are identifying and defining themselves. Follow Erbentraut on Twitter at @robojojo. Tips? Email joseph.erbentraut@huffingtonpost.com.

More stories like this:

  • Restaurants Officially Have No Excuse Not To Donate Leftover Food
  • A Whole New Kind Of Grocery Store Is Coming To The U.S.
  • This Guy Spends $2.75 A Year On Food And Eats Like A King
  • Genius Solid Shampoos Use No Plastic Packaging By Leaving Out Water 
  • Meat Eaters Should Have Been Listening To Vegetarians All Along
  • Farmer Forced To Dump Insane Amount Of Gorgeous Cherries
  • Al Capone’s Brother May Have Invented Date Labels For Milk

CLARIFICATION: The headline on this story has been amended to better reflect the systemic problems with the H-2A program.


Tuesday, August 30, 2016

I'm Not Interested in Converting... Despite What Facebook Says

Do they really know everything about you?

No...I'm not talking about your parents, significant other or best friend...but I will return to them...

I am referencing Facebook and Google as proxy for the all-knowing, all-seeing eye of digital.

Yes...those ads that follow you around can feel creepy and make you wonder about Big Sibling (PC...LOL), but just how powerful are those impossible-to-hide-from algorithms and just how much do they really know?

Google has no idea who I am. Could be that, like many, I confuse their software: Doors fan; Peter, Paul and Mary disciple; Beethoven lover; Grandfather; Gamer; World Traveler; Broadway show goer; hippie; CEO; Circus Attendee; Fashion Shopper; Book Buyer - physical and e-...and on and on.

While I am far from being a new Google user, here is what they said in profiling me:

You do not have any topics associated with your Google account. Topics are used to show you ads that are relevant to you. Topics will be added automatically as you use Google services or you can add specific topics.

And yet I have no doubt that they sell my data without appending that notation.

Facebook, on the other hand, has taken a much more aggressive view of profiling me and confidently has pegged me to the point of actually showing me the kinds of ads they will expose me to, based on what they are sure they know about me.

Now do as I did...go to https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences and start clicking around. Facebook says:

How we determine your ad preferences.

We use information from a few different sources to figure out which ads might be relevant and useful to you. Things like your Facebook profile information, activity on Facebook and interactions with businesses can all influence the ads you see.

The first thing you will notice is that there is no magic here. In fact, I was actually surprised at just how linear it all is. Clearly, there was zero insight applied anywhere, which made their classifications not just mundane, but downright wrong.

Whatever I might have clicked on or shared - for one reason or another -- showed up as a preference. And yet multiple preferences that were in fact connected and clearly so -- had even a modicum of insight been applied -- showed up as siloed, single preferences.

In other words, the depth of the algorithm seems to be rather shallow, while its breadth seems to be all-encompassing...inch deep and a mile wide...better to see others, I imagine.

Worse...I previewed the ads I might see based on my preferences and I was appalled, again, at the complete and total disconnect from anything but a broad and linear relationship to the general topic...more for them to sell, to others, as of interest to me, and none at all of any real interest.

I have a lot to think about here and more to study, but since their announcement last week, I wanted to get a first salvo out and solicit your view after you study your own preferences.

So many implications...

As I have written before, our access to eclectic information that can truly help inform and shape opinion is being limited by linear algorithms making decisions for us...and as far as I can tell, often uninformed decisions.

On the good side, I'm sleeping easier - they really know very little about me and what they know is just not relevant...

My fear is that all of us will soon be talking and hearing from just ourselves and not always from the self we are interested in...Listen:

I am not what you see. I am what time and effort and interaction slowly unveil.
Richelle E. Goodrich

And there you have it. Be careful what you click or the ad for the pink pants with the purple embroidered whales will follow you around forever, and you will wonder whatever happened to that other candidate you wanted to learn about until you forget they even existed....

I want to hear what you found!!!

What do you think?

Read more at The Weekly Ramble

Follow David Sable on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidSable


Monday, August 29, 2016

CEO Of Giant Corporation Tells US Government He's The Boss Of Them

Are We the People the boss of giant multinational corporations, or are they the boss of us?

Imagine, if you will, going to the IRS and saying, "I don't think the tax rate is fair so I'm not going to pay it." Regular Americans can't do that. But Apple just did.

Apple's CEO Tim Cook was interviewed by the Washington Post early this month. He was asked about the vast sums of profits that Apple has shifted into overseas tax havens thanks to a loophole in US tax law that lets them "defer" paying taxes on those profits as long as the money technically stays outside the country. Cook said (emphasis added, for emphasis):

And when we bring it back, we will pay 35 percent federal tax and then a weighted average across the states that we're in, which is about 5 percent, so think of it as 40 percent. We've said at 40 percent, we're not going to bring it back until there's a fair rate. There's no debate about it.

What would happen to any regular American if they did what Cook did, and said they they aren't going to pay taxes because they don't think the tax rate is "fair"? (Hint: Jail. And maybe 2 or 3 years added to the sentence for the contempt of saying, "There's no debate about it.")

But Apple is a huge multinational corporation, and these days huge multinational corporations are the boss of our Congress. So, CEO Cook gets away with it -- and with keeping $181 billion in tax havens to dodge paying $59 billion in taxes. Cook knows he can just come out and say they are not going to pay their taxes until there is a "fair rate."

Of course, huge multinational corporations will tell you a "fair rate" would be zero. Or better yet, how about We the People just bow down and pay taxes to them. The corporate tax rate used to be 50%. CEOs complained it was "unfair" so it was lowered to 35%. Also, by the way, Apple can deduct taxes it pays elsewhere, including to states, from its federal tax bill.

Think about what We the People could do with that $59 billion Apple owes us.

In all multinational corporations have more than $2.4 trillion stashed in tax havens, dodging maybe $700 billion in taxes.

Think about what We the People could do with that $700 or so billion they owe us.

Meanwhile

Americans for Tax Fairness released a new investigative report showing that Gilead Sciences exorbitantly priced hepatitis C medications -- price gouging ill American patients -- then shifted billions of dollars of the resulting profits to offshore tax havens to dodge taxes.

An August 21 news story in FORA, an Irish business publication, confirmed key findings of the report:

Company filings show that one of the firm's main Irish subsidiaries had revenues of $2 billion in 2012 and made a full-year profit of $1.3 billion but paid nothing to the Irish exchequer as the firm was tax resident in the Bahamas - where zero corporate taxes apply.

At the end of the year, after which the subsidiaries finances are not publicly accessible, the Irish subsidiary had accumulated profits of just under $7 billion.

The company also transferred the ownership of one of its most valuable money-makers, which it acquired for $11 billion, to a separate Irish subsidiary.

So, this company gouges sick Americans and shifts the profits out of the country to dodge taxes. Are We the People the boss of these giant corporations, or are they the boss of us? Whose government is this, anyway? Who is our economy for?

"The Little People Pay Taxes"

Times have changed. People and companies didn't used to get away with snubbing their nose at We the People, and doing things like dodging taxes.

In the 1980s Leona Helmsley was known as the "Hotel Queen." Helmsley and her husband Harry were known for buying apartment buildings, forcing out the tenants, and converting them into condominiums. The Helmsley real estate empire included the Empire State Building.

They also owned hotels. Leona ran as many as 30 Helmsley hotels, with the luxurious Helmsley Palace at the peak, and became famous after she was featured in advertisements.

But Helmsley became known as "the Queen of Mean," because she was notorious for doing things like abusing employees, firing them at Christmas, even evicting her son's widow a few days after he died. Eventually a dissatisfied employee turned her in for various tax crimes and she was indicted on 235 state and federal counts.

The Helmsleys were charged with using hotel money to buy personal items to evade income taxes. Helmsley famously said of the charges, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

We the Little People sentenced Helmsley to 12 years in jail for evading $1.7 million in taxes (eventually resulting in 19 months in jail and 2 years of home arrest.) At her sentencing the judge said:

'There is a community that needs to be served by the enforcement of the law. . . . It is my judgment the motion for sentence reduction should be denied.'

Griesa said that Helmsley's conduct had been 'deliberate, fraudulent, directed against the United States government. It involved evasion of taxes.'

Helmsley was sentenced to jail for evading a pittance of $1.7 million in taxes. Today Apple owes $59 billion. In this age of "mass incarceration" for regular people, imagine a wealthy Wall Street banker or corporate CEO going to jail for something. Actually, you can't even imagine it.

No, instead this is today's reality: Lawmakers Overseeing Wall Street Given Bigger, More Favorable Loans Than Others: Study.

Senator Wyden Says End Deferral Loophole

Some people are trying to restore our democracy, and make We the People the boss of the giant corporations and wealthy CEOs again.

Senator Bernie Sanders has been calling for ending this deferral loophole for a long time. His residential campaign platform called for using the resulting revenue to pay for $1 trillion of infrastructure repair. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also called for ending this loophole.

Last week Oregon Senator Ron Wyden penned an op-ed calling for an end to this corporate tax haven "deferral" loophole, titled "Ending the Biggest Tax Rip-Off -- Tax Deferral." In it Wyden wrote:

...[Tax deferral] is the rule that encourages American multinational corporations to keep their profits overseas instead of investing them here at home, and it does so by granting them $80 billion a year in tax breaks. This policy is as foolish as it is unfair. It simply defies common sense.

Most Americans probably aren't familiar with deferral ...but ... some of the most profitable companies in the world can put off paying taxes indefinitely while hardworking Americans must pay their taxes every year.

Unfortunately, Wyden resorts to offering to bargain with the corporations, offering lower tax rates if they would please invest in the US. Like so many others, Wyden has forgotten that Congress is supposed to be the boss of the corporations.

Sign The Petition

SIGN THE PETITION: Stand with Americans for Tax Fairness and Public Citizen and demand that U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew investigate Gilead's multi-billion-dollar tax dodging scheme and make Gilead pay the taxes it owes U.S. taxpayers.

-------

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progressive Breakfast.


Sunday, August 28, 2016

Are Tesla Investors Getting A Raw Deal In SolarCity Merger?

On August 1, Tesla Motors, whose chief executive officer is Elon Musk, announced the acquisition of another Musk brainchild, SolarCity, a rooftop solar panel company for which he servers as chairman, in a $2.6-billion all-stock deal. “It’s really all part of solving the sustainable energy problem,” Musk said when the merger was announced. “That’s why we are all doing this — to accelerate the advent of a sustainable energy world.” Maybe, but was that the real reason for the merger?

Started in 2006 by Musk’s cousins Peter and Lyndon Rive at Musk’s suggestion, SolarCity had a simple plan: Lease solar panels to homeowners on a long-term basis but retain ownership of the panels, allowing the company to rake in hefty incentives from state and federal governments. At first, hyped by Musk, whose showmanship skills rival those of P.T. Barnum, SolarCity flourished. Its stock peaked in February 2014 at $85 a share. Investors who bought the initial public offering at $8 a share 14 months earlier were ecstatic.

But things changed dramatically. The first sure sign of trouble came in August 2015 when Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates revealed he had shorted SolarCity because its business plan made it a “subprime financing company.” Later that year, SolarCity suffered another blow when the Nevada Public Utility Commission passed rules ending net metering, which allowed a homeowner with solar panels to sell unused electricity back to the power company. The decision prompted Lyndon Rive to admit that without net metering rooftop solar “makes no financial sense for a consumer.” If other states followed Nevada’s lead, SolarCity would be hit hard.

In early 2016, SolarCity stock was downgraded by Barclay’s, then JP Morgan. In May, CNBC’s Jim Cramer declared: “This is a company that I regard in a first-class crisis that acts as if everything is fine.” That same month, after the stock price had plunged more than 60 percent from its peak, Chanos became even more vocal in his criticism, saying, “They’re losing money on every installation and making it up on volume, and that’s a problem when you have a levered balance sheet.”

By June, there was talk of bankruptcy, so Musk had to act. The solution: Tesla, a company with a promising future, would buy SolarCity, a company in precipitous decline. Once again, Chanos warned of problems: “[SolarCity] is burning hundreds of millions in cash every quarter, a burden that now Tesla shareholders will have to bear, at a cost of over $8 billion.” Even so, the boards of directors of both companies approved the deal; now the shareholders of both companies must consent to the merger, a vote that will likely occur during the fourth quarter.

In the press, the deal has been described as more of a bailout than a purchase. Consider The Motley Fool’s commentary: “Maybe SolarCity was in need of a bailout more than investors thought. If that’s the case, it could be a terrible merger for Tesla if SolarCity was in such dire straits in the first place. [I]t could destroy a lot of shareholder value [at Tesla].” And this from The Los Angeles Times: “The deal has been fraught with criticism since it was first proposed….with critics calling the move a bailout.”

Tesla stockholders, then, know they are assuming SolarCity’s financial woes, but what else? For one thing, they may be inheriting regulatory liability. Over the last year or so, the Federal Trade Commission has received complaints from consumers about unscrupulous business practices carried out by solar panel companies. It has also been pressured by the United States Congress. “As a very new industry with a limited track record and little regulatory oversight,” a group of congressmen from Arizona and Texas wrote to the FTC, “the solar leasing market may pose a considerable risk to the increasingly large numbers of American consumers that commit to the leasing product (not to mention the American taxpayer, who heavily subsidizes each rooftop solar project).” As a result, the FTC recently announced its intention to expand its reach over the solar panel industry. Because SolarCity is the nation’s largest provider of solar panels, it is clearly in the FTC’s sites.

There will also be increased scrutiny of SolarCity on the state level. “The recent proliferation of new solar projects brings the potential for a new kind of deception,” Attorney General William Sorrell of Vermont has said, echoing a growing sentiment shared by attorneys general across the country. Indeed, six attorneys general have publicly expressed concerns about the solar industry’s unethical business procedures, among them predatory sales practices and providing consumers with inaccurate leasing information and false promises of lower energy bills. This could potentially lead to a class action case similar to the one filed by attorneys general against Big Tobacco in the 1990s. That would be devastating for an industry already bleeding money.

In short, SolarCity shareholders know what they’re getting with this merger — an unexpected bailout. Tesla shareholders are not so fortunate, and SolarCity’s bad balance sheet may be the least of what they have to deal with. 


Friday, August 26, 2016

A Call For Mylan CEO Heather Bresch To Reduce EpiPen Price And Resign

It was one year ago, August 25, 2015, when my one-year-old daughter Cecelia almost died of anaphylaxis. She had asked for a banana but we wanted her to eat more than just fruit. My wife served her a peanut butter substitute and jam on bread. We were cooking dinner for ourselves when we first saw the tell-tale red blotches and hives.

In thirty seconds, a rash of angry red hives had covered her body. She was uncomfortable but unaware of what was happening. There was a look of extreme fear in her eyes. Another minute passed and her airway began to close as her body fought the allergic reaction. I quickly laid my daughter down and plunged an EpiPen into her left thigh as my wife called 911. The symptoms continued to get worse as she struggled to breathe in my arms, before the epinephrine kicked in and she finally was able to open her throat enough to draw in air. Within ten minutes of the first signs of anaphylaxis, she was shaken but excited to see the emergency vehicles and the firemen who had come to save her.

A trip to the hospital confirmed that she had a near-fatal anaphylactic reaction. To what? We suspect it might have been sesame or sunflower ingredients in either the bread or the “safe” peanut butter substitute. We’ll never know for sure what almost took our daughter’s life.

This is the reality for the fifteen million people living with food allergies and their families. Cecelia has life threatening food allergies to milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, shellfish, garlic, sesame, sunflower, coconut, and kiwi. She is two years old.

Mylan’s EpiPen saved her life just one year ago. I will forever be grateful for the people who have developed the life-saving drug and accompanying technology that are the reason that my daughter is alive and well today.

The EpiPen’s only legitimate U.S. competitor, Sanofi’s Auvi-Q, was voluntarily recalled nationwide in October 2015 after dangerous issues of inaccurate dosage delivery arose that could include a failure to administer the life-saving epinephrine. Immediately, millions of families with life threatening allergies turned to Mylan to secure EpiPens.

The result was a de facto monopoly for Mylan. Since Mylan secured the rights to the EpiPen in 2007, they have steadily raised prices over 460 percent (from an average wholesale of $56.64 to $317.82). CEO Heather Bresch – daughter of U.S. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia – increased her own compensation by more than 670 percent from $2.5M to $18.9M during the same time.

With no other competitors in the United States, families are forced to pay extortionate rates for what amounts to $1.00 worth of epinephrine per EpiPen.

I cringe every time I go to pick up Cecelia’s EpiPens at the pharmacy. To say this medicine is expensive is an understatement. Yet, we are lucky to have great insurance and have never had to think twice about paying whatever it costs to keep our daughter safe. This is our privilege.

Jim Bourg / Reuters
EpiPen auto-injection epinephrine pens manufactured by Mylan NV pharmaceutical company for use by severe allergy sufferers are seen in Washington, U.S. August 24, 2016.

I cannot stop thinking about the families of other children with food allergies – who love their children just as much as we love Cecelia – who are forced to go without this life-saving drug. Putting aside Mylan’s massive price hikes, there are families that go hungry and skip monthly bills just so they can provide safe food for their children with food allergies. These families cannot begin to consider paying for an EpiPen. Their children deserve to be just as safe as my children. They deserve to live healthy lives just as much as Heather Bresch’s four children do.

Heather Bresch has cut corners before. She received her first job at Mylan when her father, a West Virginia state senator at the time, personally reached out to Mylan’s then-CEO in 1992.  In 2008, West Virginia University’s president – a family friend and former business associate of Bresch – resigned in disgrace after granting the Mylan CEO an MBA, despite the fact that she had only achieved half of the required credits. 

I know that the world is not fair. I understand that rich children with powerful politicians for parents will continue to be born on second base thinking that they hit a double. I hold no illusions that large pharmaceutical companies will shift their primary focus from profits to public good. While all of this is true, Mylan’s reckless and selfish price hikes under CEO Heather Bresch have crossed a line that she cannot return from. 

Heather Bresch has enriched herself and her fellow Mylan executives at the risk of hard-working American families who are already saddled with great economic and health concerns. They don’t need or deserve a rich narcissist kicking them while they are down.

On behalf of these families and all families living with life-threatening allergies, I ask that Mylan CEO Heather Bresch immediately reduce the price of Mylan’s EpiPen and then resign as CEO. While Bresch may not worry about my family or the millions of others like us in this country, I hope she will consider her own family and the example that she is setting for her children. 


Thursday, August 25, 2016

Top GOP Congressman Tells Trump To Release His Taxes

Donald Trump should release his tax returns and full medical records, Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz (Utah) said Wednesday.

“You’re just going to have to do that, it’s too important,” Chaffetz said on CNN. “If you’re going to run and try to become the president of the United States, you’re going to have to open up your kimono and show everything, your tax returns, your medical records.”

Chaffetz said that the standard applies to both candidates. Clinton has released her 2015 tax return and medical history. Trump has only released a cursory, bombastic letter from his doctor.

Trump said in May that he hoped to release his tax returns, but has since refused to, saying he can’t because he’s under audit by the IRS. However, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said that being under audit does not prevent a person from releasing returns. “If you’re being audited, and you want to do something else, share that information with your returns, you can do that,” Koskinen told CSPAN in February. 

In July, Trump’s then-campaign chairman was adamant that the Republican nominee would not release his tax returns. Earlier this week, Eric Trump said it would be “foolish” for his father to release his taxes. “You learn a lot more when you look at a person’s assets,” Eric said. “You know how many hotels we have around the world? You know how many golf courses we have around the world?”

The value of Trump’s assets, however, is not the simple matter Eric Trump implies it is. In his personal financial disclosure detailing those assets, Donald Trump says he is worth $10 billion. Bloomberg and Forbes, however, estimate his wealth at $2.9 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively. And Tim O’Brien wrote in his 2005 biography of Trump that “three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances, people who had worked closely with him for years, told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million.”

The New York Times reported last week that Trump’s debt totaled $650 million, about twice as much as the candidate had disclosed. The discrepancy, the Times said, arises from the fact that the financial disclosure forms for candidates are not designed for a person with business dealings as complex as Trump’s are.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.


Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Arielle Answers: What Can I Do If My 401(k) Is Expensive?

Q: My company's 401(k) plan charges high administrative fees, and the expense ratios on the investments offered are too high. How do I maximize my retirement savings?

You know those GIFs of people wildly and aggressively clapping? That's me right now.

Not because your 401(k) is lousy, but because you know it's lousy. Over half of workers don't even realize that investing in their retirement plan comes at a cost, according to nonprofit The National Association of Retirement Plan Participants. Of those who do, only a quarter understand how the fees they're paying are calculated.

So let me start by saying this: Any readers who are thinking, "Wait, what?" please get out your plan statement or call your plan administrator, and get a handle on how much you're paying in fees and expenses. You can also run your plan through a 401(k) fee calculator. I'd do both; this is that important, and I'll let the money tell you why: The less you can pay in fees, the more money you will have at retirement. This chart shows how much various fees would cost a pretty typical 401(k) investor by retirement age. It's scary stuff.

These fees come from two directions: Administrative expenses -- over which you have little control, though some kind employers will cover the cost -- and investment expense ratios. Added up, it's not unheard of for the total cost to fall toward the right side of that chart, though the typical 401(k) participant pays a median 0.67%, according to 2013 data from the Investment Company Institute, a fund trade group. I'd consider your own plan expensive if you're paying more than 1%.

There's some misconception that the mutual funds in 401(k)s are by definition expensive; in fact, their asset-weighted average expense ratios are lower than the average for all mutual funds. But that doesn't mean the plan you're in will offer enough cheap options -- there's a reason we've recently seen a string of lawsuits against 401(k) providers. A 401(k) limits you to 20 or so investment options in the plan, so you might have only one fund choice for each investment category. If the expenses on those funds are high, you can't shop for a lower-cost fund; you're stuck with those choices. Smaller plans tend to be most expensive, as the administrative costs are spread among fewer people, and they don't have the leverage to bring down fund fees.

So what to do?

Expenses aside, get the match
I don't care if you're in the most expensive 401(k) plan in the world; until those fees reach the value of your employer's matching dollars -- and they never will -- the plan is well worth that cost. It's safe to assume you'd gladly pay $1 or $2 in fees to get $50 or $100 back from your employer.

That's essentially how an employer match works: Many companies kick in 50% or 100% of every dollar you contribute, up to a limit. Sure, it hurts when you lose a portion of your contribution -- and of that employer contribution -- to fees, but I've found that free money is pretty effective at stopping the burn.

To be clear, I'm not saying you have to suck it up. If you feel like your plan's fees are grossly unfair, you should: 1) Do what you can to keep your investment fees low, by choosing low-cost investments like index funds over expensive managed options like target-date funds, and 2) raise the issue with HR. If you rally enough of your co-workers, your company might be willing to shop around for better options.

»MORE: How a 1% fee could cost millennials $590,000 in retirement savings

Then take your money elsewhere
In the chart above, note that the investor is contributing enough to the plan to get the match, but no more. That's by design: You can -- and in many cases, especially if you're in an expensive plan, you should -- contribute to both a 401(k) and an IRA.

The way to go: Contribute until you get the full match, then put any additional money you can save for the year into an IRA, which has a contribution limit of $5,500 in 2016 (if you're 50 or older, you get to throw in another $1,000). If your 401(k) doesn't offer a match, skip it and start with the IRA. IRA account providers frequently charge no fees (assuming you're not working with a financial advisor) and give you access to a huge pool of investments; you can easily find low-cost funds.

»MORE: How to invest your IRA

And if you're lucky -- or let's say strategic -- enough to max out that IRA for the year, and you want to save more? Your 401(k), even if a total dud, is worth revisiting at that point, for one big reason: It has an $18,000 contribution limit ($24,000 if you're 50 or older), which makes it the single best way to get a lot of tax-deferred money put away for retirement.

Finally, if you leave this job, please take the balance in that plan with you by rolling it into an IRA (or into your new employer's plan, if it's a step up from the old one).

Arielle O'Shea is a staff writer at NerdWallet, a personal finance website. Email: aoshea@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @arioshea.


Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Can Insurtech Make Miracles Happen in US Healthcare?

As an American and the de facto administrator of my family's health insurance, I am reminded routinely of some of the complexities of the methods we employ to maximize health and pay for care in this country. Forces are driving individuals, providers, insurers and employers to change their approaches or suffer the consequences.

InsurTech companies who take aim at the US health care industry by using software and data to improve efficiency and outcomes can benefit from this opportunity. Depending on whether you are an optimist or pessimist, the health care sector is the land of endless opportunity or unsolvable problems. Since the scale is huge, even small steps forward, aimed at opportunity pockets, can translate into significant wins.

Let's view the situation through four lenses: the health of the American people, marketplace trends, the role of regulation, and the players. You can unpack any one of these and understand why Venture Scanner has identified over $26BN in funding that is being poured into 1,300 health-technology companies across 21 categories and 48 countries. The issues and implications arising from any of these categories are intertwined, so even startups focusing on health insurers cannot disconnect from what is happening in the rest of the ecosystem. This post focuses on health insurance in the US, not the broader health care space or other geographies, because US is a) a massive market and b) a different structure from markets in Europe and Asia).

Americans, overall, do not live a healthy lifestyle

The United States came in last place in a 2013 ranking of affluent countries' health in a Mayo Clinic Proceedings study which included four factors in its definition of "healthy lifestyle": diet, exercise, weight and smoking.

Americans are getting fatter. Over one-third of the adult population is obese. Every single state has an obesity rate over 20%, adding an estimated $200BN to the national health care tab.

A piece of good news from the Centers for Disease Control is that the percent of adult smokers has dropped steadily from 42.4% in 1965 to 16.8% in 2014. The trend amongst students has been less stable, but generally downward, peaking at 36.4% in 1997 and dropping to 15.7% in 2013.

This is a huge and shifting marketplace

Consider just a few dimensions:

Healthcare spending represents 17.5% of the US Gross Domestic Product, $3.2 trillion, or about $10,000 per person. As the population ages, government spending in the sector is expected to increase. Also consider that 30% of Medicare dollars go towards the 5% of beneficiaries who become very ill and then die each year.

Employers are taking action to shift costs to employees, and slow down spending. Employers provide coverage to 150MM Americans. And, according to the 2015 Kaiser Family Foundation total average annual premium per employee has increased from $5,791 to $17,545 since 1999. Employees are being asked to pay more, or to avoid doing so by trading down to high deductible plans. This creates near-term savings back to healthy families who don't run into any medical surprises. What is rarely highlighted, however, is how many families are effectively assuming the financial risk of facing a large deductible in the event of, say, an unanticipated hospitalization. Since 62% of Americans have less than $1000 in savings and 21% have no savings, the potential is real for individual families to face serious financial consequences as a result of this choice.

Only one in seven Americans understand the insurance plans selected yet are held increasingly responsible to manage decisions that could have implications not only for cost, but also for quality of life.

Insurance carriers have benefited from ACA (Affordable Care Act aka Obama care, formally named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) because of how the statute has expanded the market and provided premium subsidies for lower-income households. At the same time, insurance companies remain the least trusted of the health care subsectors.

Regulations focus on changing behavior, protecting patient data, and stimulating innovation

ACA, signed into law in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, is watershed legislation that set the sector up for reinvention. ACA takes both a carrot and stick approach to increase coverage and care effectiveness while lowering costs, e.g.,

  • If as a user you don't purchase coverage, you face penalties.
  • If as an employer of 50+ people you don't offer coverage, you face penalties.
  • Health care providers are being incentivized to make 'meaningful use' of electronic health records to create efficiencies and improve care decisions, and face penalties if they fail to use such tools
  • Primary care providers and general surgeons are being incentivized to move to low-coverage geographies.
These are just a few examples of how ACA is attempting to get people to change how they select, use and administer health care payments and services.

Two other regulations impact Health Insurers:

  • The Health Information Privacy and Protection Act, better known as HIPAA, the privacy, portability and security rule designed to protect patient health information, while improving data portability. HIPAA impacts how data is stored, protected, used and transferred.
  • The HITECH Act (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health) was enacted to support the development of a nationwide health IT infrastructure, as well as define and maintain standards for health information technology products and how they interact with each other.
Any health care player -- incumbent, startup, or investor -- must understand how the regulations work

For those who question the likelihood that ACA is repealed, consider that while this year's election suggests anything can happen in politics, keep in mind that there have been over 50 failed attempts by Republicans in Congress to undo the legislation. So, better to understand how the incentives and disincentives relate to any potential new business model, and appreciate how big a departure ACA's core principles are from the traditional way in which the US health care system has operated. The latter is vital to understand the dynamics of the new playing field and how individuals, providers, insurers and employers are responding.

The winning business models will be those that:

  • Link to the regulatory levers - carrots and sticks for individuals and providers - and move them. This is where the commercial value lies.
  • Prove they can deliver better outcomes at lower cost.
  • Demonstrate potential to scale, by itself, via B2B partnerships, or via exit to a scale incumbent.
  • Have a viable basis for underwriting and risk management.

Success will be a function of software + data + tactical knowledge of the levers - both the regulations and how to motivate behavioral change where people are being asked to make radical changes.

Amy Radin partners with people who want to transform and grow businesses, bringing a combination of insight, vision, and pragmatism to realize the opportunities arising from change. She links marketing, big data, client experience and digital technologies for impact. Amy serves on Advisory Boards, is an angel investor, keynote speaker, author and consultant. She works with companies from startups to Fortune 500 applying her Framework for New Growth (c) to help companies attract new clients and expand client relationships.

This post was originally published in Daily Fintech and is syndicated in Amy's columns which also appear on LinkedIn, Insurance Thought Leadership, and Medium.

photo credit: Clever Cogs! via photopin (license)


Monday, August 22, 2016

11 Brilliant Pieces of Business Wisdom I Learned From My Dad

What is the best advice your father ever gave you? originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

Answer by David S. Rose, angel investor, father of three, on Quora:

It is safe to say that my father has been, by far, the most important influence on my life as an entrepreneur. Back in the days of the dotcom boom, when I was in my 30s, I was delighted to be named a finalist for the prestigious Ernst & Young "Entrepreneur of the Year" Award in New York. It was no surprise at all; however, when my father actually won the award just a few years ago, he was in his late 70s!

For as far back as I can remember, my father has served as my primary role model, showing by example the importance of impeccable integrity, hard work and dedication, creative business thinking, and the need for maintaining a long-term perspective. Today, in his mid-80s, he is as energetic and engaged in the entrepreneurial life as anyone I know, creating new business and social ventures and mentoring yet another generation of entrepreneurs.

While my siblings and I have had the privilege of growing up under his direct tutelage, many other people have had the benefit of his distilled life experience, because one thing he is not shy about is sharing advice. Indeed, his seemingly endless store of one-line advisories has served as the soundtrack for the lives of his children, his grandchildren, his employees, his protégés, and anyone who has ever come within his orbit. Here is a selection of his timeless advice for entrepreneurs; some original, others relayed from heroes of his such as Twain, Churchill, Plato, Shakespeare, Santayana, and Montaigne, as well as his own father and brothers:

You can get anything done if you're willing to give away the credit. This was driven home to me when I was a teenager. I watched from a ring-side seat as he single-handedly conceived, implemented, and succeeded at pulling off a brilliant, entrepreneurial, off-the-wall solution to a problem that saved an otherwise-doomed $100 million project. But at the ribbon cutting ceremony, a dozen other people, including the mayor, were showered with credit while my father's name was not even mentioned. I was absolutely devastated, but he was quietly and calmly proud, pointing out that...

Plato's definition of "beauty" is "fitness to the end in view." ...And his end game had been to save the project, not be honored by the mayor. The moral of this is to have a clear idea of what you are trying to do, and then focus on getting that done. In many ways this is a precursor of the Lean Methodology concept of the Minimum Viable Product: don't be distracted by surface appearances or unnecessary features; start by solving the immediate problem with a "beautiful" solution.

Your actions shout so loud I can't hear what you're saying. One of his many admonishments on the subject of integrity, the point is that one can talk a good game, but at the end of the day it is what you do, and only what you do, that actually counts. Integrity means practicing what you preach, saying what you mean, and living up to your promises and exhortations with your own actions.

You only get one chance to make a first impression. He first told me this in seventh grade when I moved to a new school, and I have come to realize how important (even though it seems ridiculously obvious) this is in virtually every business environment. When people meet you for the first time, whether investors, customers, or potential partners, you are in control of what they begin to think of you. Once that first impression has clicked, it is damnably difficult to get people to change their mind. This is now a standard part of my presentation training seminars for entrepreneurs, because in a venture pitch your target investor will likely start making up his or her mind about your opportunity before you are two or three minutes into the presentation.

Negotiate iron-clad contracts ... and then put them in a drawer and forget them. I have relied on this one virtually every day of my entrepreneurial and investing career, and preach this to all of my own protégés. My father is one of the sharpest businesspeople I have ever met, but also the straightest shooter. He stresses over and over how critical it is to ensure that the underlying paperwork in any deal is in your favor and gives you negotiating leverage when the chips are down, but then points out that "with great power comes great responsibility," and you will always do much better by using the power to dictate fair terms for everyone rather than taking advantage for yourself.

Trust everyone, but cut the cards. The corollary, from Finley Peter Dunne, suggests going into every discussion and negotiation assuming good intentions on everyone's part, but not being naïve about it. In my own entrepreneurial career I've taken this even one step further. My corporate motto has always been "everyone gets one chance to screw us," because if I limit my exposure on the first interaction, it will be the cheapest money I ever spend to find out who plays fair and who doesn't.

It's one thing to piss on my back, but don't try to tell me I'm sweating. This one comes from an old-time construction superintendent with whom my father himself apprenticed, and it again boils down to honesty and integrity. Whatever you do (or whatever someone else does to you) should be done clearly and with no obfuscation. Own your actions, and don't try to fool yourself or anyone else with false rationalizations. (As in "it's perfectly ok to pirate music and movies against the express wishes of the copyright owner, because I'm actually helping them by giving them added exposure...").

Every tub should sit on its own bottom. That is, examine each action or relationship independently, and don't mix yourself up by conflating unrelated activities. For example, if you are considering taking in a strategic investment, analyze the equity investment independently as one piece, and the strategic contract as a separate one. Similarly, when considering a problem, break it down into the smallest possible components and figure out how to solve each one on its own. Quite often a seemingly intractable problem can be handled with two or three simple actions.

Nice guys don't always finish first, but you should act as if they do. History has shown that bad things happen to good people, and if one runs around maintaining "nice guys always finish first", you will (a) be disappointed, and (b) convince people that you're hopelessly naïve. But the fact is that if the "nice" is combined with other characteristics such as "effective", "smart", and "hardworking", nice guys often do finish first, and have an easier time and more support from those around them.

If three people tell you you're drunk, lie down anyway. Mark Twain's advice about having a decent respect for the opinions of others is something that I remind myself about nearly every day. Entrepreneurs are almost universally convinced that they are bearing the Word of God, and that anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be either an idiot or invincibly ignorant. I am certainly no exception to this belief, but after nearly four decades in business I have come to realize how true Twain's words ring. While it is critical for entrepreneurs to have faith in their own visions, it is equally critical to listen to what the market and other smart people are saying. Coachability, flexibility, and a willingness to listen to (if not heed) good advice are some of the key things that I look for an as an investor.

Happiness is the exercise of one's vital powers along lines of excellence. Last but not least, George Santayana's perceptive view of personal fulfillment (what Abraham Maslow discussed as "self actualization") pre-dated by decades the concept of "flow". Exercising my 'vital powers' as an entrepreneur, an investor and a mentor makes me one of the happiest people I know, just as it has for my life role model.

This question originally appeared on Quora. - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

More questions:​

  • Fathers: How can I learn to be a great father for my future kids?
  • Children: Is sleepaway camp good for children's emotional development?
  • Parenting: What is something crazy that a child of yours has done?


Saturday, August 20, 2016

5 Ways Entrepreneurs Can Protect Themselves from Fraud

Fraud! The one thing that people take for granted until it happens to them.

By then it's too late.

You can be a victim of many kinds of fraudulent activities. But they all stem from two things... there's one after your money and another after your identity.

I'm going to show you 5 quick and easy ways to make you less susceptible to fraud.

Use Secure Online Payment Methods


As an entrepreneur you'll most likely pay suppliers, freelancers and a ton of other people. The problem usually comes from people who ask you to pay before they do the work. You never know if they'll deliver or not.

But one way to protect yourself is by paying through a trusted platform and avoid paying through unsecure platforms.

Trusted platforms include PayPal, AliPay, Payoneer and Amazon Payments.

Unsecure platforms include direct bank transfer, Western Union and any other payment method that doesn't have a group of people monitoring payments. What makes these unsecure isn't because of any technical faults... but it's the fact that these methods of payments should be used for family and friends only.

So make sure you use the right platforms for business. Don't pay a business partner like you'd pay a friend.

Shred or Wash All Documents You Don't Need


Bills, invoices, bank statements and anything with your personal or business details shouldn't be thrown in the trash. They must be destroyed first.

Two ways to destroy documents is by shredding them with a shredder or mixing them in a chlorine and water solution until all the ink is washed off. The second method being the most secure.

Don't let any piece of personal or business data lying in your trash. Fraudsters will happily go through your trashcan just to steal your data. Make them regret it.

Invest in an Antivirus Software


Keyloggers can read every keystroke you make on your keyboard. The way to make sure they don't come in the first place is to have a powerful antivirus software such as McAfees, Norton and Kaspersky etc.

An antivirus will also protect you from untrustworthy websites, download and fake login pages. That's why there's no such thing as an expensive antivirus software. There's only safe or sorry. Here are some great tools.

Track Your Smartphone


Your phone isn't a phone anymore. It's your email, your gallery, your recordings, documents and personal notes. It's got everything a fraudster needs to steal your identity and wealth.

Not only are you in danger when your smartphone is stolen but your contacts as well. The thief can call your contacts and get all their information.

Whether you've got an android phone or an iPhone you need to download a tracking app to find your phone as soon as it's lost or stolen. Here are more great ways to avoid identity fraud.

Don't Access Any Accounts on Public Wi-Fi


Public Wi-Fi is easy to hack. In fact, opening your email and bank accounts on public Wi-Fi is like standing in front of a crowd of people and showing everyone your username and password... well for hackers at least.

That's why you must limit your usage of public Wi-Fi and only use it for stuff like games, chatting and other things that don't require you to log into an account. If you really need to access your personal accounts on public Wi-Fi then make sure you set up a Virtual Private Network (VPN) which makes it harder for hackers to steal your information.

It's easy to set up a VPN. Here's a tutorial for Windows 10 users.


Friday, August 19, 2016

Starbucks: Changing the World One Barista at a Time

"Our role as leaders is to celebrate the human connection that we have been able to create as a company, and to make sure people realize the deep level of respect we have for the work they do and how they act. That is the legacy of the company. It's not to get bigger or to make more money."

--Howard Schultz, CEO Starbucks

I met Ashley Peterson, a barista at my local Starbucks, over six years ago during my morning ritual--stopping in for a grande extra hot soy latte on my way to taking my three kids to school, and myself to work. Ashley's big, totally genuine smile was truly comforting in the midst of my morning wrangle. And she looked like she meant it when she looked us in the eyes and said, "Good morning. How is everyone today?"

It wasn't long before Ashley learned all of our names, our favorite drinks and breakfast items. One Fall, my daughter Caroline developed a taste (read: obsession) for Starbucks' pumpkin scones, and then was crushed when Ashley explained that they disappear after Halloween. On our next visit, Ashley handed Caroline a bag with a gingerbread cookie in it, thinking that since she loves pumpkin, she might like this, too. In other words, Ashley just gets it; customer service is second nature to her. Not surprisingly, she was recently promoted and moved to a different Starbucks further uptown. Manhattanites all up and down Broadway have changed their morning migration patterns to get their morning fix from her.

Which is to say, when I began researching companies that are dedicated to creating a human workplace, I immediately thought of Starbucks, i.e. Ashley.

I recently sat down with her to learn more about how she works her magic. And she shared with me three sage bits of advice: Focus on Interactions, not Transactions; Love it, or Let me Know; and Provide Feedback. It Makes People Feel Human. The ideas are a combination of her own smarts, and Starbucks', but the words are hers.

Focus on Interactions, Not Transactions

One of Starbucks' values is treating our customers like family. They want us to get to know them, interact with them, and to connect with them. While we get training on different customer service scenarios, no one can really teach you how to connect...that has to be something that you want to do. I do it because of the atmosphere, because of the neighborhood. I see the kids grow up. One minute the mom is pregnant, and the next year the kid is walking into the store. As a customer, I wouldn't come into a place where I didn't feel welcome or where the people were not trying to get to know me. I love what I do and everyone that works for Starbucks loves what they do. It's a business that's so -- it's different than any other business. We want to actually connect with our customers, we want to better the experience.

Love It or Let me Know

At Starbucks, we are empowered to make the customer experience the best we can. We can say, "Listen, love it or let me know. What can I do to fix it?" I want to teach the baristas around me that customer service is the most important part of our business. Without the customers, we wouldn't be in business. So I really want them to take that seriously. And if that means going above and beyond for the customers, then that's what I want [them] to do. I want everybody that comes into Starbucks to leave happy. I don't want anyone to leave unsatisfied; I don't want anyone to leave upset. I don't want anyone to leave with the thought in their head that they're not coming back.

Provide Feedback: It Makes People Feel Human

I always want to make sure that the baristas feel appreciated, so I always recognize them. To do that, we have green apron cards, where we just write a little note, and let them know what it is that they're doing well. Starbucks wants everyone -- baristas, shifts, assistants or store managers to feel appreciated. You don't have to be a store manager to write these things; baristas write them to each other. So you don't have to be in a certain position to write these things.

In case I haven't been clear, I think the world of this young woman. And so when I heard that Howard Schultz and his wife Sherry were going to be awarded a Public Leadership Award from the Aspen Institute, where I just happened to be for the summer, I made it my business to attend. After Howard and Sherry's inspiring talk on values-based leadership, I was able to hand-deliver this note from Ashley.

Hi Howard,

My name is Ashley Peterson and I've been a partner for 6 years. I recently got a promotion to become a store manager, which I'm really excited about. When I first started at Starbucks, it was just a job for me. Before my Starbucks career, I was on my way to college, but life happened. I was expecting a child, my daughter Mckenzie, who is now five years old. Within a year of being at 81st & Broadway, I knew that Starbucks was for me. With so much I can write, I just want to thank you. Thank you for sharing such a great company with me. Thank you for allowing me to provide for my child. Thank you for the opportunity to work for Starbucks. I will continue to inspire and nurture the human spirit, one person, one cup, one neighborhood at a time.

Ashley Peterson

Here I am, giving Howard Schultz Ashley's letter.

Some of us might feel funny expressing such gratitude to the CEO of a multinational corporation as mighty as Starbucks. But not Ashley, whose first job in the food industry was as a manager at White Castle when she was I5. This girl knows how to work. And Howard Schultz does, too. And he knows how to make the workplace a place for humans like Ashley to thrive. In his words, "We are living in a society where there is a need for human connection and a sense of community. And what we do every day is bring people together."

Me at my local Starbucks in Aspen.

I would be lying if I said I don't miss Ashley since her move uptown. Or that I don't feel a little sad each time I walk by her old store and don't see her beaming smile in the window. But I know this an amazing opportunity for Ashley and for the company. She is excited to use her skills and experience to build a strong culture within her new store. And we will all reap the benefits of the work she'll do, spreading the Starbucks gospel, helping other baristas bring their human to work.


Thursday, August 18, 2016

Built On Belief, Bettered By B Corp

Earth Odyssey
My life changed in 1999 when I read Mark Hertsgaard’s book, Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future. At the time, I was managing strategic marketing for a tech media provider. While the work was intellectually challenging, something was missing. My time at work (which was significant) was not addressing what I saw as the fundamental challenge for my generation: how to meaningfully address climate change. That is why I made the career shift into renewable energy.

Dan Kalafatas and I founded 3Degrees in 2007 with a simple mission: to connect people with cleaner energy on a massive scale. Whether it is engaging with a homeowner about community solar options or helping Fortune 500 companies implement their renewable energy strategies, our goal is to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Perhaps just as important, though, we sought to establish 3Degrees as a company centered around values based on two fundamental notions. First, we believed then (as we still do now) that many people in this country are willing to direct their money and time to support renewable energy programs. Second, we believed we could hold ourselves to a higher standard in how we built and operated the business, including creating prosperity for all of our stakeholders — our employees, the community and the environment.

Moments that Matter: Impact Investing
As Mark Twain said, "Tough times teach trust." The character-revealing moment for 3Degrees occurred in 2011 when we found ourselves in a challenging financial situation. We were seeking our first outside investor at a time when no one was investing in renewable energy. Solyndra had failed. The fundamentals of the renewable energy industry were being pressured by low energy prices and policy uncertainty.

It was a tremendous relief when we met ARB (the Halloran Family Office investing company). To make the risk/reward proposition of the proposed investment in 3Degrees better for ARB, however, we needed to convert debt to company equity. Dan and I talked through what this restructuring and re-commitment would mean for the company. We agreed that if we moved forward, we wanted to officially make our company a Certified B Corporation to ensure we had the legal protection to balance shareholder and non-shareholder interests when making decisions. Now, all we had to do was convince ARB this was a good move.

While ARB had made it clear that they were interested in us because of our renewable energy industry focus, culture, and values, we were anxious about how they might respond to our plan to become a Certified B Corporation. We had no idea that Harry R. Halloran, Jr., CEO of ARB and founder of Halloran Philanthropies, was also a founding sponsor of B Lab, a nonprofit organization that serves a global movement to redefine success in business by building a community of Certified B Corporations. Harry was thrilled by our plans. We high fived, and ARB moved forward with its investment in 3Degrees.

Walking the Talk
In August 2012, 3Degrees officially became a Certified B Corporation in California. What does this mean in practice? Every year, we publish a B Corp Impact Report which takes stock of the public benefits we create beyond shareholder value. We participate in B Lab’s Impact Assessment, a biannual, independent evaluation of our social impact that helps us to focus on what we can do next and how can we do it better.

We match 100 percent of the firm's electricity usage with renewable energy certificates as well as offset emissions from employees’ transportation. While those actions may be easier for us given the work we do, we also continually seek opportunities where we can live our values. Case in point: 3Degrees provides socially and environmentally-focused 401(k) investment opportunities to eligible employees; supports up to eight hours of paid volunteer time with an environmentally-oriented organization; and gives preference to local, sustainable and fair-trade suppliers.

Why do we do all of this? We do it because we think it is the right thing to do, but also because in the long term, we think it is good business and reinforces our corporate strategy.

Join Us
When I was asked to write this blog, I, in turn, asked Harry to reflect on what stood out to him when ARB decided to invest in 3Degrees and how we have met his expectations. Harry shared, “In making our investment decision, we saw that you and Dan, as founders of 3Degrees, clearly articulated and modeled the company’s values on a daily basis in big and small ways. So, it is not surprising that 3Degrees is a success on many levels — certainly as an investment, however importantly, also as a model of what is possible when a clear vision, a good business model, and respect for all partners align.”

Today, 3Degrees is one of nearly 1,800 B Lab Certified B Corps in the United States. If our own experience can offer any insight to others, it is that leading by your values just makes good business sense over the long term — in good and challenging times.

The B Corp Life is a new blog series geared towards exploring what it’s like to work at a benefit corporation. Why do b corps matter, and what does the future hold for them? Let us know at PurposePlusProfit@huffingtonpost.com or by tweeting with #TheBCorpLife.


Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Who's Responsible For What Happens To Your Broken iPhone? Some Say Apple.

The tech giants that manufacture mobile phones should provide the means for consumers to recycle old devices, according to a survey released Monday of about 6,000 people in six countries.

The research, conducted by independent polling service Ipsos MORI on behalf of Greenpeace’s East Asia branch, polled adults in China, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, Russia and the United States. Nearly half of respondents overall agreed that it’s up to companies ― as opposed to the government or network providers, for example ― to help consumers recycle their devices. Many manufacturers, like Apple, do give consumers those means. But their practices aren’t perfect.

More than half of respondents also said companies are releasing new phone models too quickly. Environmental groups argue that the constant stream of upgrades encourages people to buy a new device instead of repairing their existing ones. As a result, tossed-out iPhones and Androids make up much of the 3 million metric tons of hazardous electronic waste generated each year, according to a 2014 study by the United Nations.

“The humble smartphone puts enormous strain on our environment from the moment they are produced ― often with hazardous chemicals ― to the moment they are disposed of in huge e-waste sites,” Chih An Lee, a campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia, said in a statement. “Over half of respondents across the countries surveyed agree that manufacturers are releasing too many new models, many designed to only last a few years.”

Issues with recycling modern electronics aren’t new: Tech companies across the board appear to be focusing on smaller, slimmer products over recyclability, as The Huffington Post reported in June.

For example, many of Apple’s designs for iPads, MacBooks and iPhones make it hard ― and even impossible ― to repair them or recycle them safely. The company has been fighting a secret war in the courts over legislation that would force it to hand over schematics and instructions ― and, much to Apple’s chagrin, proprietary information ― to recyclers.

And while Apple offers refurbished models of its products and has a recycling process in place, the company has long been against third-party repair shops. There’s also little way of knowing whether your iProduct is being recycled responsibly in the first place.

Apple didn’t return a request for comment, but the company has maintained its dedication to recycling programs. It told HuffPost this year that it helps recycle millions of pounds of electronics equipment every year. Samsung, the world’s biggest smartphone manufacturer, also did not respond to a request for comment.

The inability of the average consumer to recycle or repair their devices in the way they want, along with an ever-increasing frequency of new products, helps create a consumer base that’s more likely to buy a new item than go through the process of recycling. But surveyed consumers seem keen on that option.

Greenpeace’s answer to the problem is the same one HuffPost has reported on for months: We need products with a design that allows for recycling in the first place.

“The new product design,” the Greenpeace report concludes, “should take recycling into consideration from the beginning of the production phase, using the recycled materials instead of virgin materials, and making the products easier to be dismantled at the end.”


Tuesday, August 16, 2016

8 Ways To Get People To Take You More Seriously

Do you ever feel like nobody takes you seriously at work? If so, you're not alone. More than 50% of people don't feel respected at work, according to a global survey of more than 20,000 employees by the Harvard Business Review.

Maybe colleagues ignore your input in meetings. Perhaps they interrupt you or don't include you in important decisions. It's easy to blame that on a bad boss or a toxic work environment. In some cases, that's even true. But if you really want to be taken more seriously at work, you should start by looking in the mirror and doing what you can to increase your influence.

If you want to know how you come across to others, you can learn a lot by taking an emotional intelligence test. Other than that, there are eight things you can do right now to increase your credibility, get people to take you more seriously, and ensure you get treated with the respect you deserve.

1. Don't let your statements sound like questions. One of the most common things people do to undermine their credibility is end their sentences on a higher inflection than where they started. It's called "upspeak," and our brains are trained to interpret that pattern as a question. So instead of delivering information, you end up sounding like you're asking if your own input is correct.

2. Don't just give reports -- tell stories. The most successful TED talks follow a magic formula -- they are 75% stories and 25% data backing up those stories. Stories provide an emotional hook that helps people remember what you said, and they give you a platform for connecting your knowledge to the real world. There's a huge difference between memorizing mathematical formulas, for example, and being able to use them to calculate whether a particularly dangerous asteroid is going to hit us in our lifetime. Stories help people take you seriously because they demonstrate that you can apply what you know.

3. Encourage people to talk about themselves. When you first started dating, your mom probably encouraged you to get your dates to talk about themselves. Sure, it's good manners -- and we all know that everybody likes to talk about themselves. But it turns out that there's a scientific basis for this. Your brain rewards you for self-disclosure. In fact, talking about yourself feels so good that it causes neurological changes in the brain. So if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, let them talk about themselves first. Once those "feel-good" neurotransmitters are flowing and people start feeling connected to you, they're much more likely to take you and your contributions seriously.

4. Do your homework. One of the best ways to get people to take you seriously is to be prepared and know what you're talking about. Americans attend 11 million meetings every day, and unproductive meetings cost the US economy $37 billion every year. Why are there so many unproductive meetings? Because people are unprepared. Don't be one of them. Whether it's a team meeting or briefing your boss, always take the time to prepare. Know what you want to say, be able to back up your opinions with data, and be prepared to answer questions two or three levels down.

5. Stay informed. If you look at the employee handbook for tech company Valve, it says that it looks for "T-shaped" employees: people who have a lot of broad knowledge layered on top of their primary area of expertise. Do whatever it takes to keep up with what's going on in the world. It's particularly important to stay abreast of trends in science and technology, especially as they relate to business. You don't want to look like a deer in the headlights when somebody starts talking about how the Internet of Things is going to transform manufacturing.

6. Dress for success. Fair or not, we judge people on their appearances every single day. And it happens so fast -- in about a tenth of a millisecond, according to researchers at Princeton -- that we don't even realize we're doing it. We make inferences about a person's character and capabilities based on appearance. If your appearance is sloppy, for example, people are likely to subconsciously conclude that your work will be sloppy too. Looking polished and well-groomed, on the other hand, creates the impression of responsibility and competence. That doesn't mean you have to rush out and blow your budget on a designer wardrobe. But it does mean that you should show enough respect for yourself and for your colleagues to make a substantial effort.

7. Strike a power pose. If you assume an expansive pose -- taking up more room by keeping your shoulders open and your arms wide -- other people see you as more powerful. This is a hard-wired human characteristic, as people who have been blind since birth throw their arms out in victory, even though they've never seen someone do this. Moreover, power poses actually change our body chemistry. Researchers at Harvard found that after participants held a power pose for just two minutes, their levels of testosterone rose by 20% and their cortisol (the stress hormone) levels dropped. Power poses are a win-win: they make other people see you as more powerful, and they actually make you feel more powerful.

8. Be confident but not too confident. No one is going to have confidence in you until you have confidence in yourself. But you have to balance that confidence with a little humility. Truly confident people aren't afraid to admit that they don't know everything -- it doesn't make them feel threatened at all. In fact, the most confident people are eager to ask questions and learn. The best way to show your confidence is to own what you know and what you don't.

Bringing It All Together

If you feel like you don't get the respect you deserve at work, nobody can change that but you. Sometimes people don't take you seriously because of little things that you don't even realize you're doing. And that's something you can fix.

What do people do that makes it hard to take them seriously? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.


Monday, August 15, 2016

Why Actively Promoting Happiness At Work May Not Be The Best Idea

Should we be actively promoting happiness in the workplace? My immediate thoughts are: “Happy workers are more productive workers.” Consequently, promoting happiness seems like a no-brainer, right?

After all, there are studies that provide strong evidence for this. For instance, Economists at Warwick University found that happiness led to a spark in productivity by 12 percent. Another study mentions several benefits: increased employee retention, improved customer satisfaction, and a higher likelihood that employees will engage in citizenship behavior.

Much of the research then is in favor of actively promoting happiness, not only for improved productivity but for a host of other benefits. And this is why it has gained much prominence among organizations:

“... happiness as a way to boost productivity seems to have gained increased traction in corporate circles as of late.”-Andrew Spicer and Carl Cederström, Harvard Business Review

As a result, Google (and other large organizations) has invested more in employee support and job satisfaction has risen by 37 percent. Companies now have happiness coaches, they engage in team building exercises and Google even has a Chief Happiness Officer.

However, there is a growing body of research which provides contradictory evidence, emphasizing the downside of doing so. This is highlighted by Spicer and Cederström who mention that “we also discovered alternate findings, which indicate that some of the taken for granted wisdom about what happiness can achieve in the workplace are mere myths”. Let’s have a look at the alternative findings.

Happiness doesn’t always lead to increased productivity

There are several studies that contradict the notion that happiness leads to increased productivity, with one study on British Supermarkets even suggesting a negative correlation between the two: Companies with higher profits had unhappy employees. And even for studies in support of this, a fairly weak correlation exists.

The paradoxical effects of valuing happiness

A psychological experiment highlights the paradoxical effects of actually valuing happiness or rephrased: by focusing on happiness, we actually become unhappy.

In the study, subjects were asked to watch a film that would make them happy. Before watching the film, one half were required to read a statement about the importance of happiness. The results were that they demonstrated lower levels of happiness after the film. But why?

In the modern world, we seem to focus on happiness as a moral obligation. The pursuit thereof has become a duty and failing to complete this duty makes us even more unhappy. According to the French Philosopher, Pascal Bruckner, we would be happier, if we just simply abandoned this mad pursuit of happiness:

“By the duty to be happy, I thus refer to the ideology... that urges us to evaluate everything in terms of pleasure and displeasure...on the one hand, we have to make the most of our lives; on the other, we have to be sorry and punish ourselves if we don’t succeed in doing so. This is a perversion of a very beautiful idea: that everyone has a right to control his own destiny and to improve his life.”

Happiness may not be good for all aspects of work

Today, both customer and non-customer facing employees are required to be happy. But happiness can also negatively affect our performance at work.

One study highlighted that people who were in a good mood were far worse at identifying acts of deception than those who were in a bad mood. A second study demonstrated that angry people achieve better outcomes during a negotiation than happy people.

Happiness can damage relationships with your boss, family, and friends

According to Susanne Ekmann, by expecting work to make us happy, we can become emotionally needy ― where we depend on our managers to provide us with recognition and reassurance. When we don’t receive the desired emotional response from employers we overreact as we see it as evidence of rejection; making us emotionally vulnerable.

In a book, by Eva Illouz, titled Cold Intimacies, it was found that those seeking emotional comfort at work started to treat their private lives as work tasks. The results were that family life became increasingly cold. This, in turn, pushed people to want to spend an even more unhealthy amount of time at work.

Seeking happiness at work can make losing your job even more devastating

Expecting happiness to come from work creates a dangerous dependence on it, to the extent that losing our job can feel like losing a promise of happiness. Spicer and Cedeström elaborate on this in referencing a book by Richard Sennet, titled, The Corrosion of Character The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism:

“Richard Sennet noticed that people who saw their employer as an important source of personal meaning were those who became most devastated if they were fired. When these people lost their jobs, they were not just losing an income – they were losing the promise of happiness. This suggests that, when we see our work as a great source of happiness, we make ourselves emotionally vulnerable during periods of change. In an era of constant corporate restructuring, this can be dangerous.”

Happiness can make you a selfish bastard

In one piece of research, participants were given lottery tickets and told that they could give away and/or keep as many tickets as they wanted. Those in a good mood kept more tickets to themselves. How’s that for generosity?

It can damage personal connections and make you lonely

This is demonstrated in an experiment, titled “The Pursuit of Happiness Can Be Lonely” where psychologists asked participants to keep a detailed diary for two weeks. Those greatly valuing happiness felt increasingly disconnected and lonelier afterward.

Despite all the above contradictory evidence, we continue to promote it, but why?

Cedeström and Spicer reference one study that says it comes down to aesthetics and ideology; where aesthetically it’s a convenient idea on paper and ideologically it allows us to avoid more serious issues at work. They say:

“... we can sweep more uncomfortable questions under the carpet, especially since happiness is often seen as a choice. It becomes a convenient way of dealing with negative attitudes, party poopers, miserable bastards, and other unwanted characters in corporate life.”

So where to from here?

There are clear downsides to actively promoting happiness in the workplace. Not only is the link between happiness and productivity questionable, but it can actually make us unhappy, damage our workplace and family relationships, affect aspects of our work, make losing our jobs even more devastating and even make us selfish and lonely.

With the evidence mounting up, it is clear that organizations need to rethink the idea of actively promoting it and people also need to rethink their expectations. To end off, no one could have said it more aptly than Cedeström and Spicer:

“Happiness, of course, is a great thing to experience, but nothing that can be willed into existence. And maybe the less we seek to actively pursue happiness through our jobs, the more likely we will be to actually experience a sense of joy in them — a joy which is spontaneous and pleasurable, and not constructed and oppressive. But most importantly, we will be better equipped to cope with work in a sober manner. To see it for what it is. And not as we — whether executives, employees or dancing motivational seminar leaders — pretend that it is.”


Saturday, August 13, 2016

Trump's And Clinton's Economy Plans: Eight Essential Reads


Bryan Keogh, The Conversation and Emily Costello, The Conversation

Editor's note: The following is a roundup of stories related to this week's presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump gave dueling economic addresses this week, offering contrasting visions of where we are now and where each candidate would like to take us.

Speaking in Warren, Michigan on Aug. 11, Clinton challenged listeners to "go out and build the future." Her speech emphasized job creation, workforce skills and American competitiveness. She pledged to bring broadband to every American household by 2020, to simplify tax filing for small businesses and to spend US$25 billion for infrastructure. Clinton promised to limit child care costs to 10 percent of family income.

Clinton also talked tough on trade policy:

"I will stop any trade deal that costs America jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president."

Meanwhile, during a speech in Detroit on Aug. 8, Trump offered his vision of an "America first" economy. It mixed traditional Republican policies to cut taxes with his against-the-GOP-grain attacks on free trade. He also offered an appeal to working moms with a plan to make child care costs tax deductible.

Tax cuts, however, were the centerpiece of his plans:

"I am proposing an across-the-board income tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans. This will lead to millions of new good-paying jobs. The rich will pay their fair share, but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs, or undermines our ability to compete."

The Conversation scholars have been covering these and other economic themes of the campaign for many months. The following articles are what we consider essential reading on the issues.

Trade takes center stage

Trade has been one of the most important issues candidates have tussled over. Bernie Sanders' anti-trade tirades made the issue a key part of the Democratic primary and forced Clinton to turn against the TPP.

Some scholars have also identified flaws in the 12-nation trade accord. NYU's Rachel Rothschild writes that it departs from a half-century of diplomatic progress on the environment and human rights:

"America does not need to sacrifice its progress toward worker protections and environmental safeguards to compete for influence with China. We didn't do this with the Soviet Union, and we shouldn't do it now."

Emily Blanchard of Dartmouth, however, explains why she feels progressives should save the TPP from collapse.

"The TPP is less about tariffs and more about creating a coherent global code of conduct for how firms do business in the world. Done right, the agreement would bring important new policy priorities to the negotiating table. It would be a shame to let this chance pass us by."

Trump, meanwhile, has reversed decades of Republican orthodoxy on trade and made opposing the TPP, as well as past accords like NAFTA, a key element of his economic platform. But is he right that the TPP would destroy millions of jobs? Greg Wright of the University of California, Merced and Emily Blanchard of Dartmouth took a look at the potential winners and losers under the agreement.

"The simple truth is that trade agreements change the composition of jobs in the economy. Some workers will be happier with their new jobs, and others will not. Whatever the job losses from the TPP, a roughly equal number will be created."

Haves and have-nots

Income and wealth inequality is another persistent theme of the 2016 presidential elections. Alan Auerbach of the University of California, Berkeley and Laurence Kotlikoff of BU designed a large scale study to better define the drivers of the growing gap between rich and poor by focusing on lifetime spending inequality. Their conclusion?

"Inequality, properly measured, is extremely high, but is far lower than generally believed."

Besides propelling the haves at the expense of the have-nots, the significant inequality that does exist is making us a more polarized nation politically, according to Stanford's Christos Makridis. And that polarization is actually making it harder to resolve the problem, argue Robert Blendon and John Benson of Harvard.

"What is critical to understand is just how wide the gap between members of the two parties is in terms of how they perceive income inequality's seriousness and what policies might reduce it."

Policies and populists

As we approach November, we're getting more specifics from the candidates on their plans to grow the economy and create more jobs.

Trump, for one, is beginning to offer more detail on his plans to "make America grow again," but Jeffrey Kucik, a political scientist at City University of New York, warns that there's a cost to economic policies fueled by populism, as the British are learning after their vote to leave the European Union.

"It shows the dangers of turning away from market institutions like the EU and of introducing political uncertainty into the marketplace. These results should send a powerful warning to those in the U.S. who want to pursue a similar strategy."

Bryan Keogh, Editor, Economics and Business, The Conversation and Emily Costello, Senior Editor, Politics + Society, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.