Peter Thiel offers a case study in the way America's top tax rate is much, much too low.
This week, we learned that Thiel -- a Silicon Valley techno-libertarian billionaire who co-founded PayPal, sits on the board of Facebook and is estimated to be worth $2.7 billion -- is trying to sue Gawker Media out of existence by financially backing plaintiffs who want to bring lawsuits against the company.
What does it mean that Thiel has amassed enough wealth -- and thus enough power -- to make a credible attempt to cripple a major media company by throwing money at the legal system?
It doesn't necessarily tell us that individuals shouldn't be able to fund litigation. It tells us that some people in this country have too much money.
Thiel funding a lawsuit he wasn't involved in, a practice known as champerty, was once illegal in the U.S. But as Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, points out in The Washington Post this week, anti-champerty laws eventually underwent a gradual attrition -- particularly because of civil rights litigation, which often involves a third party funding the lawsuits.
"They were gradually eroded by numerous developments, most saliently public interest litigation and the private provision of legal aid to indigents," Kontorovich writes. Progressives are generally in favor of those last couple of things, so changing these laws would be complicated.
Yet here is Thiel, using the power afforded by his vast wealth to make serious trouble for Gawker. The media company has certainly shown questionable editorial judgment sometimes, but more often than not it speaks truth to power -- a crucial function of the press in a democracy. Gawker's now-inactive Silicon Valley blog, Valleywag, wrote unflattering things about the stars of the tech world, Thiel included -- something to which most of them were, and still are, unaccustomed. In response, Thiel used his money to try to destroy Gawker. There are countries whose governments use their power to control what the media says about them. We generally refer to these as autocracies.
Thiel is a private citizen, of course, not a public servant. But that doesn't make it much better. Imagine if other private citizens, like Bill Gates or the Koch brothers, tried to destroy every media outlet that wrote something nasty about them. The public's access to information would suffer. Not immediately, maybe, but certainly after the eighth or ninth crippling lawsuit.
But there's another way to prevent this kind of abuse of power: taxes. What this country really needs isn't a law to keep incredibly wealthy people from funding litigation in an attempt to destroy the First Amendment. We just need fewer incredibly wealthy people.
Economists agree. Back in 2014, my colleague Ben Walsh wrote about a report by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania that found the ideal top marginal tax rate on the highest 1 percent of earners -- the tax rate that makes everyone in society the most well-off overall -- is between 85 and 90 percent. That's more than twice the current U.S. top rate of just under 40 percent, which is paid on income above $415,050 for individuals and above $466,950 for couples.
Marginal tax rates don't mean that all income is taxed at that rate -- just the income above a certain level. So if the marginal tax rate for individuals making $1 million a year was, say, 99 percent, only the money they made after the first $1 million would be taxed at that rate. That first million bucks would be taxed at a lower rate, leaving the person plenty to live off of. But a robust top marginal tax rate would prevent people who make, say, $100 million per year from becoming exponentially wealthier than everybody else, and getting to more or less make up their own laws as a result.
Having several million dollars in the bank is a way to live comfortably, have some influence and generally be considered a rich person. Having several billion dollars in the bank is different. A billion dollars is power -- power to grind down your enemies through endless litigation; power to throw off an entire state's budget because you moved to a new house. A billion dollars is plutocracy.
Of course, if we take away the plutocrats' power by taxing them at higher rates, that money -- and the power that goes along with it -- will go to the government instead. And governments, to state the obvious, abuse their power all the time, including here in the U.S. But elected officials are still accountable to the public, and bound by the Constitution, in ways that individual billionaires are not. Do we want the power of regulating the press to be in the hands of the many or the hands of the few?
It's important to remember that there are different kinds of rich. There's the kind of rich where you can live comfortably without worrying about money, and there's the kind of rich where you can manipulate democracy or fund a never-ending series of lawsuits in pursuit of a personal grudge. Taxes are the way to keep the first kind of rich from metastasizing into the second. The higher we set the top marginal tax rate, the harder it becomes for anyone to make that jump.
Without high tax rates, huge amounts of wealth simply beget more huge amounts of wealth. In this chart, compiled by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, you can see the massive amounts of wealth created for the top 0.1 percent by capital gains (that's returns on investment) in the 1920s, and again in the 2000s.
Piketty and Saez
Not coincidentally, U.S. inequality reached historic heights in the 1920s, and it's happening again now. As capital gains soar, real median incomes in the U.S. have fallen since 2000. What's good for the extremely rich is not necessarily good for average Americans. When top marginal tax rates decline, income inequality balloons:
CEPR/Piketty
What happens when income inequality grows too extreme? It's not just about Gawker, or any corporation a billionaire might dislike. Inequality can be a threat to both politics and the economy. The more money is concentrated at the top, the more political power accrues to that same small group of people. If power becomes too concentrated among the rich, and they are no longer exercising that power in a way that benefits everyone, you get violence. Ask Marie Antoinette.
And then there's the less obvious consequence: sluggish economic growth. Recent research has shown that as wealth concentrates at the top, everyone who's not at the top stops producing as much. As a result, the economy cools off and stagnates. Even when there is some growth, who benefits from it? An OECD report from 2015 shows that not only does growth slow and inequality increase under such conditions, but "when such a large group in the population gains so little from economic growth, the social fabric frays and trust in social institutions is weakened." And once again we're back to the lessons of the French Revolution. Any way you look at it, neglecting to tax the rich is bad for democracy.
Sure, perhaps you dislike Gawker and are unfazed by Thiel's meddling. But what if it were The New York Times? What if it were The Huffington Post? What if it were Breitbart?
If we tax the rich properly, we never have to find out.
What would you say are the defining characteristics of the American eater?
If you look at our obesity rates, they'd suggest we’re mostly overeaters. But beyond that, the question is tougher.
It’s not so much that we lack a U.S. food personality — if anything, we have multiple, conflicting ones. At the same time, more consumers are demanding that their food be “natural,” organic and GMO-free, even as Taco Bell sells record numbers of Doritos Locos tacos. We seem more interested in celebrity chefs, cooking shows and recipe videos than ever before, and yet we’re also spending a record amount of money eating out and ordering in.
To address our nation’s diet-related concerns, it would seem necessary first to better understand what we eat, how we eat it and, of course, why.
In her new book, Devoured: From Chicken Wings to Kale Smoothies — How What We Eat Defines Who We Are, Culinary Institute of America program director and food writer Sophie Egan digs into these questions.
It turns out previous attempts to dissect our dietary schizophrenia have ignored some important pieces. Principal among those, Egan argues, are the ways in which Americans working longer hours than the rest of the industrialized world has impacted both their motivation — and ability — to make healthier food choices daily.
So how do we go about resetting our workplaces, cafeterias and the norms they help instill to a healthier default? The Huffington Post recently spoke with Egan about the challenges ahead and the reasons for hope.
What prompted you to explore this question of how we wound up with the food culture we have today?
I’ve been working in food professionally for a number of years and was thinking about how powerful a mirror food is for who we are at a much deeper level. I was tired of hearing that in the U.S. we’re so diverse and are such a huge country that we don’t have anything we could identify as a national food culture. I felt like, well, what can be said? I dug into that question of who we are as eaters, these core values we have as Americans -- these are things we don’t even see sometimes because they’re so deeply ingrained in how we think.
And that led you to this discussion of how the way we work impacts the way we eat. It almost seems so obvious now that I’m asking you about it, but we don’t really talk about that relationship. Why is that?
It really comes down to a reframing of how we look at the root causes of our eating choices. We typically center those conversations around individual willpower or these character accusations, if you will: That Americans don’t cook because they’re lazy or we just follow whatever we saw on TV. But I would say work is a root cause. In addition to a lack of financial resources [being a factor for many people], another important root cause of some eating behaviors that maybe aren’t as healthy as people would like is lack of time. If we’re working more than we used to, something is falling by the wayside.
What was stunning to me was seeing how technology has really blurred the lines between work and home for many people. This mindset of, well, if you can work, why wouldn’t you? Whether it’s on vacation, in the evenings or on weekends, all of it. So with the increase in the numbers of hours we’re spending working, we’re not focusing on food. We look at food as fuel. You squeeze in a sandwich if you have three minutes in between meetings, or grab a Kind bar when you’re racing to catch the subway in the morning. Eating is a secondary need as opposed to something people used to design their days around.
And this starts in childhood. Kids in K-12 schools usually don’t have enough time to eat, so they’re scarfing down pizza or hot dogs or whatever is being served in their cafeteria in 10 minutes. By the time you’re in college, it’s a grab-and-go, grazing mentality. So you’re trained from an early age to see food as secondary. This is a huge cultural norm that’s very difficult to reverse.
Credit: Seth Perlman/Associated PressStudents at many schools are rushed to eat their lunches quickly. The Culinary Institute of America's Sophie Egan argues this helps instill a mindset that food is principally fuel, rather than something to be savored or celebrated.
I’ve noticed that the “food as fuel” mindset is behind a lot of the marketing of Soylent and similar products. I tried one last year and thought it tasted just as joyless as you would think. Why is this sort of message at the heart of a lot of so-called “foods of the future” today?
Culturally speaking, Soylent is a huge step backward. There’s this sense that we can take food and improve on it, to take what nature gave us and say there’s got to be a better way. A life-hacking approach. A Silicon Valley approach. But [AOL co-founder] Steve Case has this great quote that food is not something disrupting the disrupting you have to do.
Soylent is an extreme, but I would say it represents a larger idea of reducing food to its nutrients. Food is so much more than that. It does nourish us and we need certain things to survive, but I hope that people are starting to realize that flavor and taste and joy are some of the greatest pleasures of life. I think in the U.S., we have a very related discomfort with leisure and with pleasure. It’s sort of unspoken that if you sit around and do nothing, you’re lazy and you’re lesser. I think similarly there’s this sense of taboo around pure enjoyment of taste and of eating food with other people.
There’s also an element of purity to utilitarian foods like that. In the book, you make a strong case for food — whether it be a particular diet or the practice of going to brunch — as a sort of "secular church." Is that a hypothesis you held going into this, or did it develop along the way?
I started with this question about the contradiction of why we’re willing to spend basically the whole day seeking out brunch when our typical mindset is to go to extreme lengths to minimize the time we spend obtaining, eating and cleaning up after food. So it was more of this question of what is so different about that. Very quickly, my research led me to this discovery about how different our weekday eating habits are from our weekend eating habits. We spend the least amount of time of any major developed country preparing and eating food. We’re hardwired in terms of that idea of efficiency.
But looking back, it’s very clear weekends are about indulgence and treating yourself after a long, hard week. These are also some of the only times we aren’t as scheduled, though many families have soccer games and a million other activities too.
Your book also discusses how Americans are so used to getting our food exactly the way we want it, and points out how companies are always pushing new flavors and innovations or “stunt foods” like Doritos Locos. How do you balance these trends with ideas that could push us in a healthier direction? The answer can’t be to go back to the “good ol' days,” right?
This is a really tough question. It’s not just that we all should return to the old ways, because there’s clearly some innovation or new ways forward that should be welcomed. But what kinds of pieces from our past do we really want to resurrect?
Everyone talks today about how people are paying more attention to food than ever before, but from a policy standpoint, a number of things are still missing. One is the amount of time in schools for lunch. I think, at a broad level, going forward what I’m hoping for is for us to collectively find ways to focus on food more. And what I mean by that is, if more employers could make the American lunch break the norm in office settings. I’ve heard of a handful of companies where they ring a cowbell and everyone knows to take a break. You can’t expect individual change in the midst of the same larger environment, not only the physical marketing environment, but the cultural environment. I’m calling for cultural change, and it has to come from the top down.
I think the piece most worth resurrecting from the past would be teaching people to cook. You don’t have to call it home economics. But it should be painted as essential life skills. What if, in order to graduate from college you had to demonstrate that you knew how to cook an omelette so that you could feed yourself? If it was considered the same way as learning a language or riding a bike?
We’ve outsourced the preparation of food to the professionals. Are we going to stop eating food that comes in packages? Of course not. But we would be wise to see for what it is the availability of real, whole foods and the power that comes with feeding yourself and preparing food yourself instead of being sort of over-reliant on new solutions.
Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty ImagesMany "Big Food" brands like Kraft have been altering some of their trademark packaged foods to contain fewer artificial ingredients and flavors in recent years.
Are you optimistic that we're moving in the right direction, toward getting back into the kitchen and eating more “real” food? Or are we too set in our ways at this point?
I am optimistic. I think our appreciation for novelty and innovation is a double-edged sword. We’re eating more foods from around the world than five years ago, which is a silver lining to how much more we’re eating out. But it’s really brought a world of flavors to the masses. It has tremendous potential for healthier eating habits, because some of those other cuisines taste amazing and happen to be good for you without being positioned as good for you. That’s the best way to go.
I’m also optimistic about how much consumer awareness can change Big Food, and we’re seeing that in food companies removing artificial flavors and colorings, or antibiotics. Consumers’ collective demands are really starting to make change happen faster. I think in some ways we’re more empowered than ever before.
It is only with this greater awareness that we can we collectively take more control over our food choices. And with that, we can celebrate the aspects of our food culture that we sometimes overlook, and change those aspects of our food culture that are hurting us so that we can end up with healthier, happier relationships with the food we eat.
---
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.
The attorney general of New York filed a lawsuit against Domino's on Tuesday, accusing the pizza giant of systematically shorting workers' pay.
Fast-food restaurants are sued all the time for alleged wage theft. What makes this suit different is who's included among the defendants: Domino's itself, as opposed to just the franchisees who run Domino's shops.
"At some point, a company has to take responsibility for its actions and for its workers’ well-being," Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, said in a statement.
The lawsuit claims workers at 10 Domino's shops in New York were underpaid by a total of at least $565,000. Schneiderman said that his office's investigation revealed "intensive involvement by Domino’s headquarters" in the alleged labor violations, and that Domino's should therefore be considered a joint employer alongside the franchisees.
“New York law -- as well as basic human decency -- holds Domino’s responsible for the alleged mistreatment of the workers who make and deliver the company’s pizzas, and it is incumbent upon Domino’s to fix the problems," Schneiderman said.
The fast-food industry is predicated on a franchise system, with the owners of individual outlets -- franchisees -- paying fees to the company in exchange for an established name and business model. The franchisees sign workers' paychecks and are typically considered the employers in this equation. When workplace laws get broken, they're usually the ones on the hook for the violation.
But in this case, New York alleges that Domino's really controls the work inside the pizza shops, and therefore should be held accountable for any violations of the law. The lawsuit claims that Domino's headquarters directed franchisees to discipline certain employees, dictated staffing levels and hours at the shops, and even tried to scuttle a union campaign by workers.
In a statement, Domino's said the lawsuit "disregards the nature of franchising and demeans the role of small business owners." The company said it worked with Schneiderman's office for three years to help franchisees understand and comply with the different wage and hour laws.
"It’s unfortunate that these steps were not enough, and that the Attorney General now wants the company to take steps that would not only deprive our independent business owners of the opportunity to make their own employment decisions, but could impact the viability of the franchise model, the many opportunities it offers to those looking to start their own businesses, and the millions of jobs those franchised businesses create," the company said.
According to its most recent annual report, Domino's has more than 4,800 franchised locations in the U.S., owned by 841 franchisees who each have an average of six locations. Domino's itself only owns 384 stores.
According to Schneiderman's office, Domino's required franchisees to purchase an online software system called PULSE, and encouraged them to use it for payroll reports. The lawsuit alleges that PULSE routinely miscalculated workers' gross wages, and that these mistakes led to workers being shorted on their paychecks. Domino's headquarters, the suit claims, was aware of the problems, but deemed the miscalculations a "low priority."
The sale of PULSE, Schneiderman contends, amounted to "fraud" perpetrated on the franchisees by Domino's.
Domino's isn't the first fast-food company to be sued alongside some of its franchisees. In 2014, workers in three different states filed lawsuits against McDonald's, saying the company violated minimum wage and overtime laws. As in the Domino's complaint, the plaintiffs in that suit argued that McDonald's steered in-store work policy and was therefore liable for the alleged violations. The cases are pending.
Schneiderman's office has aggressively pursued criminal cases against fast-food operators, and Domino's stores have been in the attorney general's crosshairs in the past. In 2014, a group of Domino's franchisees agreed to pay workers nearly a half-million dollars to settle wage theft claims brought by the attorney general.
This story has been updated with comment from Domino's.
The Washington Post union and its management are divided over whether there's really a gender and racial pay gap in the newsroom. And far from being a debate just over dollars and cents, the issue is illustrative of the bigger problem we have as a society when it comes to hiring, promoting, and championing women and people of color in the workplace.
The Post's union published data this week showing that reporters who are women and people of color make about 20 percent less than what white men make at the company. But management says the problem is with how the data is analyzed, rather than any actual bias, conscious or not. A representative from the Post's management told media blogger Eric Wemple that simple average or median numbers don't give the full picture, because they don't account for "experience and role" at the company.
This tension constantly comes up when people discuss the pay gap, and it's important to understanding systemic bias.
The general pay gap for working adults in the United States is about 22 cents on the dollar, and hasn’t really budged since 2001, according to a White House report from 2015. Yet a March study by Glassdoor found that when you account for things like education, occupation and work experience, women only make about 5 percent less than men.
However, those things you can control for tell a story of inequality. How women and people of color are educated, which fields they choose, how much time they have to take out of the workplace to have kids and how often they are promoted all affect their earning potential. There are biases at every step, and those biases begin in childhood.
The pay gap is not just about paying people doing the same job the same amount. It’s also about hiring and promoting women and minorities at the same rate. If the pay gap disappears when you control for factors like position and experience, there might be unconscious bias in hiring and promotion.
In the Washington Post's case, it likely means that white men have more experience and better, higher-paid roles within the company than women and people of color. That might not be the exact same issue as paying people differently for the same job, but there's still a problem there.
Controlling the data doesn't erase the problem, it just shows you exactly which problem your company has.
CORRECTION: Language has been amended to note that the Post's union found the 20 percent pay discrepancy between reporters at the company, rather than all employees.
Monsanto's list of problems is growing like a weed.
Now, the world's largest seed company seems vulnerable to a $42 billion takeover bid by its German rival Bayer, maker of the eponymous Aspirin brand. And that's just the latest sign of trouble for Monsanto.
"It's a relentless string of bad news," Jonas Oxgaard, an analyst at the research firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., told Bloomberg News' Jen Skerritt this week. "It's almost like they forgot to sacrifice a goat to the gods."
Here are all the things that have gone wrong at Monsanto this year:
In January, the company laid off a total of 3,600 employees, or about 16 percent of its workforce.
In February, Swiss competitor Syngenta agreed to the China National Chemical Corp.'s acquisition offer, just months after refusing for a fourth time to sell itself to Monsanto.
In March, the maker of RoundUp weed killer slashed its earnings forecast for the year amid economic headwinds from low commodity prices.
Earlier this month, two of the largest U.S. grain traders refused to buy a new type of Monsanto's genetically modified soybean because European Union regulators have yet to approve it.
The firm is locked in ongoing disputes over seed royalties in Argentina and India.
Its stock price has fallen by as much as 31 percent in the past 12 months, according to Bloomberg.
In a statement, Monsanto confirmed on Wednesday that its board of directors planned to review Bayer's offer, the same day Chief Operating Officer Brett Begemann denied talk of a deal as "wild speculation."
"There is no assurance that any transaction will be entered into or consummated, or on what terms," the company said in the statement.
Monsanto spokeswoman Christi Dixon declined to comment to The Huffington Post.
Google FinanceShares of Monsanto climbed on Thursday after confirmation of Bayer's bid, but have fallen precipitously over the past 12 months.
The move by Bayer comes amid increasing consolidation in the chemical industry. Dow Chemical and DuPont Co. announced plans in December to merge into a $130 billion giant. By buying Syngenta for $43 billion, the Chinese state-owned ChemChina could become the world's largest supplier of crop-protection products. As the Wall Street Journal's Christopher Alessi noted on Thursday, taking over Monsanto may be Bayer's last chance to bulk up and avoid being sidelined as a "second-tier crop player."
Founded in 1901 in St. Louis as a producer of chemicals such as Agent Orange, Monsanto was voted the "world’s most evil company" by Natural News readers in 2013. Notoriously litigious, the firm has sued everyone from farmers who save its seeds — the company ferociously defends its patents — to European food regulators who refuse to legalize its products.
By sheer virtue of its market dominance, Monsanto's genetically modified crops and insecticides play a crucial role in feeding the world's growing population. The firm, used to its reputation as one of the most hated companies in the world, defends itself as a necessary player in the fight to feed 9 billion humans by 2050.
Still, groups such as the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists accuse Monsanto of hampering efforts to make farming more sustainable.
"They're an aggressive company when it comes to the marketing and the PR and the reassuring everyone constantly that [GMOs] are safe," Patty Lovera, assistant director at the food industry advocacy group Food & Water Watch, told HuffPost by phone. "They're also very aggressive in their business practices when it comes to selling seeds, and they have an enormous amount of control over the building blocks of the food industry."
Some office perks may include free coffee and bagels, but at one biotech startup company employees get a free Tesla car.
Practichem, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, has announced plans to reward each staffer with a Tesla Model 3, courtesy of their boss.
The flashy electric sports car, that carries an estimated $35,000 price tag, will be doled out to current and future employees upon its expected 2017 release, the company said Thursday.
“We just announced it to the employees last night as they were leaving and said by the way you're going to be getting a Tesla,” company Press Director Ann Revell told The Huffington Post by phone.
Their reaction was "pretty remarkable,” she said. “They were like, 'Wow, I’ve never driven a car that's younger than 20 years old!'”
Justin Pritchard/APPractichem's CEO has said that they chose Tesla because the motor company shares their goal of positively impacting humanity.
The incentive behind the grand giveaway is to attract the best talent out there, Revell said.
“The whole point, one of the many points, was to make sure that they understand the value that they’re bringing to this organization,” she said of Practichem's employees.
Ideally, it'll also provide a little mental boost during their morning commute and get them "inspired when they get to the office," she said.
“I mean it’s not a toaster, right?” she laughed.
Practichem currently employs 10-15 people, Revell said. The company's core mission it to develop biological research tools to “cure humanity’s diseases,” according to the company website. That humanitarian focus is what led them to select Tesla, which designs all-electric vehicles.
“Our vision shares similarities with Tesla Motors; both companies positively impact humanity with real change,” Nick DeMarco, Practichem’s founder and CEO, said in a release. “People driven to solve big issues share core values. Many of our employees have marveled at Tesla’s approach. Their compelling all-electric vehicles drive us to make real change in our field.”
The vehicles, which are advertised as being able to travel 215 miles on a single electric charge, will be provided to employees while they’re working for the company. Reservations have already been made on the vehicles, Revell said.
And it's not too late to add to the orders: Revell is looking to expand the company. “We have 10 positions we need to fill, immediately,” she said.
The Chicago-based international law firm Winston & Strawn LLP announced Wednesday that it is creating a gender-neutral parental leave policy, as well as a broader policy intended to help lawyers with the often hectic process of taking parental leave and then returning to work.
The policy includes 20 weeks of paid parental leave for associates and of counsel attorneys. It applies to parents of any gender and in any country, and the leave time can be taken in either one or two separate chunks within the first year of a child's life. Parents also aren't required to designate a "primary caregiver."
This is a pretty big deal in the legal industry, even if it falls somewhat short of the policies offered in other professions, according to Vivia Chen, a senior columnist at The American Lawyer. "Law firms are a bit behind other industries, especially the financial and other professional service industries, when it comes to more innovative family measures," she said.
Many tech firms, including Netflix, Facebook and Spotify, have introduced generous gender-neutral parental leave policies in recent months. Just a few weeks ago, the consulting firm EY announced a 16-week paid leave policy that will start in July. But Winston & Strawn is the first law firm to have a policy this expansive -- or at least the first to announce it publicly.
Getting women back to work after having kids -- and allowing men to take time off as well -- is a way for firms to help women ascend the career ladder. Currently, only 18 percent of equity partners in American law firms are women, even though women account for 47 percent of the country's J.D. degrees.
In addition to the 20 weeks of leave, the firm is also creating a few different ways to ease the transitions of taking leave and returning to work. There will be a "parental leave liaison" to assist people coming back to work, as well as career coaching services and lower billable-hour requirements for people who are just about to take leave or are just coming back to the firm.
"Traditionally for women, if you take a long leave, easing back in can be difficult. You might have hesitation about going back," Chen told The Huffington Post. Having someone act as a sort of coach, encouraging people to come back from leave, just might be the nudge new parents need to get back into the swing of things after having a baby.
To be clear, Winston & Strawn isn't acting altruistically here: The firm's move is intended to attract and retain high-level attorneys. Practice attorneys, who are low-level attorneys usually brought on for specific projects and who are outside the traditional partner-track framework of the firm, won't get the same 20-week benefit. Neither will the firm's other staff members, such as paralegals and office assistants.
However, it's relatively common for benefits in big law firms to be stratified, according to Chen. Winston & Strawn says its U.S. employees in lower positions will get increased paid leave time and an extra two weeks of paid time off.
How do you deal with the “cult of busy”? That’s the term Erin Reid uses to describe today’s work-first culture in which ideal employees are expected to put their jobs first, work all the time and be constantly available to the boss.
In the June cover story of Harvard Business Review, "Managing the High-Intensity Workplace," Reid and coauthor Lakshmi Ramarajan describe how workers adapt to these demands. It's not a good look for anyone.
“Our research shows that being always available is actually dysfunctional for everyone at some level,” Reid, an assistant professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business, told The Huffington Post.
Recall the recent portrayal of employees at Amazon, where work culture is so bruising that The New York Times reported workers were crying at their desks. In the company's warehouses, workers collapse from exhaustion.
It’s not just employees who suffer. When companies create a work-first culture, turnover is likely higher -- people quit, and the cost of replacing them is high.
Productivity also takes a hit, and you wind up with a “monolithic” group of workers who are not free to embrace their lives in all their totality, Reid and Ramarajan said.
Your company may even employ a truly diverse group of workers -- in terms of ethnicity and gender and race -- but you all wind up the same, obsessed with your job above all else.
Our research shows that being always available is actually dysfunctional for everyone at some level.Erin Reid, Questrom School of Business at Boston University
Reid focuses her research on how professionals in the white collar world cope with these demands. She and Ramarajan, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, have talked to hundreds of professionals in consulting, finance, architecture and teaching to get a sense for how they cope.
Still, while pressures are felt at every rung on the economic ladder, “the penalties are harsher and quicker” for lower-income workers, Reid told HuffPost. She recalled a recent New York Times feature detailing the life of a single mother who had to deal with something called "just-in-time" scheduling at Starbucks, in which workers didn't know what their schedule would be until the last minute. Such a system could, perhaps, only be dreamed up within a culture that always prioritizes work.
Here are three ways workers adapt to the demand to work all the time -- and some ideas for more functional strategies.
1. Accepting
Just give in and work all the time. Be perfect, no problem, right?
Why it’s dysfunctional: People give up all other aspects of what it means to be human: deep involvement with family and friends, civic engagement, their physical well-being. This “leads to fragility in the long term,” writes Reid. You’ve placed all your eggs in one basket. When job loss or setbacks occur, you may be less equipped to psychologically handle it. Plus, working too much increases the likelihood of burnout, and life may get in the way of your plan -- you may get sick, a loved one may fall ill, the list goes on and on.
2. Passing
This is the "fake it" strategy for coping.
Technology makes it somewhat possible to pretend that you work all the time. Reid’s research at one consulting firm revealed that more than one-quarter of workers there had figured out how to fake an 80-hour week. One employee even went skiing for a week while pretending to be consistently working. A journalist faked an always-on presence while tending to family at a remote office. (Obviously, this strategy isn't available to hourly workers.)
Why it’s dysfunctional: You’re not living your truth. Again, workers pay a psychological price, the authors write: “Human beings have a need to express themselves and to be known by others.” If you’re not yourself, suppressing interests and activities and basically lying, you “may feel insecure and inauthentic -- not to mention disengaged.”
3. Revealing
Not everyone can work all the time. Not everyone wants to lie and pretend they don’t have a life. These people are real about what they are actually able to do: They ask for flex time, they set limits. Reid and Ramarajan say that both male and female employees fall into this category, despite the fact that women are more often stereotyped as "revealers."
Why it’s dysfunctional: In workplaces where employees are expected to put work first, these workers get penalized. Reid offers an example of a consultant she talked to who asked for paternity leave and was told, “You have a choice to make. Are you going to be a professional or are you going to be just an average person in your field?”
So What Should You Do?
In their Harvard Business Review piece, Reid and Ramarajan offer managers some good advice for putting a stop to the cult of busy. But HuffPost asked, what can worker bees themselves do to break the cycle?
The answer is to band together and try to take some collective action with your colleagues "in a sophisticated way," said Ramarajan. "This is a collective problem and you can't expect to change it without allies."
So find colleagues or bosses who don't work weekends, who talk about their lives outside the office, and who don't schedule meetings at 5:00 p.m. You can also speak up when people are using "always-on" norms to judge each other, she said.
For example, if someone criticizes your coworker Bob because he's always leaving at 5:00, point out that Bob's wife is in the hospital and ask, "do we really need to judge him for leaving early?"
And, even if you are someone who's OK with working all the time, "be aware that you're risking cutting off parts of yourself," Reid cautioned. "That might be difficult for you."
Read "Managing The High-Intensity Workplace" here.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misattributed a quote about the pressures on lower-income workers to Ramarajan. It is Reid who made the remark.
In an unprecedented move for a restaurant chain its size, Joe's Crab Shack announced in November that it had dropped tipped wages at 18 of its restaurant locations.
It was an experiment to determine whether customers would be happier not having to deal with that dastardly 15-20 percent calculation after a meal. The restaurant chain announced that food prices would rise in those locations to cover higher labor costs, and in turn, the average employee's $2-an-hour plus tip wage would rise to $12 an hour.
The problem is, nobody believed them.
Bob Merritt, the shack's new chief executive, told investors last week that both customers and employees weren't happy with the policy, according to The New York Times. Company research found that diners hated the price hikes, and 60 percent disliked the new tipping policy -- they were happy to throw a little extra cash toward their wait staff as an incentive for a better experience.
"The system has to change at some point, but our customers and staff spoke very loudly," Merritt told the Times. "And a lot of them voted with their feet."
Those 18 locations lost 8 to 10 percent of their customers, and former CEO Raymond Blanchette told CNNMoney that some employees quit over the policy.
Now Joe's Crab Shack is rolling back its plan, decreasing prices at 14 locations but keeping the no-tip measure at four locations as a continued experiment.
“We are going to try to figure out why it worked in some places and why not in others,” Merritt told Nation's Restaurant News. “The way we look at it is: We are really continuing the tests in place with where it works.”
Other, smaller ventures have also tried to implement similar policies and failed. According to Grub Street, Fedora in New York City announced Monday it will bring back gratuities due to customer complaints.
GOOCHLAND COUNTY, Virginia — Ever since Curtis Brown Jr. got his first Star Wars toy as a toddler, he has been fascinated by action figures. So much so that he has built a business customizing action figures for clients worldwide. But what could be a lucrative career has turned into an exercise in futility that traps Brown and his family in poverty.
That’s because Brown struggles every day with miserable Internet service. The only choice where he currently lives is an $80-a-month satellite connection. It’s slow and comes with such a low data cap that he exceeds it within a week or two. So Brown’s business comes to a halt. He can’t afford to buy more data. He can’t use his smartphone because the service is so bad he has to go outside to get a signal, and it’s too cumbersome to update the many websites he uses to conduct his business.
The constant interruptions limit Brown to about $400 a month in profit. Even with his wife Ashley’s income from an administrative job with the state's education department, Brown and his three stepchildren have to rely on help from relatives and food stamps to make ends meet. Brown would move if he could, but houses with fast Internet connections are in areas where the rent is too expensive.
An isolated case? Not at all. An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that even though Internet access has improved in recent years, families in poor areas are almost five times more likely not to have access to high-speed broadband than the most affluent American households. That means no access to online jobs, and no access to health care advice, education, government services and banking — everything needed to be a full participant in today’s society. This harsh reality has led to a new kind of segregation.
“Internet access,” says James Lane, superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools, “is the civil rights issue of our time.”
A Rope Ladder
Brown sells his custom action figures — Gamorrean Guards, Luke Skywalkers and Skeletors — out of his living room in a compact one-story brick house at the end of a dirt driveway just off Stokes Station Road in the western part of Goochland County. The neighborhood is about 20 miles west of the tony suburbs and manicured golf courses adjacent to Richmond — but it is worlds away. Next door to the Browns: an abandoned trailer home with broken windows and rusted siding.
Nearly every house in the area has a satellite dish bolted on the roof or perched on a pole in the yard. A satellite connection, like the one Brown gets from HughesNet, is the only option for Internet here. But it is expensive and doesnot provide what the federal government defines as “advanced telecommunications capability” or high-speed broadband, a download speed of 25 megabits per second or higher. That’s the speed both the feds and application developers say is the minimum needed to support both the numerous devices in a household today and the future applications that will create digitally interconnected homes and businesses.
Allan Holmes/Center for Public IntegrityCurtis Brown Jr.'s home in Goochland, Virginia.
Other Internet connections like DSL — offered by companies such as AT&T Inc., CenturyLink Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. — rely on telephone lines but typically don’t offer broadband speeds. Americans can get Internet on their smart phones, but the faster connections on those phones aren’t widely available and come with data caps that most people use up quickly. Cable and fiber connections, those offered by Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon’s fiber-optic cable service mostly in cities, offer the faster speeds. But they aren’t available everywhere either — especially in low-income areas.
It’s that sort of fast cable or fiber connection that Brown says he needs to earn thousands of dollars more a month like he used to when he lived in another part of the county that had a fast connection —before a family matter caused financial difficulties and he had to move.
“It would be like when you are in a hole, it would be that nice rope ladder being lowered down to you so you can get yourself out,” Brown said. “That’s exactly what it would feel like for us.”
For now, though, that ladder lies just out of reach, less than five miles away on River Road, one of the main thoroughfares that roughly follows the James River, which flows east to and through Richmond. That’s where Comcast, the high-speed broadband provider for much of Goochland County, ends its high-speed Internet service. It also happens to be almost exactly where the median household income drops by more than a third and the poverty rate triples, according to the Center’s analysis.
That’s not the only place Comcast ends service at the doorstep of this low-income area. The same happens on Riddles Bridges Road just another two miles away. And again farther north on Forest Grove Road, where Comcast serves neighborhoods with $300,000-plus homes: service stops a few thousand feet before the line where poor neighborhoods start — such as a low-income black community a little more than a mile away. Here Internet access “is nonexistent,” said a young resident who declined to give his name. “It’s primitive out here.”
Internet providers say they don’t consider demographic data such as income levels and poverty rates when deciding where to hook up neighborhoods. Who gets a wired Internet connection and who doesn’t is one mostly based on population density, they say. Areas like where the Browns live are too sparsely populated for telecommunications companies to make a return on the high cost of wiring rural neighborhoods, they say. Comcast officials add that they are following a specific franchise agreement the company negotiated with Goochland County officials, which requires them to lay cable down streets only where there are 30 houses per mile.
Even so, it’s hard for Manuel Alvarez, a county supervisor who represents the district where the Browns live, to look at where Internet service ends and not wonder if Comcast purposefully avoids providing broadband to Goochland County’s poor.
“I can't believe that they wouldn't look at people's ability to pay before they run cable,” said Alvarez, who won a seat on the board in 2011 running on a platform to improve Internet access countywide. “I do believe that they run cable where they will get their money back.”
Not Even a Choice
Nationwide, families in neighborhoods with median household incomes below $34,800 — the lowest fifth of neighborhoods nationally — are five times more likely not to have access to broadband than households in areas with a median income above $80,700 — the top fifth, according to a Center for Public Integrity investigation. The Center, which analyzed Federal Communications Commission and Census Bureau data, specifically looked at households that didn’t have access to wired broadband, which is fast Internet service that is readily available, as opposed to adoption, when a household has access to service and can choose to purchase it or not.
In Houston, high-speed Internet service becomes patchy between Interstate-69 and the Westpark Tollway, skipping clusters of apartment complexes where the median household income is less than $30,000 a year. Wealthier neighborhoods to the north, south and west enjoy more consistent coverage. Low-income residents in an area in East Cleveland don’t have access while wealthy areas just two miles away to the south do, according to the Center’s analysis. And in San Bernardino, California, people living in areas that have the lowest fifth of household income are about three times as likely to not have access to broadband as families living in areas where the household income is in the top fifth.
In all, in excess of 30 million Americans, more than half in areas with a median household income below $47,000 a year, do not have access to broadband, according to the Center’s analysis. That means difficulty streaming video or downloading or posting large files such as graphics and photographs, as Brown experiences. If more than one person in a household is online, interruptions can occur. And these families won’t be able to take advantage of future applications, such as home health care apps, that may require fast speeds to work properly.
“Internet access is the civil rights issue of our time.”James Lane, superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools
The Center’s findings closely match the FCC’s conclusion in its Broadband Progress Report, released in January. (The Center used more recent data that was released after the agency published its findings.) The FCC’s report was the basis for a commission ruling the same month that Internet providers weren’t deploying broadband in a reasonable and timely fashion, as required by law, opening up the possibility the agency may impose regulations to require providers to upgrade and expand their networks faster.
Compounding Difficulties
Many broadband experts and analysts say the real explanation for the difference in Internet access between the rich and poor is that providers can’t afford to wire rural areas, which have a larger proportion of low-income families than urban areas. Wiring rural areas is expensive, and providers can’t get enough return on investment because there are too few households to support the cost. Low-income households also tend to sign up for Internet service at less than half the rate of wealthier families, with the high cost of broadband connections the primary deterrent, according to the Pew Research Center. The providers are businesses, after all, goes the argument, and those businesses have the right to make money, and choose where to do business based on whether they can make a profit there or not. Last year, Comcast earned almost $12 billion in net operating income on its cable communications business.
The Center found that even controlling for population density, the rural poor are still in excess of one-and-a-half times as likely not to have high-speed broadband as rural wealthy families. Even in urban areas where 94 percent of households have access, low-income families are three times as likely not to have access as the wealthiest urban families, the Center found.
Eleanor Bell Fox/Center for Public IntegrityJames Lane, superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools.
Tanisha Fletcher is one of the nearly 7 percent of city residents who don’t have access. Fletcher, 36, is a resident of Juniper Gardens, one of the oldest public housing projects in Kansas City, Kansas. Time Warner Cable provides service for the buildings all around her block, but not for her apartment building, according to the FCC broadband database. Fletcher, 36, has to rely on a wireless connection that she said freezes so often that “it might as well be non-existent.”
Even though Fletcher earns just $1,100 a month as the office manager at Connecting for Good, a nonprofit that works with Internet providers to connect low-income areas, she said she would be willing to pay $20 or more a month for a connection so she could finish her college degree and stay in touch with family and friends.
“We kind of get looked over here, and I don’t really know why that it is,” Fletcher said. “It makes us feel like the cable company and the city just don’t care about us.”
Time Warner Cable did not respond to a request for comment.
The FCC maintains that disproportionate access between low- and high-income Americans is a top concern. The FCC said policies directed toward improving access in rural areas, like its rural healthcare fund, and a fund to connect schools and libraries are aimed at reducing the wealthy-poor divide. The FCC additionally says it imposes conditions in mergers between telecommunications companies that typically require a purchasing company to provide better access to the poor, such as with AT&T’s purchase of satellite provider DirectTV last year. And the FCC also has acted to reduce barriers to broadband expansion into unserved areas, as it did in preempting two state laws that prevented cities from expanding municipal-owned Internet networks, arguing the statutes limited broadband’s reach to rural areas and the poor.
“A lot of people say, well life is unfair, but I feel like there's a difference between unfair and the necessity of it.”Crystal Ware, mother of a fifth grader who doesn’t have Internet access at home
But not explicitly focusing on the digital divide between the wealthy and the poor can have significant adverse circumstances, said Sharon Strover, director of the Technology and Information Policy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, who studies broadband’s impact on economic growth. .
In a 2013 study, Strover and her co-authors found that poverty rates in areas with a high-speed connection were significantly lower than those that didn’t have broadband. Median incomes also were higher in counties where adoption rates were above average.
“I think some of the difficulties that lower-income folks have now will just be compounded” if they don’t have access to high-speed broadband, Strover said.
The Digital Dividing Line
In Goochland, county leaders and residents are well aware that broadband access ends at the same place where incomes drop, and the poverty rate and percentage of minorities increase.
The wealthy area starts in the eastern part of the county, which abuts some of the most luxurious Richmond suburbs, where the median income is above $100,000 a year. Million dollar-plus estates with waterfront views sit close by to the exclusive private Kinloch Golf Club, with its Tudor-style clubhouse. Capital One Financial Corp., the eighth-largest U.S. bank, operates a sprawling 316-acre business campusabout a five-minute drive away. Residents here have a choice of buying Internet service from Comcast or Verizon, with speeds reaching as high as 500 Mbps, among some of the fastest available nationwide.
Eleanor Bell Fox/Center for Public IntegrityManuel Alvarez, a Goochland county supervisor.
But travel west and cross the halfway point of the county — past the recently built Goochland High School and just beyond Dogtown Road — and broadband mostly stops. No longer can you get Comcast’s fastest connection of 150 Mbps, and Verizon’s fastest speed drops from the 500 Mbps in the east to a sluggish 3 Mbps, to eventually no service at all. For sure, the county is more rural here, making it more costly for providers to lay cable or fiber, acknowledges Lane, the school superintendent.
At the same time, he says, “We know that in our community the fiber stops right at the moment where our low-income students are living.”
And the effects, he says, are profound. Three years ago, the school system began giving a laptop or iPad to each student. Teachers incorporate the devices into classroom exercises; in one recent class students searched the Internet to find requirements for their chosen careers. Teachers also would like to assign homework that requires accessing online resources when students leave school. But because many students have no broadband at home, the school has implemented a rule that teachers can’t assign homework that depends on the Internet. Even so, students without Internet are falling behind, Lane said.
“The kids who have access are learning anytime, anywhere they want to,” said Lane, who will become the superintendent of schools for neighboring Chesterfield County in July. “But the kids who don't have access at home, basically their learning stops at the moment they leave the school house.”
Like Cody Ware. A 12-year-old fifth-grader at Goochland’s Byrd Elementary School who likes science, Cody said the lack of Internet makes him nervous because he is afraid he may miss an assignment. “If I forget to take a picture of my homework on the iPad, then I can't do it on the iPad later that night because I don't have it,” he said. “And then I have to explain to my teachers why I didn't have it.”
Cody’s mother, Crystal, 38, said the family can’t afford to move to the part of the county with broadband access, even though it’s just a couple miles away. She recently had to make the hour-long, round-trip drive to the closest library so her son could download a study guide for an upcoming science test.
“A lot of people say, well life is unfair, but I feel like there's a difference between unfair and the necessity of it,” Ware said.
‘Bent on Regulating’
The FCC has the authority to determine if providers are deploying Internet service in a “reasonable and timely fashion,” as outlined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. When the agency sees barriers to deployment, it has argued it can act in the public interest, as it did when it preempted the state laws barring cities from expanding their networks.
But the market for Internet service remains close to a monopoly in many places, and at best a duopoly in most areas. About 75 percent Americans have only one or two choices for providers, according to the FCC. And many providers tend to avoid competition that could lead to expansion of the networks, according to an earlier Center investigation.
When the FCC ruled that broadband wasn’t being deployed fast enough, it reported that “deployment, competition, and adoption [are] concepts that we continue to recognize are tightly linked.” But Internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon argued the opposite. They said the FCC’s own reporting showed the percentage of Americans without wired broadband access dropped from 28 percent in 2011 to 10 percent in 2014.
AT&T said in a filing that the FCC was “ignoring that this percentage was declining rapidly.” Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, voted against the FCC’s finding that broadband was not being deployed fast enough. He said the FCC’s report “continues to show steady progress in connecting unserved Americans” and that “apparently no amount of progress will ever be good enough for a Commission that is bent on regulating broadband at all cost.”
Verizon claimed in a filing that the FCC should include wireless access in its assessment of broadband access, arguing the failure to incorporate “all broadband options that are available to and used by consumers was a persistent flaw in methodology.”
But the FCC also ruled in January that satellite and wireless connections were not a substitute for wired connections.
And back in Goochland County, most folks seem to agree. Superintendent Lane called O’Rielly’s assertion “ridiculous” and said Verizon’s claim that wireless should be considered in the broadband-access calculations isn’t feasible.
“Do you think that you could do your entire job on your cell phone?” asked Lane. “Because I can tell you that most people would say that you cannot.”
“We want to service as many people as possible.”Comcast Corp. official
Comcast officials said they do not use Census Bureau income or poverty data to determine where the company lays cable. Comcast conducts periodic surveys of the county to check where they need to provide service. Officials also said the company’s program to provide low-cost Internet connections is aimed at increasing adoption, although it doesn’t improve access to broadband. By serving urban areas, “arguably we provide service to more families in poverty or near poverty,” a Comcast official said. “We want to service as many people as possible.”
In Goochland County, similar to other areas, the company is obligated to follow a franchise agreement it negotiated with the county in 2011. These agreements, which number in the thousands nationwide, are typically renegotiated every several years. In Goochland County, that is a time when residents fill up the room where the board of supervisors meet to complain about lack of service, Alvarez said, but local boards typically don’t have a lot of power to negotiate expanded service into areas that are high-cost, which frequently also means low-income.
AT&T and Verizon, as well as Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink and Charter Communications Inc., didn’t respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for Cox Communications Inc., which provides service in more than a dozen states from Rhode Island to California, said in an email that “100% of the residents in the markets we serve have access to Internet service if they choose it” and that the company follows agreements negotiated with local governments.
The Cost of Access
In many areas where Comcast runs cable, residents don’t have broadband access. Under its agreement, Comcast isn’t obligated to run a line from the street down a homeowner’s or renter’s driveway if the house sits more than 150 feet off the road.
The provision keeps even wealthier Goochland residents from getting connected. When Alvarez, the county supervisor, moved in 2004 to a Goochland neighborhood where many of the homes are valued at more than $500,000, he didn’t have fixed Internet, even though a cable ran down the road a few hundred feet from his driveway in the Mill Forest subdivision. Alvarez said local Comcast officials told him it would cost $2,300 to run a cable to his house and $250,000 to wire the entire neighborhood of more than 120 homes. Eventually, Comcast came down to $47,000 for the subdivision, or about $450 a house, Alvarez said. Most of the neighborhood residents paid the fee to get connected.
Alvarez, whose district he says includes “houses with dirt floors to houses with marble floors,” said Comcast and other providers should pay to connect homes where lines are readily available because the companies will eventually recoup their costs. He says the lack of Internet is also hurting job growth in the western part of the county, as businesses can’t get the fast speeds needed to compete in the modern economy.
Center for Public Integrity
What it all means, Alvarez asserts, is that high-speed Internet is really a “must have” in today’s world, not a luxury. The Internet is becoming a utility that is as much of a necessity as electricity, and that means the federal government may have to regulate it as one, he said.
“Then you can push for more coverage,” Alvarez said. Otherwise, he says, “Everybody who doesn't have high-speed Internet is going to fall behind.”
A Lifeline?
Last month the FCC passed reforms to a program that officials said should encourage providers to expand broadband to low-income areas. In a party-line vote, the agency voted 3-2 to expand the Lifeline program, which previously had subsidized the cost of cell phones for low-income individuals, to include fixed Internet service. Eligible participants can receive a $9.25 a month discount off their fixed broadband bill, paid for by the FCC. Officials hope the $2.25 billion program, funded by the existing universal service tax on customers’ Internet bills, will create a market in poor areas that Internet providers will want to reach.
FCC officials note that the agency’s $4 billion-a-year “high-cost” universal service program also includes subsidies to encourage wiring areas underserved by providers. The $1.7 billion Connect America Fund requires providers who accept money to offer a speed of at least 10 Mbps download as well as follow other requirements. But not all providers have accepted the cash. Verizon was offered $29 million in federal funds to expand service in Virginia, including about $265,000 in Goochland, but it didn’t take the money, according to the FCC. Other providers did, such as CenturyLink. Verizon didn’t respond to requests for comment.
“I can't believe that they wouldn't look at people's ability to pay before they run cable.”Manuel Alvarez, member of Goochland County’s Board of Supervisors
But some are skeptical of how much these programs will help. It is unlikely Lifeline will provide a big enough incentive to providers to upgrade networks or to expand wired service to poor areas.
Lifeline’s individual subsidy “is unlikely to make a dent in the under-supply of broadband in sparsely populated rural areas,” said Richard Bennett, who studies technology policy at the American Enterprise Institute, in an email. “Solutions to the extreme rural coverage dilemma are more likely to come from advances in technology and investment by public-private partnerships to bring new technologies … to market.”
Bennett said wireless broadband companies such as Bluebird Broadband, which offers service with no data caps, are likely one option for low-income households going forward. Bluebird Broadband, which services Northwest Louisiana and neighboring parts of Texas, offers a 20 Mbps package for about $89 a month, including a $9 router rental fee. That’s still more costly than most wired connections with faster speeds.
In Virginia, Last Mile Broadband LLC has begun to deploy an advanced wireless LTE technology to serve portions of Hanover County, just north of Goochland, that it says is faster and more reliable than current wireless technology. The company plans to cover Goochland County by the end of 2017. The company will offer speeds of 10 Mbps at about $80 a month, after a $199 fee to install equipment on a customer’s home, without any data caps.
“We’re going where no other company serves,” said Keith McMichael, Last Mile’s chief operating officer, who grew up in the area. “We’re trying to solve everyone’s problem. Low income or high income, everyone gets it the same way.”
But the cost may still be out of reach for low-income families, and the service doesn’t include TV or phone, requiring families to pay for a TV or satellite package with another company. Most providers that offer a wired broadband connection of 25 Mbps or more charge less per month and include phone and TV. Besides, the wireless companies are still in startup mode and have yet to spend the money to expand coverage.
Back in Goochland, Brown, the toy maker, says he can’t wait much longer.
“Our kids need this,” Brown said. “If wealthy people have better access, they're going to have more opportunities, which will increase their potential for wealth. While if you are in poverty and you have reduced access, you're going to basically fall further behind.”
CORRECTION, May 12, 2016, 4:22 p.m.:An earlier version of this article identified Ashley Brown as working for the Goochland County department of education. She works for the Virginia Department of Education.
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative reporting organization. Verizon is the parent company of AOL, which owns The Huffington Post.
Parental leave hit a tipping point last year, as numerous big-name firms expanded paid time off for new moms and dads. But top-notch benefits are still far from becoming the norm.
Just 21 percent of companies offered paid maternity leave in 2015, and 17 percent offered paid paternity leave. That same year, Netflix, Facebook and Goldman Sachs made headlines when they announced generous packages for employees seeking to spend time with their new families. So did Microsoft, Credit Suisse and Adobe, as the tech and finance industries continued to beef up their already above-average leave polices.
Tech and finance workers seem pretty happy with their benefits -- and why shouldn't they be? Employees in those two sectors give high ratings to their maternity and paternity leave options, according to career site Glassdoor, which recently analyzed data on corporate benefits across various industries.
Finance workers rated their parental leave benefits 3.77 out of 5, and tech employees followed with a 3.71 rating -- the best scores of any sector examined by Glassdoor. The lowest-rated leave policies were in health care (3.36), retail (3.41) and business services (3.42).
Of course, tech and finance workers are well-compensated even before benefits kick in. Base salaries in the banking industry are around $80,000, and those for software engineers start from around $100,000.
When an employee's income “gets beyond a certain level, they look for things beyond a paycheck,” Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, told The Huffington Post. “They start to worry about maternity and paternity leave, vacation time and bringing their dog to work.”
That's not to say people who are paid less don't value parental leave options. And as more companies rally in support of working parents, it may give a boost to parental leave policies across the corporate world.
“There’s pack mentality in terms of benefits,” Chamberlain said. “Visible players have taken a lead and made parental leave a standard benefit, and it’s really put a flag in the sand.”
However, as wages stagnate, it’s become more common for employers to instead dole out perks and benefits. Benefits increased by 60 percent over the last 15 years, compared to wage growth of just 40 percent. The move reflects a changing workforce that increasingly values flexibility and health insurance, but it also suggests that companies are still reluctant to hand out bigger paychecks to their employees.
For examples, having free snacks at the office is one of the best-rated perks across industries in Glassdoor's survey. Tech employees rated their snack options a 4.06, followed by high ratings from business services (3.94) and manufacturing (3.90).
“It has become a hot perk in certain quarters,” Chamberlain said.
As abundant and appetizing as they may be, though, free green juice and snacks shouldn’t replace benefits that are actually substantial. Those perks are ultimately much cheaper than health care, paid time off and dollar-for-dollar 401(k) matching.
The findings from Glassdoor’s study, however, seem to indicate that many companies are still successfully luring employees with free food. And that, sadly, is consistent with a recent report that found young workers are more likely to get free food from their employer than medical and dental insurance.
Self-driving vehicles are already hitting highways and city streets around the world.
Now Volvo wants to put them underground.
The Swedish automaker on Monday announced plans to test a fully autonomous construction truck designed to navigate subterranean mines.
“We are delighted to have already developed a solution that we believe will ultimately revolutionize the mining industry,” Torbjörn Holmström, the chief technology officer of Volvo’s truck group, said in a statement. “We expect to be able to significantly increase our customers’ productivity while at the same time improving fuel efficiency and safety.”
The vehicle looks like a regular dump truck and includes a cab section where a driver could sit and take over the wheel. The project is a joint venture between Volvo and its fellow Swedish carmaker Saab, which owns the software firm, Combitech, that helped develop the technology.
The truck travels a preprogrammed route with no human oversight, using sensors and GPS to navigate around fixed and movable obstacles and communicating data it gathers to a transport system hub. That system is the real thing Volvo seems to be selling. In theory, a commercially viable product wouldn’t be the vehicle itself but a network that controls a fleet of vehicles that work in tandem.
Volvo spokesman Fredrik Klevenfeldt did not respond to a call and email requesting comment.
The announcement comes amid a push, largely by European automakers, to develop autonomous vehicles for commercial use. Last month, the Dutch government held the European Truck Platooning Challenge, a weeklong competition that sent about a dozen semi-autonomous trucks driving across Europe. While companies such as Tesla Motors, Uber and Google have pioneered technology for personal self-driving vehicles, autonomous construction and shipping trucks, as Quartz’s Joon Ian Wong notes, “have been quietly putting the concept to work in a business setting.”
Indeed, there’s a strong business case for adopting fleets of self-driving trucks. Autonomous vehicles travel in a pack -- called a “platoon” -- communicating with each other via WiFi, which allows them to drive closer together at algorithmically calculated speeds. Platooning can slash fuel use by up to 15 percent and prevent accidents caused by human error, according to a study by the research firm TNO.
Autonomous trucks could obviate the need for human participation in one of the world’s most difficult industries. Factors like irregular hours, stress and limited access to healthy food or opportunities to get up and move around all combine to degrade truck drivers’ health. Long-haul truck drivers have greater risks of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and obesity compared to average U.S. workers, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Industry incentives to get cargo to its destination as quickly as possible leave drivers fatigued, turning their big rigs into giant high-speed weapons if they drift off behind the wheel. And in the United States, at least, watered-down regulations only seem to be making things worse.
Mining can be even more disastrous than trucking. Though mining deaths have plummeted in the U.S., in part because mining jobs have decreased, catastrophes periodically capture headlines around the globe. Two years ago, Turkey suffered its worst industrial accident ever when 301 miners in Soma died, some of them burned alive. Last year, a harrowing 2010 Chilean mining disaster was dramatized in a Hollywood movie. Just last week, at least 13 people were killed in an accident at a jade mine in Myanmar.
“It’s a shifting and upgrading of skills; we’re moving from primitive work to advanced work,” Philip Kirchlechner, who spent years in the iron mining industry, told Australia’s ABC last year after a local mining company rolled out about 30 robotic trucks at two of its locations. “By eliminating those mundane, often dangerous jobs, you create safer and more sophisticated jobs.”
(Reuters) - No one won the multi-state Powerball on Wednesday as the jackpot grew to at least $415 million, vaulting it into the top 10 highest U.S. lottery prizes in history, officials said.
The winning numbers from Wednesday's draw were 30, 47, 57, 66, 69 and the Powerball number was 3, lottery officials said.
The Powerball jackpot has grown past $300 million for the first time since January, when three tickets for the game split $1.6 billion, a record for any U.S. lottery.
Seventeen consecutive drawings have produced no winner, lottery officials said.
The odds of winning at Powerball are one in 292 million, which according to statistics experts is equivalent to flipping a coin 28 times and getting heads every time.
According to the Powerball website, no one matched all six numbers and won the jackpot on Wednesday as the prize reached about $415 million. The amount placed it in the top 10 of U.S. lottery prizes ever, California lottery spokesman Alex Traverso said. The next drawing would be on Saturday.
Powerball is played in 44 states, including California, which is the nation's most populous state, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Even as lottery officials gear up for this latest drawing, they are still waiting for one ticket holder to come forward from the record $1.6 billion Powerball drawing in January.
Lottery officials still have no idea who bought the ticket, sold in Chino Hills east of Los Angeles, Traverso said. Under the rules of the game, the holder has a year from the time of the drawing to claim a prize.
The two other winning tickets were sold in Tennessee and Florida, and those winners have come forward.
(Reuters) - No one won the multi-state Powerball on Wednesday as the jackpot grew to at least $415 million, vaulting it into the top 10 highest U.S. lottery prizes in history, officials said.
The winning numbers from Wednesday's draw were 30, 47, 57, 66, 69 and the Powerball number was 3, lottery officials said.
The Powerball jackpot has grown past $300 million for the first time since January, when three tickets for the game split $1.6 billion, a record for any U.S. lottery.
Seventeen consecutive drawings have produced no winner, lottery officials said.
The odds of winning at Powerball are one in 292 million, which according to statistics experts is equivalent to flipping a coin 28 times and getting heads every time.
According to the Powerball website, no one matched all six numbers and won the jackpot on Wednesday as the prize reached about $415 million. The amount placed it in the top 10 of U.S. lottery prizes ever, California lottery spokesman Alex Traverso said. The next drawing would be on Saturday.
Powerball is played in 44 states, including California, which is the nation's most populous state, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Even as lottery officials gear up for this latest drawing, they are still waiting for one ticket holder to come forward from the record $1.6 billion Powerball drawing in January.
Lottery officials still have no idea who bought the ticket, sold in Chino Hills east of Los Angeles, Traverso said. Under the rules of the game, the holder has a year from the time of the drawing to claim a prize.
The two other winning tickets were sold in Tennessee and Florida, and those winners have come forward.
(Reuters) - No one won the multi-state Powerball on Wednesday as the jackpot grew to at least $415 million, vaulting it into the top 10 highest U.S. lottery prizes in history, officials said.
The winning numbers from Wednesday's draw were 30, 47, 57, 66, 69 and the Powerball number was 3, lottery officials said.
The Powerball jackpot has grown past $300 million for the first time since January, when three tickets for the game split $1.6 billion, a record for any U.S. lottery.
Seventeen consecutive drawings have produced no winner, lottery officials said.
The odds of winning at Powerball are one in 292 million, which according to statistics experts is equivalent to flipping a coin 28 times and getting heads every time.
According to the Powerball website, no one matched all six numbers and won the jackpot on Wednesday as the prize reached about $415 million. The amount placed it in the top 10 of U.S. lottery prizes ever, California lottery spokesman Alex Traverso said. The next drawing would be on Saturday.
Powerball is played in 44 states, including California, which is the nation's most populous state, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Even as lottery officials gear up for this latest drawing, they are still waiting for one ticket holder to come forward from the record $1.6 billion Powerball drawing in January.
Lottery officials still have no idea who bought the ticket, sold in Chino Hills east of Los Angeles, Traverso said. Under the rules of the game, the holder has a year from the time of the drawing to claim a prize.
The two other winning tickets were sold in Tennessee and Florida, and those winners have come forward.
Many of the largest U.S. investment funds, including pensions, are doing nothing to protect their investors' savings from the financial risks posed by climate change, according to an analysis by the Asset Owners Disclosure Project, a nonprofit. At least 117 American funds, with a combined $4.6 trillion in assets, have taken no action to mitigate the risks associated with a warming planet.
“It simply isn’t professional for the funds to do nothing,” Julian Poulter, the group's CEO, told The Huffington Post.
Indeed, there have been warning signs for quite some time that big investors, from a purely financial perspective, need to think hard about fossil fuels. The S&P 500 stock index is up around 50 percent from 10 years ago. Oil stocks over the same period are up just over 1 percent.
And business is arguably only going to get harder. Global financial regulators are starting to work out a standard system for companies to voluntarily disclose climate risks, the governor of the Bank of England has warned insurance companies that they're at risk of being wiped out by climate change, and Saudi Arabia wants to kick its oil habit.
A 2013 report from England's Institute and Faculty of Actuaries found that under business-as-usual policies, resource scarcity associated with a changing climate could stall the global economy and cause pension funds to be unable to pay out benefits.
So what should a prudent pension fund manager do? “There are many ways to skin the climate-risk cat,” Poulter said. Funds can engage with fossil fuel companies and try to push companies to deal with the climate-related risk they face. Or they can choose to screen out companies that haven’t come to grips with that risk. They can invest in renewable energy firms and other companies that will prosper in a low-emissions world. And since the funds we're talking about are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, they could realistically do a little bit of all of the above.
The point of the analysis isn’t to be prescriptive or legalistic in telling pension funds what they should or shouldn’t do. It’s to push them to understand the reality of the climate risk embedded in their investments, and explain to their members -- whose retirements are on the line -- what they are doing (or not), and why.
What Poulter wants is for pension fund managers to realize that they can’t ignore climate change. When oil is at $43 dollars a barrel, the Paris agreement is striving to keep global temperatures from rising and “you’ve the likes of Saudi Arabia selling their main asset because they see an oil-free world,” it’s just not acceptablefor pension funds to act like nothing is happening.
Sometimes good ideas come wrapped in incredibly dumb packages. I'm looking at you Crystal Pepsi. The dungbomb we're talking about today, however, isn't a weird carbonated drink but a new workplace leave concept: "me-ternity leave."
It is the brainchild of Meghann Foye, a former editor for Redbookmag.com and Seventeen magazine who’s written a novel by that name about a woman who fakes a pregnancy to get a break from the office.
NYPost.com
The term “me-ternity leave,” if you parse Foye’s unfortunate statements, apparently just means a paid sabbatical from work, time off that is longer than a vacation. Who wouldn’t like that? We could all use an extended break to recharge and avoid burning out. College professors have long enjoyed sabbaticals, and a number of enlightened companies offer them as a perk.
But Foye made the disastrous mistake of linking this concept up with maternity leave, telling the New York Post last week that she wanted all the “perks” of maternity leave without having a baby.
Of course, the mothers of the Internet went nuts.
Unless you're a masochist. Then yes, maternity is a 'break' like #meternity . A messy, bloody, poopy, sleep deprived vacation.
— Sheila Nagig (@TheSheilaNagig) April 30, 2016
Slept half the night on the couch with the baby because he cried every hour unless he was held. "Me time." #meternity
— S (@suzgraggen) April 30, 2016
It’s hard to believe that Foye, a longtime women’s magazine editor, didn’t see the backlash coming. A representative for Foye said she didn't have time to respond to HuffPost's questions about her concept.
The Internet freakout was so harsh that Foye then wrote another piece for the Post defending her position. “Now I do think of meternity as a sabbatical -- a time off to take stock, pause and figure out if what we are doing in our lives is working for us,” she wrote. “I’m not saying maternity leave is a sabbatical.”
Unfortunately, that's exactly what Foye said.
After the #Meternity backlash, what if Meghann Foye's next book is about building a new you through the Witness Protection Program?
— Beth Markley (@bethmarkley) April 30, 2016
Most white-collar workers today are expected to be constantly connected to work, without much time away to truly disconnect. Even when we're given permission to be out of the office, many of us have bright shiny iPhones that lure us back with a constant stream of notifications and beeps and the promise of instant distraction.
Some elite employers like Deloitte, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Boston Consulting Group, as well as tech firms like Adobe and Autodesk, give their employees paid sabbaticals after they’ve worked a certain number of years.
REI offers a four-week paid sabbatical to those who’ve worked there for at least 15 years. Employees get another one for every five years worked after that. This is obviously awesome.
“It’s hard to imagine another employer who would teach me to paddle, encourage me to dream, help me assemble my kit and pay me to play with whales, wolves, and bears,” writes a long-time REI employee of his time away from work canoeing on the West Coast.
Some people use sabbaticals to travel; others to volunteer or spend time with family or on a creative project.
“The intention is to help the employee reset and come back rejuvenated and refreshed – as an enhanced worker (not to mention human being),” Fortune magazine explains.
That seems to be what Foye wants for everyone. She took her own self-imposed sabbatical from 2010 to 2012 to write her book and travel. It's too bad she’s wrapped the concept up with paid parental leave.
Maternity leave is a lot of wonderful things -- but, especially for first-time parents, it’s a crazy, sleep-deprived period of time in which your entire life is turned upside-down. For birth mothers, it’s also physically devastating as your body recovers from producing a new human. Without having experienced it, Foye might not quite understand.
A sabbatical is geared to one individual's enrichment. It also benefits his or her employer who gets a more loyal, possibly more creative, less stressed out worker.
But parental leave is a bigger deal. It is a public good -- enabling citizens to tend to the next generation of workers and improving overall health. Babies that have a parent at home during their early years are healthier -- increased maternity leave reduces infant mortality rates -- and women who get that time off are less likely to suffer from depression. Paternity leave even helps foster gender equality in the workplace.
Parental leave is also unfortunately a benefit that most workers in the U.S. do not get. We're the only developed country to have no paid leave policy for new mothers.
Foye doesn't seem to get all that. She told the Post that having a baby gives women a break from work, helping prevent burnout and serving to help you set the boundaries between your work life and your personal life. “Women are bad at putting ourselves first. But when you have a child, you learn how to self-advocate to put the needs of your family first,” Foye said. “A well-crafted 'meternity' can give you the same skills.”
She suggested maternity leave offered mothers a chance for self-reflection. Critics disagreed.
“What did you gals reflect on during the first weeks and months of your child’s life? A few things that came to mind for me were: Exactly how little sleep can I get and still be able to drive a car and remember not to leave the stove on? How much blood can I lose from my vagina and remain alive?” writes Valerie Williams on ScaryMommy.com.
Let's hope Foye is using her time after suggesting these things for a little self-reflection of her own.
One of the promises of online banking is that you can get an app to do your budgeting for you. It's something that feels necessary in a post-Great Recession world: Real household incomes have been falling over the last decade and a half, and people have to keep track of their money because they have less to spend than they once did.
The idea is that by tracking your spending, you can avoid the kind of profligacy that leads to budget downfall. Unfortunately for most Americans, budgeting isn't really the problem.
Keeping track of every happy hour drink may help on the margins, but for most people, financial problems are caused by things like losing a job or getting sick. The real problem is not that you aren't budgeting -- it's that the costs of housing, college and health care have skyrocketed in the last 50 years. No app can keep you from overspending on rent, needing to pay back student loans or medical debt, or suffering through bouts of unemployment.
That hasn't stopped banks from trying.
Ally Bank’s new app, Splurge Alert, is sort of like a reverse-Yelp. It uses geolocation to alert people when they're approaching stores and restaurants where they tend to spend money unnecessarily. Warning! You're entering a high-spending zone! In the promotional video, Drew Scott, the co-star of popular HGTV show "Property Brothers," admits to a bad habit of buying antique swords. ("I’m not a violent person," he says. "I just like deadly medieval weapons.")
It’s an interesting take on budgeting gamification. But who, exactly, is this helping?
"I can imagine a very limited set of situations where this kind of thing might be helpful," said Abigail Sussman, a marketing professor at the University of Chicago who studies how people make purchasing decisions. She said this approach might be useful if a person already knows they have a problem with a particular type of spending, and they're making a conscious effort to steer clear of it. But when it comes to specific harmful spending habits, this kind of self-awareness is actually pretty rare.
There are more broadly helpful versions of mobile banking. Citi, for example, lets its customers see basic details about how much money is in their checking account on the app homepage, without signing in. Simple, an online bank that prides itself on customer service, has a proprietary tool called "safe-to-spend," which shows you how much discretionary cash there is in your account, automatically subtracting the money you spend regularly on things like rent and utilities.
But again, that kind of thing only helps with a small percentage of irregular purchases. There's a story in The Atlantic this month about a man -- a film critic -- who barely has two pennies to rub together, despite all the outward signals of being well off. He owns a house, has published many books and is well-known as a writer. He has a child who went to Harvard Medical School. But, he explains, he and his wife have no retirement funds and no savings as a result of a little bit of bad luck, and some very poor choices on his part.
Would any of these apps help this man? Probably not. His problem is his lifestyle, not his day-to-day spending. He was paying two mortgages for several years because he and his family moved during a market downturn -- in Brooklyn and East Hampton, no less, two of the most expensive housing markets in the country. His wife quit her job when their children were young, then had trouble finding her way back into the workforce. They sent their children to private school. Almost no amount of restaurant-splurging stacks up against years of five-figure private school tuition.
As part of the app’s launch, Ally commissioned a third-party online survey by Harris Poll on people’s splurging habits. While 85 percent of people said that they occasionally splurge on things, only 7 percent said they do it once a month or more. The most common splurges by far fell into the “food and drink” or “clothes and shoes” categories, both of which usually end up being relatively small amounts of money compared to, say, rent.
Meanwhile, a recent report by the Federal Reserve showed that 47 percent of Americans say they don’t have $400 to spare in an emergency, suggesting that splurging isn’t the big problem for most people’s budgets.
In a 2012 paper on what motivates consumer spending, sociologist Jeff Lundy found that splurging on things like clothes and restaurants is usually a sign that a person is accumulating wealth, rather than the opposite. “The best predictors of both wealth losses and reduced wealth accumulation were adverse circumstances which tend to overwhelm a household’s budget,” the paper says.
And no app can bring back the erosion of Americans' incomes since 1999. But that app certainly would be cool.
Would you like to improve your relationship with money? Sign up to join our 30-Day, More Money, Less Stress Challenge to demystify one of the most important and empowering areas of your life. We’ll deliver tips, challenges and advice to your inbox every day during April. Sign up here!
