Recent Updates #7

In this blog post, I would like to talk about the first democratic debate I just finished watching on NBC. First and foremost, I thought all the candidates were very well spoken and made great points when they talked about the ways they want to change our economy and society, as a whole.

Before discussing how the topics the candidates were discussing would impact the economy, I just want to write about some of the facts behind the debate. In the debate were ten candidates: Bill de Blasio, Tim Ryan, Julián Castro, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee and John Delaney. In an article on CNN addressing the debate, titled, “The First Democratic Debate, Night 1”, it listed the people who talked the most and least in the debate. The candidate who talked the most was Cory Booker and the candidate who talked the least was Jay Inslee. Inslee actually got less than half the time that Booker did to speak, which is something I found extremely interesting and unfair. During the debate, I noticed that candidates would attempt to speak and give their input, and would be cut off and not given that time back. In my opinion, in debates like this, every candidate should get the exact same amount of time and be given the same amount of opportunity to share their opinions because each candidate worked extremely hard to get to this point and they all have important things to share.

Aside from all of that, the candidates brought up a lot of pressing issues in the economy. A major issue being universal health care. The majority of candidates agreed it is a necessary step; however, it was argued by lot of the candidates that “medicare for all” would eliminate a lot of people’s private insurance, which is an issue for those who really like the plans they are already on. According to the same CNN article, this is true and medicare for all would indeed cut private insurance for 150 million people. This was eye-opening and fascinating to me because I had never thought about all the people who would lose their insurance plans and potentially be given a worse plan. Even though I do agree that healthcare for all is something that needs to happen, I felt that the candidates who were pushing for both healthcare for all and people to keep their private insurance would be more beneficial to our economy and the people in it.

Another important economic topic that was addressed was immigration. The majority of the candidates had immigration plans and did not want to turn immigrants away. It was also brought up by Amy Klobuchar that 25% of Nobel Prize winners are immigrants, which the number is actually higher. This fact is really interesting and reveals that immigrants are actually extremely beneficial to the economy and make great advancements.

Other topics such as gun control, police shootings, and more were brought up in the debate, to which all the candidates did a great job and made very valid points during. All in all, I thought the way they answered the questions brought up things I had never thought about before.

Source:

Rocha, Veronica, et al. The First Democratic Debate, Night 1: Live Updates. 2019. CNN, Cable News Network, www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/democratic-debate-june-26-2019/index.html.

Recent Updates #6

In this blog post, I will be discussing a very widely talked about topic throughout the country. That topic is medical marijuana and the pros and cons it can have for an economy. Many states have legalized medical marijuana, some of them even legalizing recreational marijuana. The economic benefits of this are huge, and is bringing in a ton of money.

In an article titled, “The Economic Benefits of Legalizing Weed”, written by Mrinalini Krishna, it lists benefits such as: impact on tax revenue, income and jobs, investment opportunities, and saved money. The article states that marijuana brings in a ton of revenue. Chicago specifically has earned more than $135 million in taxes and fees on medical and recreational marijuana. That amount of money being brought in can be extremely beneficial and can add more money to the market which in turn causes people to spend more, etc. On top of this, medical marijuana obviously would create jobs for people and provide them income to be able to do more leisure spending and investing, which positively impacts the economy. Below is a chart from Marijuana Business Daily, showing the total economic impact between the years 2017 thru 2022:

This chart reveals and shows the billions of dollars the industry is bringing into the economy throughout the US. Therefore, for these reasons medical marijuana is very beneficial.

These are all positive things, alongside with much more, however, some claims about medical marijuana are false. There is a claim that medical marijuana could potentially take the place of opioids. In an article on The Economist, titled, “Medical marijuana is not the way out of America’s opioid crisis”, it discusses a study by Chelsea Shover, with findings that show that medical marijuana actually increases the use of opioid related deaths. This is different from an earlier study; therefore, the conclusion is that no policies should be based on the idea that medical marijuana is a replacement for opioid addiction.

All in all, medical marijuana is not a solution to every problem the country is facing, but it does do a lot of good for the economy. There are a ton of financial benefits and also a ton of benefits for those who are sick or in need of a job/income to support their family.

Sources:

Krishna, Mrinalini. The Economic Benefits of Legalizing Weed. 2019. Investopedia, Investopedia, www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/110916/economic-benefits-legalizing-weed.asp.

 Medical Marijuana Is Not the Way out of America's Opioid Crisis. 2019. The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/06/24/medical-marijuana-is-not-the-way-out-of-americas-opioid-crisis.

Recent Updates #5

In this blog post, I will be discussing the concept introduced in the latest article posted by The Economist. In this article, titled, “The Promotion Curse”, it discusses the concept of the Peter Principle, first introduced by Laurence Peter in a book published in 1969. The article states that the Peter Principle says that people work their way up in an organization until there is eventually a job they are not qualified for and someone’s career will stall, which leads to the conclusion that senior staff members who have been in the same position for a long time are “incompetent”.

The article goes further to describe studies that have been done to test this theory. The studies it mentions concluded that it takes different skills to do different things in a company. For example, companies often promote the best sales people; however, the skills it takes to manage those sales people are completely different, so making that good sales person a manager would be pointless. 

According to the article, this led to Scott Adams’ discussion of the Dilbert Principle, which he discusses in his book:

The Dilbert Principle states that the least competent people are more likely to get promoted so that they do not do the actual work in the company. This means that to promote someone with a unique set of skills to a higher position would mean to get rid of that person’s skills in that particular department, and companies do not want to do that. Therefore, if this is true, it could lead to the conclusion that promotions are often not given to the best workers and the ones that most likely deserve it most, which is the total opposite of what promotions are meant to do and the motivation they are meant to evoke.

This all leads to my opinion on the topic. In my opinion, both of these principles make a lot of sense and are both nothing I have ever thought about before. When strictly looking at the Peter Principle, I think in most cases it is true that people work their way up the hierarchy of the company and get to a point where they cannot go any further. However, I am not sure if I believe this is due to incompetence or possibly just the fact that higher positions are full, even though that specific person would be qualified. As for the Dilbert Principle, I agree with a lot of these concepts, as well; however, I also do not believe it applies to every company because many companies have promotion plans put in place that allow people to work their way up, without being forced to stay in one section of the company, simply because they are good at that particular job. However, I think both principles make valid points and are true in many cases, which has changed the way I view promotions significantly.

Sources:

The Promotion Curse. 2019. The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, www.economist.com/business/2019/06/16/the-promotion-curse.