The danger of Cheap and Plentiful

At Salon.com, Stephanie Zacharek explains that cheap and plentiful goods are not a good idea. Her article is a review of a new book, "Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture," by Ellen Ruppel Shell. Here's how Zacharek's bottom line regarding Shell's book:

The wealth of cheap goods available to us doesn't make our lives better; instead, it fosters an environment that endangers not just the jobs of American workers but the idea of human labor, period.

It turns out that Shell is not only picking on Wal-Mart. She's talking about those mass-farmed shrimp, as well as trendy stores like IKEA. "We no longer expect craftsmanship in everyday objects; maybe we don't feel we even deserve it."

Continue ReadingThe danger of Cheap and Plentiful

Ripped off? Go get an attorney! But wait . . . you won’t find one.

Think of all the times that merchants have ripped people off. Sometimes it’s a line-item that jacked up your bill. You called and complained, but you eventually gave up and ate the $3.50 after making four phone calls without satisfaction. Sometimes, you bought an appliance and after getting home discovered that it wasn’t as it was promised, but the merchant refused to take it back. Or it might be a $1,000 piece of electronics. Only after the warranty expired, it became clear that it didn’t function as promised. Maybe it’s a used car that you bought for $2,500 and right after driving it off the lot you discovered that it literally wouldn’t go, certainly not at highway speeds, and that the dealer knew of the problem but refused to refund your money. Consider the many complicated financial transactions you’ve signed, credit cards, car loans, or payday loans. What do you do if you notice you’ve been ripped off, but the amount of damages you’ve suffered is relatively small, less than $3,000? You go get an attorney, right? Wrong. You won’t find an attorney to handle cases in this range unless an attorney decides to help you as a favor or “pro bono.” Why not? Because it is a time-consuming task to open a case, file it, prepare for trial and represent a consumer in a trial. It can take dozens of hours to get a decision in the trial court, and then the defendant, who is often represented by a high-priced attorney, can appeal the case, delaying the result for another year. The net result is that consumers who have been ripped off for less than $3,000 (and, actually, much greater amounts too) will have only one real option to litigate their claim: at the small claims court where they will represent themselves.

Continue ReadingRipped off? Go get an attorney! But wait . . . you won’t find one.

President Obama to review job performance of each American

Onion Network News is reporting that President Barack Obama is already in the process of sitting down with each and every American worker to review his or her job performance. Not that there aren't some glitches in the process. Here's the Onion's report:
Obama To Hold Job Performance Review With Every American Worker

Continue ReadingPresident Obama to review job performance of each American

Longitudinal study tells us what makes people happy

What makes people happy? On quite a few occasions, I've posted at DI with regard to ideas that I learned through reading various books and articles (a search for "happiness" in the DI search box will give you dozens of articles). What does that reveal about me, I wonder? Today, I had the pleasure of reading an extraordinarily thoughtful article on this same topic: "What Makes Us Happy?" by Joshua Wolf Shenk appears in the June 2009 edition of The Atlantic. You'll find an abridged edition of the article here. Shenk's article is anchored by the Harvard Study of Adult Development, the longest running longitudinally study of mental and physical well-being in history. It was begun in 1937 in order to study "well-adjusted Harvard sophomores (all male), and it has followed its subject for more than 70 years." The study was originally known as "The Grant Study," in that it was originally funded by W.T. Grant. Despite all odds, the study has survived to this day--many of the subjects are now in their upper 80's. Along the way, the study was supplemented with a separate study launched in 1937 dedicated to studying juvenile delinquents in inner-city Boston (run by criminologists Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck). You'll enjoy Joshua Shenk's work on many levels. He writes with precision, providing you with a deep understanding of the featured longitudinal studies. You will also enjoy his seemingly effortless ability to spin engaging stories (there are dozens of stories within his article) and his exceptional skill at crafting highly readable prose. I'm writing this post as a dare, then. Go forth and read Shenk's article and I guarantee that you will be thoroughly enriched and appreciative. The Atlantic also provided a video interview of George Vaillant, now 74, who since 1967 has dedicated his career to running and analyzing the Grant Study. As you'll see from Shenk's article, Vaillant is an exceptional storyteller himself. The Atlantic article, then, might remind you of one of those Russian dolls, and that is a storyteller telling the story of another storyteller who tell stories of hundreds of other storytellers. For more than 40 years, Vaillant has not only gathered reams of technical data, but he has poured his energy into interviewing the subjects and their families and melding all of that data into compellingly detailed vignettes of the subjects. Telling stories is not ultimately what the study was supposed to be about, of course, and Vaillant also tells us what those stories mean for the rest of us. Truly, what makes people happy? Vaillant offers answers that you will be tempted to immediately apply to your own situation. Vaillant has a lot to say about "adaptations," how people respond to the challenges they face in life. As a Shenk explains,

Continue ReadingLongitudinal study tells us what makes people happy

FDA: Cheerios is claiming to be a drug

This news is astounding: The FDA, which for many years has worked hard to serve as a lapdog for its industry masters (not the taxpayers), has recently woken up and taken a real stand. The FDA has charged that Cheerios is "misbranded" as a drug that prevents and treats high cholesterol and heart disease. Caveat: The FDA warning letter doesn't cover all of the health claims on boxes of Cheerios. Here's an excerpt from the FDA warning letter to General Mills:

Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. Specifically, your Cheerios® product bears the following claims on its label:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks" " • "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol."

These claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, the claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in the treatment, mitigation, and prevention of coronary heart disease through, lowering total and "bad" (LDL) cholesterol. Elevated levels of total and LDL cholesterol are a risk factor for coronary heart disease and can be a sign of coronary heart disease. Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321 (g)P)(B)].

I applaud the FDA's actions. Many food products are covered with comparable health claims, yet (until now) the claims have not been scrutinized by anyone other than the manufacturers. I suspect that a huge percentage of these claims would not hold up to an independent scientific review. I also suspect that many consumers make their food purchase choices based on these sorts of claims, many of them unsubstantiated. To the extent that a manufacturer gets a competitive leg up by making an unsubstantiated claim, this is an unfair practice that hurts manufacturers who are not stretching the truth. Now, the FDA will take a look at these claims of General Mills, and hopefully thousands of other food manufacturers, and we'll then see how many of those now-ubiquitous health claims start disappearing from products on the shelves. Too bad there's not an organized produce and grain industries that spends big money plastering signs all over produce departments (and billboards) telling people how good it is to eat fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and also telling consumers that there is no need to buy expensive processed food in wasteful packaging to be healthy. There's so many health claims stamped onto food products that walking down the grocery aisle makes me think I'm at a NASCAR event. I'm not trying to blast the makers of Cheerios here. My kids eat it--sometimes I do too. Perhaps these claims on the Cheerios boxes are justified. But let us investigate. Let us really find out before we allow the grocery aisle health claim wars to continue.

Continue ReadingFDA: Cheerios is claiming to be a drug