Uber Promises Investigation After Former Engineer Blogs About Rampant Sexual Harassment

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said Sunday that the ride-sharing company will investigate new allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination in its workplace.

After former Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a nearly 3,000-word blog post Sunday describing a nightmarish workplace culture in which male superiors solicited her for sex and human resources officers shrugged off her concerns about sexist company practices, Kalanick vowed there would be a probe into the allegations.

In a statement sent to The Huffington Post, he wrote: 

I have just read Susan Fowler’s blog. What she describes is abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in. It’s the first time this has come to my attention so I have instructed Liane Hornsey our new Chief Human Resources Officer to conduct an urgent investigation into these allegations. We seek to make Uber a just workplace FOR EVERYONE and there can be absolutely no place for this kind of behavior at Uber ― and anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is OK will be fired.

You can read the entirety of Fowler’s blog post here.

Her criticism comes as the company continues to deal with the fallout over Kalanick holding a since-relinquished role on President Donald Trump’s business advisory board.

The company also faced accusations of sexual misconduct last year. Last March, a report charged that Uber had received thousands of customer complaints about rape and sexual assault from riders between December 2012 and August 2015. The company argues that rape allegations represented just 0.0000009 percent of customer journeys during that time, and that sexual assault claims occurred in one in every 3.3 million trips.

Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson has also called on Uber to start releasing a workplace diversity report amid concerns that it employs few women and ethnic minorities. The company is among the biggest not to commit to such transparency, Inc. reported last month. 

This Is The First 10 Years Of Your Career

You push the glass doors open for the first time.

It's a beautiful office. One that only a huge multinational company like the one you're joining today can afford. You work in the city center now; in a skyscraper. You can't wait to share it on Facebook.

Predictably, you're early to work. It's your first day after all. You're also one of the first among your friends to get a job with a multinational. The rest are still interviewing and hoping.

The ones who really matter of course. Some of your friends are already involved in startups of their own. You tell yourself that they don't count. That you want real corporate experience before starting your own company. It's comforting.

You're nervous, but you're also skilled as hell in pretending that you're not. While your uni mates were busy getting involved in clubs, societies and events, you were reading business books and working on interview skills. You're prepared.

You size up the other graduate trainees. They look nice enough, but you can already tell who the smart ones are, and who the politicians are.

You secretly hope that one of your new colleagues will ask you about your excellent CGPA.

Nobody gives a f*ck.

1. Reality

It's your first-year performance appraisal. You're a good and responsible worker. Your boss sits down with you and tells you he appreciates all that you've done.

But due to forced rankings, he can only rate you as a 3+. Which means a competent worker; slightly above average. You look at the slackers in office. Most of them get rated 3 as well.

You're average. It's a bitter pill to swallow -- you've never been average your whole life.

You don't understand why the politicians in your office get 2 ratings and above. Their bonuses will be double of yours.

You accept your boss' appraisal and end the conversation with a smile.

Then you bitch about it on Facebook.

2. Lust

It's the end of your second year. You understand how the company works now. You understand why some guys spend most of their time sucking up to the bosses, instead of doing actual work.

You've been looking outside for a while. All your friends seem to have perfect lives. The investment bankers are rolling in money. The accountants and lawyers seem to be doing great too. You never meet them much, but you keep seeing Instagram pictures of their exotic vacations and clubbing nights. You wonder how they can afford it.

You're jealous.

You need a new job. Otherwise you'll never afford that glamorous lifestyle you want. You don't want to wait till you're old to be rich. You gorge on articles saying how you need to step out of your comfort zone because that's where the magic happens.

You wait for your second-year bonus. Then you resign.

You're Gen-Y.

3. Revelation

You start fresh in another multinational. "Here it'll be different," you say. "Here it'll be merit-based." It's an American company so you know they're committed to fairness and transparency. More importantly, they have US dollars.

You like how things move faster in a smaller company. You can't help comparing yourself to your ex-colleagues. When they meet you, they all say "You look so happy now."

Of course you're happy to see them. It helps you forget your current problems at work.

You swapped bureaucracy for uncertainty. Predictability for long working hours. Great benefits for tough learning. But it's okay -- you can't afford to regret your decision. "Rough seas make good sailors," you tell yourself.

You still benchmark yourself against your uni mates. The startup guys are hustling like crazy now. You read their stories on your feed, and think about how their lives must be so interesting. You haven't met the doctors in person for years.

Thank God for social media.

You realize everything comes with a price.

4. Pain

You start to feel the itch again.

Two years in and you're dragging yourself to work. You're not sure if you've lost motivation or if you've just mastered the game. You feel that showing up on time is less important than being friends with the boss.

You arrive late in office one day to see a memo for all employees. The big bosses in America have decided to restructure the company.

A couple of hours later your boss calls you to his office. He says you have nothing to worry about, even though he seems to be worrying about something himself. He tells you that your future is bright -- as long as you don't keep slacking off at work.

One afternoon, two HR people enter your boss' office. He walks out with a box, and stops by your cubicle to say "All the best." You will never see him again.

You're angry; confused. But with the restructuring comes your first promotion.

5. Discovery

You've made it big now. Or at least, you think you've made it.

Just to be sure, you Google what the average 29-year-old's salary is. Phew, you make double the average salary. You compare your Instagram travel photos to those of your friends. Yes, you've been to more countries than most of them. Plus you have better pictures.

It's not that you want to beat everyone so badly. But you just need to know that you're doing well. That you're not average.

Except for Sara. Sara has traveled more than you. Damn it, it must be because of her rich boyfriend.

And Dan. But Dan's the founder of his own tech startup. He's found a way to beat the system, so that doesn't really count.

You secretly want to be like Dan.

Every two years, you've either had a promotion or moved to a different company. But you're starting to wonder if you're going to be a corporate slave all your life. You now gorge on articles that talk about passion, purpose, and freedom.

You dream about starting your own company. It would be awesome to be your own boss, and do whatever the f*ck you want. But you're scared; you know the statistics -- 90% of businesses fail within the first 18 months.

You start to consider all the common side hustles: Uber, Unit Trusts, Property, Insurance, and Online Business.

You briefly think about joining an MLM scheme.

6. Priorities

Time is the most precious thing to you now. You spend too much time at work, but you know you should really be prioritizing your partner and baby.

It's so hard to balance everything -- sometimes you feel overwhelmed. You've given up so many things but you still can't find enough time. You secretly wonder if you're a bad partner or a bad parent. Maybe both.

Relief comes every Saturday -- when you meet your close friends for brunch. There, you talk about the normal things -- work, kids and property investment. Like you, most of your friends have apartments and families now. Even the doctors. They've finally re-emerged.

Three of you stick around longer after the rest go home, talking about starting a business. Like a mini-brainstorming session, each of you writes down ideas on a paper napkin, and everyone dissects them together.

You have great ideas, but no time.

But that's okay. At least you're making small steps towards owning your own business. You'll worry about how to execute your ideas later.

It feels great. It feels like you're on the path to freedom.

7. Opportunity

Your business never gets past the paper napkin stage. But it's okay -- you'll start something once you've finished your MBA. "The knowledge will be necessary," you tell yourself.

You're bored at work: same shit, different day. More and more of your friends have left the corporate world to "pursue my passion." They tell amazing stories about how they're excited to go to work every morning.

You try to feel happy for them, but at the same time you wonder if they're secretly broke. If they have no money in the bank. The economy sucks, and some of your other friends have recently lost their jobs. You wonder what their plans for the future are.

You feel like quitting, but commitments. Commitments. Your car loan is huge, but you had bought that BMW anyway to reward yourself for all your hard work. You deserved it.

Besides, if you quit -- you're not really sure what you're passionate about anyway. Except music. You love music; but you don't want to be a starving musician.

The phone rings -- it's your biggest competitor's HR director. She wants to bring you over to their company and offers you a VP position. You like how the words sound: Vice-President. At 32 years old, you would be the youngest in the company. And definitely the youngest among your friends.

The work would be similar to what your boss currently does. It doesn't excite you, but at least you'll be paid 35% more. And Status. You tell the HR director to give you a few days to think about it.

8. Destiny

Your hands hover over the keyboard as Resignation_Letter_Template.docx stares back at you. But there’s so many things to think about.

The money would be good. More stuff for you and your family, and you can finally afford that long-planned Eurotrip.

At the same time, you would be losing your seniority and influence in the company. You don’t play politics, but you know what powerful friends can do for you now.

Besides, you really feel like ditching all the stress and doing what you love instead. Why not leave the corporate race, ditch the Master’s, and become a simple musician? It seems like a carefree life. And if you played enough gigs, maybe you could earn just enough...

You hesitate; it’s never that simple. The grass is always greener on the other side.

It’s never that simple.

Your thoughts are interrupted when your boss suddenly calls you to his office. You’re worried ― did someone tell him?

“We’ve been monitoring your performance,” he says. “And as Nora is leaving soon, we’d like to offer you a promotion. You’ll be taking on her responsibilities for a period of six months. Then we’ll evaluate how you’re doing ― and can discuss your new salary then.”

“OK?”

- - -

You feel the weight of the world on your shoulders. Decisions, decisions... Your head spins.

You take a deep breath and look around. Your eye briefly catches the calendar on your boss’ desk. It’s almost your career ten-year anniversary. Almost ten years since you first started work ― gone in a flash.

You realize you’re really just starting out.

 

- - -

Read More: For the Day When Work Breaks Your Heart.

Originally published at mr-stingy.com

Aaron Tang is the founder of mr-stingy.com, where he writes about optimizing time, money and relationships.

Inspired by Sunil Rajaraman’s writings on Medium.

Pictures from Pexels, Pexels, Pexels and Pexels.

Is The Dow Jones Industrial Average Index Misleading Or Meaningless Or Both?

Like many of us, I thought that the Dow Jones industrial Average index (DJIA) is comprising thirty of the most important companies of the United States of America by using their market capitalization. I was completely wrong. There is no correlation between the importance of the companies and the index.

According to Wikipedia, DJIA is criticized for being a price weighted average, which gives higher-priced stocks more influence over the average than their lower-priced counterparts, but takes no account of the relative industry size or market capitalization of the components. For example, a $1 increase in a lower-priced stock can be negated by a $1 decrease in a much higher-priced stock, even though the lower-priced stock experienced a larger percentage change. In addition, a $1 move in the smallest component of the DJIA has the same effect as a $1 move in the largest component of the average.

Journalists have been using the DJIA as THE indicator of the strength of 30 of the largest companies in the United States. Size matters for the selection of the companies. Why does it not matter for the weighting of those companies?

Analyzing the composition might be an eye opener!

God bless Goldman Sachs!

Among the 30 companies composing the DJIA index, Goldman Sachs has the lion share. Yes, tiny Goldman is approaching a record $ 100 billion market capitalization. It had a record price yesterday. But few investors might know that 8.32% of the index is represented by Goldman Sachs. Yes, you read well. Each time an investor buys a dollar of the index one twelfth of that money is invested in Goldman Sachs shares. This is pure bonanza, but might explain some of the market value of Goldman. This is confirmed by the fact that an important portion of the twenty largest shareholders of Goldman Sachs are Exchange Traded Funds or indexed funds.

But it is also totally unfair: it gives a structural advantage to Goldman Sachs vis-à-vis its competitors of Wall Street. The next bank, JP Morgan Chase (#16) is only gratified of a 3.01% share while its market capitalization is $ 327 billion. With three times the market cap, JP Morgan Chase is only weighted as 40% of Goldman Sachs. In total, the four companies representing financial sector only represents 16.83% of the DJIA, contrary to conventional wisdom.

What about General Electric?

I do not want to give a heart attack to my former boss and friend, Jack Welch, and my former GE colleagues. However, General Electric is # 30 out of #30. The least important company of the Dow Jones. The fact that it would have a $ 270 billion market capitalization (2.7x Goldman) is irrelevant. It is gratified with a share of 1.10%. When one dollar goes to the DJIA, 8.3 go to Goldman and 1 to General Electric.

Should #8 McDonald be worth 4.20% ($ 105 billion) when Coca Cola ($ 177 billion) # 26 is worth 1.34%. The bottom ten include Microsoft, Intel and Cisco. Why would United Healthcare be # 5 with 5.46% when Pfizer is # 28 with 1.11%.

Telling the truth

No, the index is not manipulated. It has a methodology that explains those aberrations. The DJIA, by not being based on market capitalization, does not represent the substance of the components from an investor’s viewpoint. . It should therefore not be the bell weather of Wall Street. The media, and particularly the Wall Street Journal, have made the DJIA what it is not: an index representing the values of 30 American corporations.

Time for the SEC to look whether the DJIA might need to be more transparent to investors? Maybe the media should reconsider this index that, in fact, is meaningless.

Hidden Figures Showcases The Value Of Workplace Diversity

Diversity makes teams better. Remarkable progress can be made when inclusion is at your organizational core. (Spoiler Alert!)

Theodore Melfi’s Hidden Figures is the film adaptation of the incredible true story of the women that crushed stereotypes to become recognized as some of the greatest intellectual minds at NASA. When our Waggl team saw this film it resonated with us immediately because we share core values like inclusion, and the importance of culture and progressive leadership.

The story illustrates the value inherent in diversity, and the remarkable progress that can be made when inclusion is at your organizational core. The year was 1961. Katherine Johnson was part of a group of female African American mathematicians working at NASA during the space race. These women were segregated while they worked in a different wing of the Langley campus, a societal norm that was at the detriment of NASA’s innovation and ambitious objectives.

Sometimes it takes a perfect storm of circumstances to reveal rare talent within the workplace. Decades earlier, President Roosevelt had declared there must be a push toward innovation in federal agencies. The nation’s young men were being sent to war instead of sent to work, and women found themselves with an opportunity to be compensated, albeit at a lesser scale. The precursor to NASA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), had hired Johnson and her colleagues. The space race intensified and Johnson was called in to doublecheck the equations of the first IBM computer calculating trajectories.

There was no way to have predicted just how important Johnson’s talents and insight could have been to not only Shepherd’s orbital journey but also the Apollo missions. NASA had overlooked the tremendous resources already existing within their workforce for years. In addition to Johnson, “Hidden Figures” also details the journeys of Mary Jackson, the first female engineer at NASA, and Dorothy Vaughn, who rose in the ranks to become a predominant computer programmer and supervisor.

We cannot create true progress and transformation without addressing the injustices that occurred in the past, and the echoes of those injustices that still exist in business practices today. However, we are able to honor trailblazers like Katherine Johnson by creating accessible platforms that deliver real change to organizations.

This post was co-authored by Hui Lin Tan of Waggl.

Economic Impact: Women, Monetary Worth, and the Role of HR in Enabling Financial Equity

What does worth mean to you? That is the question Amanda Steinberg, poses in her new book, Worth It: Your Life, Your Money, Your Terms. Steinberg is a serial entrepreneur, CEO/Founder of WorthFM, a practical savings and investment platform for women, and founder of the brilliant financial advice website for women, DailyWorth. After finding herself in debt from living the perfect life she thought she wanted based on society's definition of worth, Steinberg hit rock bottom. She clawed her way out of a life that wasn't working for her and into the next phase of her life, one where she decided what worth would mean to her.

The journey to transformation is never easy and seldom a straight line. Steinberg's book gives readers an important tool: the ability to accelerate the journey from financial paranoia to financial fluency in a practical way. Instead of fixing women, the book works with the readers in a language that makes sense for the context in which a woman lives and works.

Transformation, one in which a new paradigm permanently replaces a former paradigm, requires focus on the individual change journey. Prosci's journey of transformation starts with 'awareness' that change is afoot, that the current way of being no longer works within the environment in which it resides. The next stage, personal desire, is achieved when the person decides that she wants to participate in the change. The stage that follows is where the change is actively sought through new knowledge and enablement. Transformation is sustained at the final stage, when the culture, policy, and practices that define the world around the person are set up to validate the new way of being. Only at this stage can transformation be sustained because the world around you is demonstrating that the new paradigm is now mainstream.

State of women and personal financial worth

Noting the L'Oréal marketing message, "I don't mind spending more...because I'm worth it," Steinberg begins her book by analyzing how a woman's worth is tied to the material and financial wealth she consumes, and more importantly, displays to the world. The book leads us through defining self-worth on our own terms and using that definition as a platform to gain control and freedom in financing the rest of our lives.

The first step of transformation is to start from where you are. Worth It's biggest impact is that Steinberg can meet each of her readers from where they are starting their financial transformation because she has been at most of those stages herself. From both a place of empathy and actual experience, by the end of the book, the reader has experienced that needed catalyst and change tools from which she is able to stop working for money and instead make the kind of decisions that enable money to work for her. Money stops becoming a way we parade our perceived worth to the world and instead becomes a funder for the lives we want to lead.

The financial worth of many industries resides in the hands of women. Women make up 80% to 90% of most buying decisions. Analyzing years of data collected from readers of TheDailyWorth, Steinberg found that women were heavily focused on managing money in the short-term, focusing on household finances. While most women were managing or co-managing their long-term investments, they claimed a novice-level understanding or they relied on financial advisors and had little insight or understanding into the decisions being made. That means a woman is either relying on someone else to manage her long-term financial health or it isn't happening at all. That has to change. "Women are different than we were 50 years ago. Our lives are not defined solely upon our place in our family. We have jobs, we are making money. If we can't manifest this kind of power in throughout our lives, we are still reliant on other people," says Steinberg.

Even if women could invest it, they couldn't earn it

There are countless well-meaning programs in place to help women negotiate for more money during the hiring process. There are an equal number of programs aimed at 'empowering' women to self-advocate for promotions and raises. Yet, who can forget Satya Nadella, the newly appointed Microsoft CEO at the time, telling women at the Grace Hopper Conference, the largest event of its kind focused on increasing and enabling women in technology fields, to trust the system when it came to achieving pay equity.

It's easy to blame women for not managing money better. Maybe we women are too distracted with the nitty-gritty of working all day at home or in the office and then working all night, again, at the office or at home. Steinberg rightly points out that women are not the problem. Who or what is at fault? The system.

The challenges in the system status quo do not stop with compensation packages. In addition to discovering that women in large multi-national corporations make 75% of what men get paid, Procurement Leaders, in partnership with Forbes, found considerable disparity in high-paying, high-influence roles continues to exist. The 2017 study found that men fill 90% of senior roles while holding 45% of entry-level jobs.

Nadella is not a bad person nor is he an irresponsible leader. He grew up in a system that has norms. Norms that determine who gets paid what. His awareness of the problem happened immediately after making those unfortunate remarks. Disparity in the worth of compensation packages among the genders is a symptom of an antiquated system that favors one population, white males, over all others. And, with the current pace of change, women's salaries will not be on par with men until at least 2085.

While disparity in compensation worth could easily be construed as a philanthropic topic categorized as a women-only issue, the economic impact tells us otherwise. While women hold significant consumer buying-power, the potential to add significant growth to the global economy can be found in the compensation packages they are awarded. While women will contribute $18 trillion to the global economy by 2018 according to EY, the real impact comes from righting the wrong of pay disparity. If women were paid on par with men in the workforce, a staggering $12 trillion would be added to the global economy today. According to McKinsey, that equals more than the combined GDPs of the UK, France, and Japan.

Role of HR in creating economic equity

While it's easy to blame women for not learning how to negotiate better, the hard part is transforming the system and the unconscious bias of its inhabitants. Yet, that is exactly what needs to happen if women are going to fulfill their ability to equally contribute to the world around them.

Leaders from many companies, particularly in the technology industry, publically shared the analysis of their own pay disparity. While others, including SAP and Intel, have found pay parity in their workforce while others found challenges regarding pay disparity and their corrective actions plans. And even more leaders have committed to increase both the representation and pay equity in their businesses via government-led transformation programs targeting technology businesses. This is a good thing, but only if it leads to results.

Pay equity laws have been in place in the United States since 1963 with many states having their own legislation decades prior. Massachusetts, an early leader in pay equality, passed its first pay equity act in 1945. Last year, bay state governor, Charlie Baker, signed an update to the law making it illegal for HR departments to ask for salary history and forbidding open discussions about earning among colleagues. That law is expected to take effect in 2018. While the new Massachusetts law, and many that have followed in other states, provide more clarity, the challenge is that these laws remain too fuzzy for most HR departments to implement. That is no excuse.

HR departments have analyzed talent pools like marketing executives analyze buyers in the market. They have learned that alignment between personal and corporate culture are critical in the selection to join and stay at a company. The cultural brand has become the golden carrot that attracts and retains the best talent. For women, that is not enough nor has it ever been. Women want a great culture and to be paid fairly.

HR has the opportunity to not only conduct analysis into pay disparity in the workforce; they must also lead the charge in transforming how decision-makers decide on compensation worth. The analysis provides the much needed awareness catalyst for HR to share with executive-level decision-makers who determine cultural values and organizational priorities. Rather than investing heavily in programs designed to 'fix' women into displaying masculine gender traits that often backfire, the real opportunity for HR can be found in creating a new paradigm to eliminate the bias associated with salary decisions made by those in charge, at every level of the business, starting with mid-level managers who hold the most power for the majority of the organization's workforce.

The first step HR should take is simple to design and yet extremely difficult to implement. "HR's most critical role is to change the corporate narrative about money, wealth, and financial health," says Steinberg.

Engaging PepsiCo's Top Leadership and a "New Deal" on Lifelong Learning

PepsiCo is a multi-billion dollar leader in consumer packaged goods sales, in part, due to its history of investing in employee and leadership development. Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, was kind enough to write the foreword to my book, Learning to Succeed: Rethinking Corporate Education in a World of Unrelenting Change. Nooyi writes, "At PepsiCo, we have established a comprehensive learning organization that values and prioritizes professional development for every employee throughout the company... our learning initiatives link directly to our company's strategic goals." This strategic approach is what I recommend, supported by frameworks and successful case studies, throughout Learning to Succeed.

Nooyi affirms that the concrete recommendations in Learning to Succeed are as applicable for a large-scale conglomerate like PepsiCo as for a small business seeking to stay competitive while in growth mode. "The book astutely maps...elements, such as C-suite sponsorship, structural innovation, and a cultural aptitude for change, while also pinpointing the roadblocks that organizations will need to overcome to become fully functioning learning organizations..." - Indra Nooyi, Foreword, Learning to Succeed.

Last semester, I taught an intensive course at Columbia on Organizational Strategy and Learning which reviewed and analyzed many of these same topics. The graduate students in my course are earning master's degrees in fields ranging from Enterprise Risk Management to Actuarial Science to Nonprofit Management to Strategic Communication. As part of these programs, they are learning market-driven functional skills and management best practices. In my course, in particular, we explored the competitive advantages companies can create by building strong talent development programs and aligning with strategic and operational priorities. To tie this to the "real world," I invited guest speakers in prominent positions at companies including BlackRock, McKinsey, JP Morgan, United Nations, and AIG, to engage with my students. These guests discussed issues in strategy, leadership, and talent development and facilitated dynamic exchanges with my students, who offered input from readings, case studies, and their own career experiences.

As the final guest lecturer of the course, Umran Beba, Chief Human Resources Officer at PepsiCo, joined us to discuss her career path and ascension to the C-Suite. She started at the company in her home country of Turkey, in the marketing department. "While I enjoyed the thrill of launching original campaigns, I decided to open up opportunity for myself by moving across departments," she said. She is now based out of PepsiCo's headquarters in Purchase, NY, and oversees human capital management and operations. She shared her experiences in such intimidating circumstances as attending leadership retreats as the only female in attendance--and how she used those trials as an advantage to develop her voice, her core values, and what she prioritizes as a leader.

As a reflective and productive scholar/practitioner, Beba codified and translated her experiences and recently contributed to publish a white paper for the World Economic Forum: "Realizing Human Potential in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: An Agenda for Leaders to Shape the Future of Education, Gender and Work." In it, the authors propose "a new deal on lifelong learning," urging the public and private sectors to adopt new models that support learning throughout career spans.

Columbia's School of Professional Studies is rooted in this new deal on lifelong learning as we continue to develop quality, practicum-based educational programming for all ages. We believe, as Beba and the leadership at PepsiCo have repeatedly communicated, that organizations like ours must continue to work together to enable ongoing learning and retooling at all stages of workers' careers.

Hyperinflation In The US -- A Real Or Imagined Threat?

After seeing the latest string of events unfold right before our eyes, many are openly pondering whether we may see hyperinflation hit the US shores. But rather than ponder Trump’s latest executive orders or over the top pronouncements, let us first look at what hyperinflation is and how it works.

What Is Hyperinflation?

Hyperinflation is simply inflation that has grown out of control. The phenomenon is brought about by several factors although increased money supply is often the most likely culprit.

Indeed, when monetary supply goes unchecked, the price of basic goods goes up, and the currency loses its value. So, in a nutshell, if the conditions are right out of control inflation really can happen. Interestingly, there are many roads to rapid increases in prices. Let’s take a look.

Other Causes of Rapid Inflation

War is one of the most common causes of hyperinflation. Investors have little confidence in a currency whose country is at war whether the war is political or economic. A loss of investor confidence can cause a rapid drop in currency values. When a currency falls quickly enough, other problems soon arise. Not the least of which is mass bank withdrawals.

Run on Bank Funds. If residents lose confidence in their nation's paper notes, they often withdraw bank funds en masse. However, this doesn’t just impact the banks, it can tank an economy in a hurry.

Furthermore, given that most banks only keep 5% of their total deposits on-hand, if enough depositors request their funds at the same time it wouldn’t take long before banks run out of cash. As banks rush to sell assets and call in loans held by members, panic would ensue triggering more waves of bank withdrawals. The only way for banks to fulfil requests in such an event is to sell assets, but far below market rates, and this affects both cash and asset values.

Bank Closures. Mass withdrawals eventually lead to bank closures. In the past, this has led to losses so large that anyone who wasn’t quick enough to withdrawal their savings lost everything. Indeed, a similar scenario played out during the Great Depression. And as we know from that bit of history when banks suffer the population experiences even greater turmoil.

Travel throughout the US Grinds to a Halt. Interstate travel is crucial for business. When travel stops for any reason, the business community is significantly affected. Firms that operate in different states may be forced to shut down, and since business is a key economic driver, the effects will be felt immediately.

How a Depression in the US Could Play Out

If we were to experience an economic collapse it would happen quickly. Indeed, financial meltdowns happen so quickly that most businesses, investors, and households scarcely have time to act.

If ever the US economy becomes so fragile that consumers decide their money is safer under the mattress than in the banks, get ready. It could happen in this manner.

1. Rapid Increase in Gold Prices. As the dollar loses value, gold prices will inevitably skyrocket. Since the purchasing power of gold rarely goes down, gold and other precious metals perform well in most any type of economic contraction. And as more people rush to buy gold, it will only rise in value.

1. Rise in the Price of Other Precious Metals. As pandemonium spreads and gold prices go up, the value of other precious metals will increase as well. Many investors will be in a hurry to invest in metals that do not lose value before the dollar value can get any worse. Just like in the case of gold, the rise in demand will result in an increase in precious metal prices.

1. Food Shortages. Another aspect of depressions is they often lead to food shortages. As panic sets in, households attempt to stock up on food and other products needed for day to day survival. But instead of purchasing a week's worth of groceries, when under duress many shoppers purchase an entire month worth of groceries, if not more.

1. Violent Outbreaks. It’s well documented that deep recessions fuel crime. Namely, depressed economies lead to mass youth unemployment. And the number of idol youth grows large enough they may take out their frustrations on those around them. And as basic necessities become harder to find large numbers of young adults organize themselves into groups and begin riots and looting, which almost always ends in violence.

1. Worldwide Panic. Were a scenario such as this one to play out in the States, the situation could quickly lead to recessions in other economies that do business with the US. Any sign of domestic recession can, therefore, cause panic elsewhere in the world.

Who Could Benefit from Depression in the US?

China. Asia's largest economy has already shown a propensity to buy large sums of gold. Hence, If a major depression were to break out in the US we could expect China to quickly sweep in and increase their reserves by acquiring record quantities of gold. Doing so could offset at least some of the losses that come about as a result of decreased manufactured goods demand in the US.

Russia. While once the second most powerful nation in the world, Russia’s Soviet fortunes faded away after the Cold War. However, Putin’s recent actions reveal a nation in a relentless pursuit to reclaim their former glory. His moves also show that Russia is not above flexing their military might to achieve their ends.

If the US economy collapses, Russia would likely do two things 1) look to replace US trade with trade from several other countries 2) exert their muscle first on their closest neighbors before branching out and doing the same throughout the rest of Europe. If this is their intent, military motives could explain help explain their most recent gold acquisitions.

Other Rogue States. Rogue states that the US is currently odds with such as Iran, North Korea, etc. could benefit immensely from an American depression. Given that the poor state of economic affairs could weaken infrastructure in the States, most of America's resources would be tied up in the rebuilding process which would leave minimal resources to tend to the country’s national defense. As such, rogue nations could find themselves possessing a tactical advantage over the US.

Likelihood of a Collapse of the US Economy

While the likelihood of an economic collapse in the US is low, the current gold buying trends could be an indication that tough times are just on the horizon. That notwithstanding, there's no immediate cause for alarm. Of course, that's not to say that you shouldn't prepare for the worst and for the best.

After all, the country suffered quite a blow in 2008, and the economy may not be as resilient if a recession of similar magnitude was to reoccur.

As MNCs Retrench, Reigniting the Power of Global Brands

In an era of diminishing profits for global corporations, brands are bulwarks against commoditization. They are not expenses. Strategic investment is required.

New World Disorder

The Economist recently published a survey on the retreat of multinational companies (MNCs). More than a response to President Donald Trump's protectionist browbeating, retrenchment is a result of structural headwinds including: local governments increasingly committed to enabling small business; supply chain decentralization; and instant global markets for small companies courtesy of the internet.

Not surprisingly, the financial performance of organizations that generate more than 30% of revenue outside their home country have regressed markedly; over the past five years, profit is down 25%. For forty percent of MNCs, return on investment (ROI) hovers around 10%, the danger zone of underperformance.

Selective Investment Required

In boardrooms around the world, cost cutting is the rage.

Centralization of resources is a rallying cry. Local marketing budgets have been slashed. From Mattel's Barbie (a very American girl) to Rolex's Submariner (aspirational in the West but "clunky gold" in much of Asia), globally-produced content -- too often tone deaf -- is the norm.

Unilever and Procter & Gamble have imposed top-down decision-making infrastructures. Only low-end "activation" -- that is, transactional promotions -- have been left in the hands of local managers.

But cost cutting is a low road. Marketers should lift their sights by harnessing the power of global brands. They are MNCs' greatest assets because they convey trust and epitomize value. Indeed, there are few local products that compete at a price premium versus international brands.

This advantage, however, should not be taken for granted. In some sectors, local players are lifting their game. China's Alipay, a sub-brand of e-commerce behemoth Alibaba, has evolved from a Paypal knock off to a "digital wallet" tailored to Chinese spending habits. (Its Red Envelope service is youthful spin on ancient gifting traditions.) WeChat, once a pale imitation of WhatsApp, is now an indispensable social connector.

In the face of increasing local nimbleness, global brands must reinforce bonds with consumers around the world.

Four Questions

It won't be easy. Success will hinge on both analytic acumen and courage. CEOs should ask four questions before marching into battle.

Has your brand been defined as a "relationship" to ensure relevance and consistency?

Technological upheaval is disorienting. As a result, conceptual clarity is forsaken, leading strategic and executional chaos.

Some call a brand's North Star -- its raison d'être -- a "brand essence." Others, a "purpose." I prefer the term "brand relationship" because it implies consistent bilateral engagement that deepens over time -- across all touch points, analog and digital.

Great brand relationships are rooted in:

A universal "consumer insight" -- that is, a human truth that answers the question "Why?" Local brands are cultural-specific. But global brands must transcend geography. Sometimes they miss the mark. Unilever's Dove's "real beauty" is rooted in a woman's desire to define beauty for herself. But in market non-Western markets, self-esteem is a function of societal acknowledgement. Identities are externalized.

The "unique brand offer" -- that is, a "product truth" or "brand truth" capable forging long-term competitive differentiation.

LEGO, a brand that has celebrated creativity since 1932, appeals to human truth. The name lego is derived from Danish phrase "Leg godt," which also means "I put together" in Latin. Every manifestation of LEGO's brand relationship, "inspiring the builders of tomorrow," strengthens brand equity. The company's award-winning retail outlets are designed with innovative displays and spaces for family "building" events and kid-friendly exploration areas. At several locations worldwide, LEGOland encourages kids to open their imaginations at construction sites that dot the theme parks. To the tune of almost $500 million in global ticket sales, the 2014 film The LEGO Movie is perhaps the most successful branded entertainment in recent years. It tells the tale of an ordinary construction worker, Emmet, battling nefarious Lord Business whose ambition is to glue everything in the adaptable LEGO world into place.

Have you leveraged your brand relationship to forge a strategic brand portfolio?

In markets in which "bigger is better" -- Northeast Asia, for example, where the scale of conglomerates is considered reassuring -- brands are "stretchable." Consumers are willing to embrace brands that extend across disparate categories. This is true across Japanese keiretsu, Korean chaebols and Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

The vast majority of local brands, however, manage their portfolio in a ham-handed way. China's Xiaomi, a manufacturer of low-priced mobile phones that once boasted a dedicated fan base, is typical. It squandered a shot at greatness through promiscuous diversification across an ever-widening range of products presumptuously dubbed an "ecosystem." Xioami's founder, Lei Jun, never clarified the brand's role in life. There is no meaningful brand relationship so sales strategies are price-driven. The same is true for many indigenous brands from Korea's Lotte to Japan's Hitachi.

Global brands are skilled in articulating relationships, a competency that can: a) reinforce superiority versus local challengers and b) facilitate profitable management of sub-brands and new categories. A good example: Under Armour's brand relationship -- champion of underdogs who dare to compete against the best -- provides coherence across sub-brands including UA Heat Gear, UA Coldgear and the UA Glow Collection. It also infuses soul into efforts to scale the business. According to branding guru David Aaker, "Under Armour has systematically added lines of clothing while continuing to focus on delivering the functional and self-expressive brand promise. The latest venture into women's clothing has the earmarks of future success."

Have you harnessed the assets of your brand relationship for maximum relevance in consumers' lives?

In a hydra-headed digital world, the ultimate commandment of marketing still holds: relevance is sublime.

Consumers suffer from disorientation wrought by technological change -- a universe of bits and bytes, atomistic fragmentation that dulls the senses.

Digital technology offers an infinite--and intimidating--range of ways for brands to engage with consumers. Connections happen in real time. Augmented reality redefines individual field of vision. Social network feeds provide consumers with non-stop "news" as they go through their day.

Some brands use technology in a way that confuses or commoditizes. For example, in 2014, several McDonald's franchises in Spain took advantage of their powerful wifi network signal to hijack customers who were eating in nearby establishments. By changing their signal name into a message--for example, "Free drink with your McMenu," or "Come eat with us and have a sundae on the house"--the McDonald's franchises lured people into their restaurants. The local stunt was clever and generated a burst of incremental sales. But the fast-food chain missed an opportunity to combine hard-hitting discounts with reminders of why people love McDonald's--that is, quality food and family friendliness.

But more and more brands -- not only ecosystems such as Amazon, Google and Apple -- invest in technology that makes lives better. Johnson & Johnson produced Band Aid "Magic Vision," an augmented reality app in which Muppets laugh away the "ouch." Procter & Gamble's Pampers asks tired parents to tune into ZZZ FM, a radio station that broadcasts white noise so babies can sleep soundly. Brand experiences--from Trailhead, The North Face's hiking path locator, to Allergycast, Johnson & Johnson's pollen index counter--transform passively received "propositions" into actual services.

Importantly, data should be used to identify what experiences can deepen a given brand relationship. Prophet, the global strategic consultancy, encourages marketers to pursue continuous -- or "relentless" -- relevance. The firm's Brand Relevance Index (BRI) recently surveyed 45,000 consumers around the world to find which brands they "can't imagine living without."

To derive the BRI, Prophet measured four pillars of relevance:

Customer obsession: "Everything that is invested in, created, and brought to market is designed to meet important needs in people's lives."

Ruthless pragmatism: "Products are available where and when customers need them, deliver consistent experiences, and just make life that much easier for people."

Pervasive innovation: "Even industry leaders don't rest on their laurels. They push the status quo, engage with customers in new and creative ways, and find new ways to address unmet needs."

Distinctive inspiration: "Emotional connections are made, trust is earned, and often exist to fulfill a larger purpose."

Prophet's United States top ten list was a nice combination of brands that "born digital" and others that weren't: Apple ("the gold standard for practical innovation"), Amazon ("What can't it do?"), Android ("the green guy strikes back"), Netflix ("Cant. Stop. Watching."), Google ("making search sweet"), Samsung ("the innovation trail blazer"), Nike ("celebrating unlimited you"), Pinterest ("the apex of inspiration"), Pixar "(sticking to its story") and Sephora ("ever more digital").

Have your markets been culturally "clustered" to achieve balance between global and local execution?

At WPP's 2015 Board of Directors meeting in Beijing, CEO Martin Sorrell stated, "Clients want either global or local. They tell me all the time. Nothing else interests them."

Too many companies swing between "one size fits all" and localization of everything from packaging design and retail design to content creation. The former precludes affinity. The latter is messy and financially unsustainable.

Instead, markets can be "clustered" according to culture. Global brands -- again, rooted in human truth -- must be brought into alignment with worldviews. Culture-based clusters -- across which common marketing programs can be executed -- balance relevance with operational efficiency.

Whenever I am asked what makes Confucian countries -- China, Korea and Vietnam -- really different from the West, it's not just the lack of individualism--it is the level of ambition. In China, for example, everyone is ambitious. Women want their piece of the sky, just as men do. A study by the Center for Work-Life Policy found that just 36 percent of college-educated women in America described themselves as "very ambitious," compared to 65 percent in China. A further 76 percent of women in China aspire to hold a top corporate job, compared to 52 percent in America.

The "tiger mom," forcing extracurricular activities upon her child to make sure he gets into Harvard 18 years later, is not a myth. Not all mothers are like this, but ambition remains a palpable force in Confucian societies. They were the first to become socially mobile societies; engrained in the Chinese psyche is people can achieve success by mastering convention and internalizing the rules. The desire to get ahead binds people together. From the bourgeoisie in the bustling metropolises of Seoul, Beijing, and Hong Kong right down to the farmers in the fields, all want to be an emperor of their small corner, no matter how modest their origins.

So the relationship between individual and society in Confucian countries is fundamentally different than in Anglo-individualistic ones. Across the Confucian cultural cluster, brands need to do more so cross-market resources should be pooled accordingly.

In Northeast Asia, Ford's "Go further" can align a global focus on "democratic technology" with how its cars and "mobility solutions" help the new middle class get ahead in life.

Nike's "Just do it" is a rallying cry to release individual potential. Everywhere. But, across Asia, the brand's shoes, apparel, Nike+ social platforms and wearable tech products are tools on the battlefield of life. In one recent campaign, Nike actually exhorted Millennials to yong yundong, or "use sports." Social platforms generate social currency by broadcasting achievements to a wide audience.

Forward momentum in life can also be warmly emotional. In many Northeast and Southeast Asian countries, expecting fathers are not allowed to join their wives in ultrasound rooms. For women, it only makes the pregnancy journey lonelier than it already is. So Bayer's Elevit, a prenatal nutritional supplement that "nourishes your unborn baby's heart," developed a wearable device that enabled fathers to actually feel the heartbeat from far away.
___________

In conclusion, multinational companies face tough times. But blind cost-cutting triggers low relevance and low margins. Instead, marketers should unleash the power of global brands by: a) achieving consistency born of a clearly-defined long-term "relationship" between consumer and brand, b) leveraging "stretchability" to introduce a broad-yet-cohesive brand relationship portfolio, c) pursuing "relentless relevance" enabled by technology and d) deploying resources across culture-based clusters.

How Trump's Environmental Policies Can Kill 220,000 Jobs And Eradicate Dozens of Species

This story has been condensed from a piece on Ecosystem Marketplace

US President Donald Trump and his cohorts in Congress have vowed to revive rural America by eliminating what he claims are burdensome environmental regulations, but the best that can be said about the initiatives launched so far is that they  might boost profits for some of the energy and agriculture interests that support Republicans on the House Resources Committee.

You can't, however, say they'll create more jobs than they destroy, because profits aren't jobs. In fact, they're often the opposite: companies save money by cutting jobs, and in this case, the jobs they cut will be those that pay people to plant trees, restore rivers, and turn soggy, unproductive farms into wetlands that filter water, purify air, and slow climate change.

Those jobs are part of a $25 billion "restoration economy" that directly employs 126,000 people and supports 95,000 other jobs - mostly in small businesses - according to a 2015 survey that environmental economist Todd BenDor conducted through the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

That's more jobs than logging, more than coal mining, and more than iron and steel, as you can see here:

The restoration economy is already providing jobs for loggers across Oregon, and even some coal miners in Virginia, but it could disappear if the GOP environmental rollback continues. Here are 11 things you need to know to understand it.

1.   It's not Solar and Wind

The restoration economy is not to be confused with the renewable energy boom that employs 374,000 people in solar parks and 101,738 on wind farms. Like those, however, the restoration economy is part of a burgeoning "green economy" that's transforming forests, farms, and fields around the world.

2.   It's Government-Driven

State and federal governments helped the wind and solar sectors get off the ground, but both of those sectors are humming along on their own now because they provide a cost-effective way to produce electricity, which everyone needs.

The demand for restoration, however, isn't as automatic as the demand for electricity is, because most companies and even some landowners won't clean up their messes without an incentive to do so.

Economists call these messes "externalities" because they dump an internal responsibility on the external world, and governments are created in part to deal with them - mostly through "command-and-control" regulation, but also through systems that let polluters either fix their messes or create something as good or better than what they destroy.

Under the Endangered Species Act, for example, a local government that wants to build a road through sensitive habitat can petition the Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to do so. If permission is granted, it still has to make good by restoring degraded habitat in the same region.

3.   It's Often Market-Based

Pioneered in the 1960s, environmental markets offer flexibility in meeting commitments. That local government mentioned above, for example, can either restore the land itself, or it can turn to a "conservation bank".

These are usually created by green entrepreneurs who identify marginal land and restore it to a stable state that performs ecosystem services like flood control or water purification. They make money by selling credits to entities - personal, public, or private - that need to offset their environmental impacts on species, wetlands or streams.

At least $2.8 billion per year flows through ecosystem markets in the United States, according to Ecosystem Marketplace research.

4.   Infrastructure Also Drives Restoration

The federal government - especially the military - holds itself to high environmental standards, as do many states. Government activities alone support thousands of restoration jobs.

Government agencies are big buyers of credits, often to offset damage caused by infrastructure projects, but the link between infrastructure and restoration goes even deeper than that. In Philadelphia, for example, restoration workers are using water fees to restore degraded forests and fields as part of a plan to better manage storm runoff. In California, meadows and streams that control floods are legally treated as green infrastructure, to be funded from that pot of money. "Green infrastructure", it turns out, is prettier than concrete and lasts longer to boot.

Trump wants to "expedite" infrastructure roll-outs, and he can do so without weakening environmental provisions by removing unnecessary delays in the permitting process (see point 11, below).

5.   Markets Can Reduce Regulations

Nature is complex, and rigid regulations often fail to address that complexity, as environmental economist Todd BenDor makes clear when he points to regulations requiring the placement of silt fences in new subdivisions along waterways.

"They're supposed to prevent erosion, but they often fail or are put in the wrong places," he says. "Markets can simply enact a limit on erosion, allowing the landowner the freedom to be creative and efficient in any way they see fit in order to meet that limit."

Done right, environmental markets can replace overly prescriptive regulations, but they still require government oversight and regulation.

"Markets are entirely reliant on strong monitoring, verification, and enforcement of limits," says BenDor. "Provisions must be made to ensure that, but in reality it's often a problem."

6.   Restoration Stimulates Rural Economies

In 2015, BenDor published a study called "Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy", which found restoration businesses in all 50 states. California had the most, but four "Red" states filled out the top five: Virginia, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. Last place went to North Dakota.

By their very nature, restoration projects are located in rural areas, and a study by Cathy Kellon and Taylor Hesselgrave of EcoTrust found that Oregon alone had more than 7,000 watershed restoration projects, which generated nearly 6,500 jobs from 2001 through 2010. Many of those jobs went to unemployed loggers.

"The jobs created by restoration activities are located mostly in rural areas, in communities hard hit by the economic downturn," report authors wrote. "Restoration also stimulates demand for the products and services of local businesses such as plant nurseries, heavy equipment companies, and rock and gravel companies."

7.   It's been Mapped

Last year, the US Department of Agriculture's Office of Environmental Markets, together with Ecosystem Marketplace publisher Forest Trends and the Environmental Protection Agency, published an online Atlas of Ecosystem Markets, which you can access here.

8.   The Jobs are Robot-Proof

Environmental regulations didn't kill coal; natural gas and renewables did. Regulations didn't stifle the western oil boom, either; that was low energy prices. Even if Trump & Co do prop the coal sector, jobs won't go to people; they'll go to machines, which took most of the jobs America lost in the last decade.

BenDor's research shows restoration jobs are evenly divided between white-collar planners, designers, and engineers and the green-collar guys doing the actual earth moving and site construction.

Almost all involve time in the great outdoors, and they can't be exported or done by robots.

9.   The Jobs are Cost-Effective

Because restoration work is labor-intensive, the money goes to people instead of machines, and every $1 million invested generates 33 jobs on average. Every $1 million invested in oil, on the other hand, generates 5.2 jobs per $1 million invested. In coal, the figure is 6.9 jobs.

10.  It Doesn't Stifle Business

Some industry groups claim the Endangered Species Act blocks development, but researchers reviewed 88,000 consultations between 2008 and 2015 and found that no projects had been stopped or even changed in a major way to protect habitat.

Even proponents of the system concede, however, that the permitting process is slow and tedious.

11.  It Can Be Improved

While the Fish and Wildlife Service administers credits for mitigation of endangered species, the Army Corps of Engineers approves mitigation credits for streams and wetlands, and they're notoriously underfunded. This leads to long and costly delays, according to unpublished research that BenDor conducted with Daniel Spethmann of Working Lands Investment Partners and David Urban of Ecosystem Investment Partners.

Delays are so costly, they argue, that companies in the restoration sector might be better off paying 50-fold higher permitting prices that would give the agencies the staff needed to properly process permits, akin to expedited building permits, rather than paying banks the interest on loans for land where environmental improvements are being held up.

Pet Health Insurance

If you consider your dog or cat to be a member of the family, you are not a pet owner -- you are a "pet parent." There's a vast difference, according to Robert Jackson, CEO of HealthyPaws.com, a pet insurance provider.

Jackson's company, he says, provides health and accident insurance benefits to people who would "do anything" to save their pets. But "anything" can be expensive! The costs of an emergency surgery or a stay in intensive care could easily ring up a bill of $3,000 or more -- as I recently learned when my Yorkie needed surgery.

Pet health insurance is not designed to cover the ordinary annual costs of owning a pet such as vaccinations, health examinations and regular teeth cleaning, which, according to the American Pet Products Association, costs the average cat owner $196 and the average dog owner $233.

Should you consider buying health insurance for your pet? In recent years, it has become a far more respected product. Consumer Reports has studied the "best buys" of pet insurance, concluding that if you choose wisely, the odds are good that your policy will pay for itself at some point in your pet's life.

There are even websites such as PetInsuranceReview.com that compare premium costs and coverages on pet health policies. HealthyPaws.com consistently gets high ratings based on its pricing and reliable payment of claims.

If you're thinking about getting pet medical insurance, here are five things you should know:

--The cost of coverage depends on the age of the pet, the breed (and there is a category for mixed breeds) and your zip code. An online calculator on HealthyPaws.com gives instant quotes.

You can lower the premium by agreeing to pay a higher deductible or co-pay. A popular option at Healthy Paws is a $200 deductible with 80 percent coverage with a 20 percent copay. For a small, young dog, that works out to about $25 per month, which is automatically renewed on your credit card until you cancel.

--Not all costs are covered. Again, pet insurance is not meant for the ordinary annual costs of owning a pet. Annual heartworm tests and meds, shots and dental are not covered in most policies. But you are typically covered for expenses in case of an accident, emergency or illness -- including cancer, hereditary and congenital conditions, surgery, diagnostic treatments, prescription drugs and a long list of other potential costs.

--The costs of covered care are reimbursed. HealthyPaws has simplified the payment of claims with its own app. You can simply take a photo of the bill and upload it to submit your claim, which is reimbursed promptly. Jackson notes that in some emergency situations the company will work with the vet to pre-approve the costs and pay the bill directly to the animal hospital.

--Coverage starts 15 days after the application is approved. You don't need to send in your pet's medical records until you file a claim. Then the company will quickly check with the vet and reimburse you for your costs, after you have satisfied the deductible and made the co-payment.

--More tips: Buy insurance when your pet is young. Pets with pre-existing conditions cannot be covered, so it's best to buy when you first get your dog or cat. Also, while all breeds are covered, there is one major exclusion: A one-year waiting period for coverage for hip dysplasia for certain breeds such as German shepherds, prone to this condition. And you cannot purchase new coverage for this condition after the pet is 6 years old.

Is pet insurance worth the cost? That all depends on whether your furry friend leads a charmed life or whether its nine lives are marred by as many veterinary interventions. But unlike paying for an extended warranty on an appliance that can be replaced if it really breaks down, the costs of a pet illness are unlimited and potentially very expensive. And, as I now know personally, that's The Savage Truth.

Bay Area Floats 'Sanctuary In Transit Policy' To Protect Commuting Immigrants

Clearly unfazed by President Donald Trump’s promise to crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” Bay Area Rapid Transit will consider adopting a “sanctuary in transit policy” to protect undocumented immigrants using its public rail system.

The measure calls for limiting collaboration between BART police and federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a press release from BART board member Lateefah Simon. 

In a statement accompanying the release, Simon, who introduced the measure along with board member Nick Josefowitz, said that all BART riders, regardless of immigrations status, should be able to commute to work without fear of being unduly targeted. 

“Over 500,000 undocumented immigrants have made Bay Area their home,” she said. “Many of these community members use BART to get to their jobs, school, and places of worship in their communities. Local enforcement needs to focus on keeping our communities safe, rather than becoming entangled in federal immigration efforts.”

The Bay Area cities of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Berkeley are among cities nationwide to declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and adopt immigrant-friendly policies. Loosely, the term refers to jurisdictions that have chosen to not fully cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts.

Last month, just days into his presidency, Trump signed an executive order in which he threatened to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding to use shaming tactics for those that refuse to assist in deportation efforts. 

“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” Trump’s order declares. “These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.”

Immediately, officials in cities like San Francisco and New York said they planned to fight back. As San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D) put it, “nothing has changed.”

If Thursday’s meeting is any indication, the board may very well be on its way to adopting the transit policy. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, members of the public and several BART directors, including board president Rebecca Saltzman, voiced support for the measure. 

“I can’t tell you how scary it is to just walk down the streets these days,” said Sabiha Basrai, a 34-year-old Muslim immigrant, according to the Chronicle. “It means a lot to me to know that BART is making a clear statement that BART is for all of us and we should ride without fear.”

The board’s motion at Thursday’s meeting directs BART’s Operations & Safety Committee to take up the proposed policy at its next meeting, according to a release. 

In fiscal year 2016, BART received nearly $100 million in federal funds, KQED News reports. 

Battling Menthol Restrictions, R.J. Reynolds Reaches Out To Sharpton, Other Black Leaders

Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton, in October at an Oakland, Calif., church forum about the impact of banning menthol cigarettes. (Photo by Rachel Loyd/Oakland North)

By Myron Levin, FairWarning

Tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, the top seller of the menthol cigarettes favored by most black smokers, is seizing on the hot button issue of police harassment of blacks to counter efforts by public health advocates to restrict menthol sales.

In recent months, the company has quietly enlisted black groups and leaders, including civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton and ex-Florida Congressman Kendrick B. Meek, to hold meetings at prominent black churches on the theme of “Decriminalizing the Black Community.” Sharpton and Meek, along with speakers from groups involved in criminal justice reform, have warned of the unintended consequences of banning cigarettes with the minty, throat-numbing additive–namely, the risk of creating an underground market and giving police new reasons to lock up black males. The meetings have been held at churches in Minneapolis, Los Angeles and Oakland, and in other forums.

Reynolds makes Newport cigarettes, the most popular menthol and the No. 2 U.S. cigarette brand overall, with a market share of nearly 14 percent. The company has paid travel costs for the panelists and contributed to their organizations, according to the panelists and Reynolds spokesman David Howard. However, promotional flyers (here, here and here) suggest that Sharpton and his National Action Network are the main sponsors of the meetings, rather than the tobacco company.

Anti-smoking advocates have blasted the campaign as deceptive and a scare tactic. “How can the tobacco industry care about criminalization when they don’t even care about killing you?’’ said LaTrisha Vetaw, who attended a Jan. 25 meeting at the Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis, where a few dozen people turned out to hear Sharpton and be treated to a lunch of chicken, mashed potatoes, green beans and cake.

‘Unintended consequences’ of a ban

Sharpton led protests against police abuses following the death in New York City of Eric Garner, an incident frequently invoked at the meetings. Garner died in July, 2014, after police put him in a chokehold while arresting him for allegedly selling untaxed single cigarettes, or “loosies.” But in his remarks in Minneapolis, Sharpton said repeatedly that he had not made up his mind about a menthol ban, according to a tape of the meeting. “I am not on either side of the argument,” he said. ”I want to hear and listen.”

In an interview with FairWarning, Sharpton said Meek, a Reynolds consultant who serves as moderator at the meetings, ”asked us to consider the unintended consequences of a menthol ban,” and also asked him to appear at several of the churches. Sharpton said he expects the National Action Network to take a position on a menthol ban at its convention in April.

Meek, who could not be reached, is a former Florida highway patrolman later elected to Congress, serving four terms in the House of Representatives before losing to Marco Rubio in the 2010 race for U.S. Senate. Over the years, the tobacco industry contributed $202,510 to his congressional campaigns and leadership political action committee, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Meek received $104,342 of that in the 2009-10 campaign cycle, more than any other member of Congress except North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr.

Meek and the others have stressed that they aren’t in favor of smoking. “We have to deter smoking, okay,” Meek said at the Minneapolis meeting. “But we also have to make sure that…we’re not giving tools to law enforcement” to ensnare more young blacks in the criminal justice system.

There is almost no chance of a menthol ban at the federal level. But as reported by FairWarning, some local officials and anti-smoking groups have taken up the cause of regulating menthol sales. In Chicago, sales of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, are banned within 500 feet of high schools. In Berkeley, Calif., a law that took effect January 1 prohibits such sales within 600 feet of schools. Advocates in Minneapolis and St. Paul, where menthol cigarettes are exempted from an ordinance restricting sales of flavored tobacco products to adult-only tobacco shops, are trying to repeal the menthol exemption.

Menthols account for about 30 percent of U.S. cigarette sales, but are the choice of more than 80 percent of black smokers and more than half of smokers under age 18, according to research cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 47,000 African Americans die annually from smoking related causes, according to agency estimates.

There is no evidence that menthols are more toxic than other cigarettes. But health authorities describe menthol cigarettes as a starter product, saying menthol anesthetizes the throat, helping beginners to tolerate the harshness of tobacco smoke so they are more likely to become addicted. For these reasons, said a 2013 report by the Food and Drug Administration, it is “likely that menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes”–a conclusion cigarette makers hotly reject.

The landmark 2009 law that authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products included a ban on candy, fruit and spice cigarette flavorings because of their appeal to young smokers. But Congress punted on menthol, directing FDA to do research on whether it, too, should be restricted or banned. In 2013, the FDA put out a call for comments on a possible menthol ban, but has done nothing since, and there appears to be almost no chance the Trump administration will act.

‘Being ahead of the issue’

Along with Sharpton and Meek, speakers at the Reynolds-sponsored meetings have included John I. Dixon III, former president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, which lists Reynolds American Inc. , parent of R.J. Reynolds, as one of its corporate partners. Other panelists have been Neill Franklin, a former Maryland State Police narcotics officer and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership; and Art Way, Colorado state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Franklin said his group, whose focus is ending the war on drugs, received $75,000 from Reynolds in 2016 but is not controlled by any of its donors. “My place in this is to give education to people about what potentially could happen if there is a ban,” he told FairWarning. “To me, it’s being ahead of the issue.”

Way said opposing a menthol ban is a ”natural fit” with his group’s “general concerns over [the] black market and the kind of unintended consequences of banning popular substances… We say what we want to say,” and reach larger audiences, ”basically on Reynolds’ dime.”

The forums haven’t been limited to black churches. Last June, at the annual convention of the National Newspaper Publishers Association — the trade group for more than 200 African-American community newspapers–Meek, Dixon, Franklin and Way were listed on the program for a “Panel Discussion, Criminal Justice Reform–Hosted by RAI Services Company,” a reference to Reynolds. In 2015, Reynolds contributed $250,000 to the publishers association, according to a document posted on the company’s website.

“Yes, RAI has provided some funding to those organizations,” the Reynolds spokesman, Howard, said in an email to FairWarning. “We work with these organizations in an effort to engage in conversations to work to resolve controversial issues related to tobacco use in a responsible manner, while ensuring that any new rules or laws do not result in troubling unintended consequences.”

But Vetaw said the company is blowing smoke. The tobacco industry “is great at marketing … so they send celebrity Al Sharpton,” said Vetaw, who is policy and advocacy manager for the North Point Health and Wellness Center in Minneapolis. “A couple of people in the room said, ‘Well, Al Sharpton’s here so this must be important.‘”

Valerie Yerger, who attended an October meeting at the Beebe Memorial Cathedral in Oakland, had her microphone cut off when she tried to raise the issue of Reynolds’ involvement in the event, according to interviews and a report by Oakland North, a newspaper published by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Yerger, an associate professor of nursing at UC San Francisco who has researched the history of tobacco industry support for African-American groups, said the campaign shows that cigarette makers are continuing to use ‘influential black leaders and their organizations as a front group to promote industry interests.“

This story was reported by FairWarning (www.fairwarning.org), a nonprofit news organization based in Pasadena, Calif., that focuses on public health, consumer and environmental issues.

Personal Finance Checklist At Age 50

In a youth-oriented culture, it is easy to feel a little over the hill by the time you turn 50. When it comes to building wealth though, your 50s are the prime of your life - a period when you have a chance to emerge from debt, enjoy your peak earning years and start to see your investments make a serious contribution to your net worth.

To take advantage of this crucial phase of your financial life, it is important to understand some key factors that can help you make the most of your 50s.

Personal finance checklist at age 50

As you look over your financial situation once you turn 50, here are some things you should attend to:

1. Shift more heavily from borrowing to saving

Early in your career, accumulated savings are likely to be modest and it seems you are taking out one loan after another: student loans, car loans, home mortgages, etc. By the time you reach age 50 though, you should have greatly reduced your debt burden. In its place, you should see a growing portfolio of retirement assets. This is the type of trend that can feed on itself: the more you retire your debt, the more of your monthly budget can go to savings rather than loan payments.

2. Estimate your Social Security benefits

The U.S. Social Security Administration will provide you with a free projection of your retirement benefits based on your career earnings so far. While this will remain subject to change based on your subsequent earnings, by age 50 you should have enough of a track record to get a sense of what contribution Social Security will make to your retirement income. This projection can also help you start to think seriously about the pros and cons of retiring early or working longer to achieve the maximum annual benefit.

3. Reassess your retirement goals

In addition to Social Security, look at your other retirement savings and see how much income they project to provide. Knowing where you stand will help you make more concrete plans about the future, including when to retire and what kind of lifestyle to expect.

4. Use catch-up retirement saving opportunities

Looking at your projected Social Security benefits and your savings accounts relative to your goals may tell you that you have some catching up to do. Fortunately, the government gives you some catch-up opportunities in the form off additional tax-deferred retirement contributions to 401(k) or individual retirement account (IRA) plans that you can make once you turn 50. Use this as an incentive to start making extra contributions.

5. Keep your asset allocation aggressive

People often feel their investments should get more conservative as they get older, but age 50 is too soon to throttle back to a less growth-oriented asset allocation. At that age, you are probably still more than a decade away from retirement, and still have an investment time horizon of some 30 or so years stretched out ahead of you. Plus, if you are contributing heavily to your retirement plans, this positive cash flow will help smooth out some of the volatility from growth investments.

6. Update your will

If you first made a will when you started your family, you might find things are radically different by the time you turn 50. Your kids may be on the verge of adulthood and your net worth may be substantially greater, so it is a good time to take a fresh look at what provisions you've made for your survivors.

7. Don't be shy about discounts

Turning 50 makes you eligible for AARP membership. Don't let that make you feel old - just look at the discounts available, and think of it as an advantage you've earned.

8. Take advantage of senior checking accounts

Some banks offer checking accounts for older customers that have no monthly fees. Eligibility is often set at age 50, and with free checking getting harder to find these days, signing up for one of these accounts can be another advantage of getting older.

9. Survey your career opportunities

Since these can be your peak earnings years, you should assess whether your current employer is the best place to capitalize on those years, or whether you could do better somewhere else. To think more defensively, you should also take an honest look at whether your job skills need freshening up so your employer does not view you as out of date.

With proper attention to your finances, this could be your greatest decade for wealth building. After all, it is too late for procrastination and too early for slowing down. This is prime time.

More from Richard Barrington and MoneyRates.com:

Personal finance checklist for age 40

Turning 30? See this personal finance checklist

IRA money market accounts

Exxon Adviser Resigns Over Oil Giant's 'Targeted Attacks' On NGOs

A research scholar at New York University has resigned from Exxon Mobil Corp.’s External Citizenship Advisory Panel, citing what she calls the oil giant’s “targeted attacks” on environmental groups under former CEO Rex Tillerson’s watch.

In a letter this week to Exxon Mobil Foundation president Ben Soraci, Sarah Labowitz expressed her disgust with the company’s continued assault on organizations investigating whether Exxon covered up the risks of climate change.

Labowitz, a co-founder and co-director of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, told The Huffington Post that she has studied many companies facing serious public criticism, often in her field of human rights. For the most part, she said, “they don’t shoot the messenger ― which is what Exxon is doing.”

As Labowitz put it in her resignation letter to Soraci, “Few respond with the kind of vehemence and aggressive attack strategy that Exxon has executed over the last year.” 

Exxon’s current strain of legal trouble dates back to November 2015, when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the oil giant to obtain documents related to allegations that it had lied to the public and its investors about the risks of climate change. In March, a coalition of state attorneys general, including Maura Healey of Massachusetts, pledged to crack down on corporate climate fraud, after InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that Exxon executives were aware of the climate risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions but had funded research to cover up those risks and block solutions.

In June, Exxon hit back, filing a lawsuit against Healey in the company’s home state of Texas in an effort to bar a civil investigative demand from her office. Shortly thereafter, Labowitz told HuffPost, the company began advancing a conspiracy argument that she finds particularly troubling.

In October, Exxon filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, that sought to invalidate Schneiderman’s subpoena, arguing the investigations by the New York and Massachusetts AGs were “biased attempts to further a political agenda for financial gain.” The company claimed that “revelations from third-party disclosures about secret and deliberately concealed collaboration with anti-oil and gas activists and a private law firm” had shown the AGs were “incapable of impartial investigations” and were “attempting to silence political opponents.”

Exxon Mobil then turned its attention to non-governmental organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, warning them in a series of letters not to destroy or delete communications related to their probes of Exxon ― including communications with the press. The move hinted at future subpoenas. 

At that time, a company spokesman told HuffPost that Exxon had been left with no choice but to “vigorously defend” itself. To show what Exxon was up against, the spokesman shared a link to a draft agenda for a January meeting of environmental group leaders at the Rockefeller Family Fund. First covered by The Wall Street Journal in April and later published at The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative site, the letter appears to list several of the meeting participants’ common goals, including “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.”

Created in 2009, Exxon Mobil’s External Citizenship Advisory Panel consists of five independent experts and is tasked with reviewing the company’s corporate citizenship activities, including its effects on human rights and the environment. 

Labowitz, who had served on the panel since 2014, told HuffPost that she began to notice a pattern. She raised her concerns, both privately and during formal advisory meetings, and encouraged company leaders to find alternative approaches. 

Then last week, Exxon “doubled down,” as Labowitz put it. In court papers filed Feb. 1, Exxon wrote that the Massachusetts and New York AGs were “at the forefront of a conspiracy to violate ExxonMobil’s constitutional rights,” as E&E News reported. 

“I think that’s the wrong way to go,” Labowitz said. “I don’t think it’s helpful to them and I don’t think it’s helpful to society at large.”

In her scathing resignation letter, Labowitz argues that Exxon Mobil’s approach undermines democratic principles. “I am disappointed that instead of examining its own record and seeking to restore a respected place for itself in the public debate, Exxon has chosen to turn up the temperature on civil society groups,” the letter reads.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers told HuffPost that while the company regrets Labowitz’s decision to resign, it takes issue with some of her conclusions.

“We have never characterized any action by civil society representatives as illegal,” he said in an email. “What we have done is defend the company, on behalf of all shareholders, from politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit.”

“We did not start this,” Jeffers went on, “but will vigorously defend ourselves against false allegations and mischaracterizations of our climate research and investor communications.”

Labowitz’s departure comes just days after Tillerson, the former Exxon head, took over as President Donald Trump’s secretary of state. During his confirmation process, Tillerson faced serious questions about his ties to Russia and the company’s decades-long, well-documented climate change cover-up. He refused to discuss what the company knew about climate change and when it knew it, saying, “Since I’m no longer with Exxon Mobil, I can’t speak on their behalf.”

Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that Labowitz’s departure “speaks volumes” about the kind of corporate citizen Exxon is. 

“All companies try to protect themselves, but Exxon’s recent attacks have crossed a line,” Mulvey said in a statement. “Going after nonprofits and interfering with independent state investigations shows that ExxonMobil will stop at nothing to protect its bottom line. Ms. Labowitz took a bold stand against ExxonMobil’s climate deception and bullying.”

Mulvey urged other panel members to likewise call out the company’s behavior.

Ultimately, Labowitz says it will be important for Exxon to restore itself as a credible participant in the climate change discussion. If it continues down its current path, Labowitz believes it will do so at its own peril.

“I hope they find a way out of this. I don’t think that this kind of attack strategy is the way forward,” she said. “What happens if they win in arguing this is an illegal conspiracy? I think that it erodes their credibility in a way that is so unhelpful to them, and to the broader debate about the response to climate change.” 

Labowitz - ECAP - Feb 6 2017 by Chris DAngelo on Scribd

American Apparel Post-Mortem: A Lesson In Visionary Leadership

The beginning of 2017 came with disappointing news from American Apparel. As a crusader for domestic-made products, the retailer's weakness came not from its altruistic model, but from errant leadership and a reluctance to grow with market changes. A brand that had a strong identity and morals lost its way from the top down, ultimately leading to its demise through an acquisition and shuttering of its retail stores.

In the brand's infancy, founder and CEO Dov Charney displayed unique leadership and forward-thinking visions. The brand's identity began to evolve as early as 1997, becoming known as a no-frills American-made manufacturer of quality products that rejected what has become a standard practice of human exploitation in the apparel industry. It swiftly gained recognition, opening 150 stores after its first year and nearly doubling that in the next three years. It continued to gain traction and in 2008 company shares reached $14. Yet Charney's infamous reputation for inappropriate behavior and the company's inability to change with the industry caused it to sell recently to Gildan Activewear Inc, a Canadian clothes manufacturer.

Contract Help from Employees
The signs were there. Once a desired workplace destination, in recent years American Apparel's ratings on sites like Glassdoor.com have plunged, with comments from current and former employees deriding the culture and leadership. A proactive leadership team will internalize this kind of feedback to 1.) determine if the gripes are legitimate, and if so 2.) concoct an action plan that addresses the issues.

In a similar vein, strong leadership will take time to walk through their company and hear what employees from every level have to say about their jobs. Usually problems arise for employees that work with the product or customers every day and can identify what is not working.

For example, talking with a store-level employee might yield information about displays that work and don't. Factory-level employees, while not high on the org chart, can likewise be valuable sources of information about supply chain issues and specifically what is not working.

These criticisms can be the biggest assets to your company. Documenting these ideas then trying to find solutions can move your brand to leading the industry rather than just playing catch-up. It has been publicly reported that previous American Apparel leadership had significant mismanagement the brand, creating a ripple effect that led to disorganization and the dissatisfaction plainly evident on Glassdoor.

Create a Culture of Engagement
So what is the solution? A Hay Group poll found that engaged employees showed 43 percent more productivity. Engagement can come in the form of encouragement, transparency and integration in company happenings. Having employees understand how their work contributes to the overall company's goals can help engage employees.

Transparency between employees and leadership can also give employees the confidence to approach leadership to raise concerns and bring ideas. Target recently used this model in their internal communication to create a culture of togetherness and inclusion. That culture will allow your employees to feel empowered rather than hindered to contribute.

Conversely, when your brand and its leadership are at loggerheads over litigation, remaining silent only breeds unease and anxiety.

Embrace Change
Since its founding, American Apparel remained positioned as a young-ish, niche brand that marketed with controversial sexualized advertising. The campaigns had stayed relatively similar all through its life. Many consumers knew what to expect and did not see much change in their product.

But some things did change. For instance, the age-old axiom that "sex sells" has, during the dawn of a new era in social justice and gender equality voices, weathered criticism. A look at the brand's arc of advertising sees a relentless adherence to this strategy, even as the world around it changed.

Responding to changing market forces and consumer trends is as important as good ideas themselves. American Apparel had a strong business model - producing quality products without human exploitation - but failed to hammer home that message in marketing their products. Operationally, the brick-and-mortar outlet failed to innovate online and create a strong online shopping presence.

Perhaps these changes could have saved the company, or at least staved off bankruptcy a bit longer, but they are far from the only brand to meet this kind of demise. The scandal with their then-CEO - and the failure to replace him in a timely fashion - stunted their growth and ultimately their demise. One important role of leadership is to continue to look forward for the brand, even when that means cleaning house.

Remember Brand Identity
While change can mean growth, forgetting your brand and confusing your consumers can be detrimental. Your brand identity is set to tell the story of your company in a clear, consistent voice. It is what consumers will connect with and learn to trust. Brand loyalty has become as strong as advertising in the past years; consumers will forgive a company numerous failures if they feel the brand is connected to them. Keeping your brand in mind when you are thinking of taking the company in a new direction can help your consumers feel comfortable and enthusiastic with the change.

American Apparel made the mistake of not reiterating why they were spending $30 for a T-shirt. Its original mission was to produce quality American products without exploiting its labor force. This message was not reinforced in its marketing and consumers began to seek cheaper, faster fashion. Its failure to advertise its message led to its failure when the change to fast fashion dominated the market.

While Dov Charney brought a strong vision and a commendable mission to the apparel industry, he also became a distraction that drew attention from the core product and inhibited the leadership's ability to keep up with market trends. True visionary leadership doesn't only come from visionary individuals. Constant auditing and contribution from all employees will help your brand stay on top of its needs and the needs of consumers. Innovation is a very delicate to get right and see through to success. It's a moving target. If you miss it often enough, you will find yourself out of chances.