The Value Exchange

I hear a great deal about the challenges of running a business in the post-pandemic world. There is seemingly a strained relationship between management and labor. There are expectations on both sides of the equation and for whatever reason those are not always in sync. This leads some to despair for the future. It leads to complaints from both sides of the relationship. 

Technology is changing the workplace. One might see major milestones in the industrial revolution (1760-1840), the digital revolution that began in the mid-1950s, the information revolution that began in the mid-1980s,  the smartphone revolution earlier this century, the social media revolution that followed, or the artificial intelligence revolution of today. Change has been a challenge. Management and labor likely have different views of each successive innovation, and there has been recent strife in the relationship.

I have had students give me the "o.k. boomer" for which they hold such an affinity. They find my advice on the working world arcane and out-of-touch. They are genuinely and sincerely convinced that the world cannot work in the manner I describe in class. While I respect their perspective, I think the world does in fact work in that manner. To wit:

1. The world of work is a value exchange. In simple economic terms, the employer/employee relationship turns on the perceptions each has of what "value" means.
2. The world of work is persistently evolving.
3. Skills are needed for success, and this is true for both sides of the equation.
4. Employers and employees are likely to differ as to the value of contributions.
5. Some degree of ymbiosis is necessary, that is both parties must perceive benefit.

I came across a story recently about a college graduate "upset" at the burdens of work. She posted a video on social media complaining about the 40-hour work week, her commute to/from work, and the dent that effort puts in one's life. She complains that she cannot afford to live closer to work, and thus must commute. In a word, the real point is that life is not fair. Or, that life is hard. Yes, both of those is true. 

Commenters apparently were largely on her side of things. Some commented that it is time for a four-day workweek. Others explained that 40 hours is not necessary for productivity. The article cites some shorter workweek proponents who both concede that a 4-day week results in less productivity and nonetheless proclaim the benefits it yields in "work-life balance." 

In another example, a recent college graduate laments the challenge of finding work. She "branded college as a scam," and complained about the debt she chose to incur to obtain a degree. Despite her college degree, she has been unable to locate entry-level work in her chosen field. That is, entry-level work that pays a significant six figures.  She laments that her current occupation as a server pays better than those entry-level marketing jobs. She expected perhaps too much from college?

There is, fortunately, a World Wide Web out there with lots of data. Several provide expectations of potential earnings from degree-dependent work. Job search sites also provide data. 

This poster has incurred $80,000 in debt and has "a bone to pick with America." The country, somehow, is responsible for her career choice, borrowing choice, and unrealistic (see data sites above) expectations, according to The Daily Mail. As a new college graduate, she laments "'the jobs that are $150,000-$200,000 a year, I'm not getting those." Who ever led her to believe that a bachelor's degree in marketing would yield such a six-figure income is to blame. Or, perhaps the graduate bears some responsibility for not checking the wealth of contrary data on the internet before investing that $80,000?

I hear it. "O.k. Boomer." Sure, what do I know? I get it. I am old and out of touch. Perhaps my lack of familiarity with the latest social media renders me clueless. Or, perhaps my worldview of hard work and sacrifice render my perspectives less than persuasive. 

Well, where does the money come from to pay a salary? Somehow, the business doing the hiring has to generate income. It does that through selling some product or service. That has to bring value to its customers. If you are providing someone a good or service that does not enhance their existence in some way, does not bring them value, then they will not consume it. That is a simple fact.

In the same manner, if an individual does not bring value to the production of that good or service, then the employer is not benefitted. If the employer is not benefitted by that employee, in the production, maintenance, marketing, etc. of its good or service, then the business does not need that employee.

If it takes four full-time employees a full work week (40 hours) to produce the product or service that is being sold for $10,000 to a customer, using the $65,810 per year salary that Indeed says might be a reasonable marketing salary expectation (not necessarily "starting," but average), then those labor inputs cost ($65,810/4 52 weeks = $1,265.58, times 4 employees = $5,062.31). Without rent, taxes, and a slew of other expenses, the labor cost in this example is about 50%.

The input is four employees at 40 hours, that is 160 hours of labor to produce this income. Well, if the work week is fewer hours per employee (say 32 for a 4-day week), then that 160 hours now requires 5 employees. The labor cost (a "variable" in this instance) is now $6,327.90. It has escalated from 50% to 65%, plus additional facility space, oversight/management costs, and more. Will the customer pay more, $11,266, so that the employer's margins stay similar with these four-day workers, or will the customer buy from some competitor whose input costs are lower? If the business has no customers, how will it pay anyone anything? How will it stay in business?

The employee has to remember these simplicities. What value do you bring to the exchange? Do you somehow bring $200,000 of value to the employer such that a salary of that amount is worthwhile to that business? Do your efforts generate sales or consumption of the employer's product or service that draws that kind of revenue? Are you capable of bringing three times the effort, expertise, and contribution to the table compared to the employee earning the rational (or published at least) $65,810? If not, consider why the company would not hire three workers at $65,810 each instead of hiring you for $200,000.

The simple answer is this. If you draw that kind of revenue to the business, then you can logically demand that kind of salary. If you are bringing that kind of value, making that kind of production, the business should be happy to compensate you at those levels. This is a win-win for the business. Your success is their success. And if the business will not pay you, and you can draw that kind of revenue, then abandon them and open your own shop. 

Know this also. Running a business is not as easy as it looks. It will require sacrifice, investment, time, labor, and (I hate to say it) likely blood, sweat, and tears. It is a persistent challenge of managing costs of inputs (materials, labor, rent, taxes, and more), and finding and convincing willing consumers of the value of outputs. See, if your competitors can provide the product or service with three employees, and you require four to accomodate that idealic 32-hour work week, then your customers may be driven to your competition. If so, your company loses customers, sales, and revenue. If your company loses enough, it may fold. It may be unable to compete in a dynamic market. 

If it was easy, everyone would do it. Trust me, it is not easy. O.K. Boomer. What do you know? Well, I know I have worked for a multitude of businesses (over 20). I have managed several processes, departments, or facilities. I have started and run businesses. I have had to hold more than one job at a time to produce the income my lifestyle choices demanded. I have had a few years to study a multitude of inputs, outputs, expectations, and failures. I'm old, antiquated, and approaching obsolete. But, I have been there and done that. 

That said, there is no reason to be treated badly. It is not a reason to allow anyone to undervalue you and your contributions. You should absolutely value yourself, respect your own boundaries, and expect others to as well. But that relationship with work will persist for a long time. Most people will labor around 40 years. It is not easy, rarely fun, and that is why they call it work. If it was easy, fun, and without stress, oh what a wonderful world that would be. But let's stick with reality. 

That is not to say you cannot enjoy it. You can. That is not to say that you cannot benefit. You can. That said, expecting to earn $150,000 or $200,000 as a new college graduate is not realistic for the vast majority of workers. Expecting to be able to live in expensive neighborhoods as a new graduate is not realistic. Expecting to have lots of free time, leisure, and minimal stress is not realistic.

That is frustrating. True. It is challenging. True. It is exhausting. True. It is not new. You are not unique. And things will improve with time. When you grow and can bring that value to the employer, it will either pay you commensurately or lose you to its competition (which might be the company you start). There is some tendency to think the old folks had it easier. But I know lots of old folks who scrubbed dishes, waited tables, made deliveries, lifted packages, and worked multiple jobs simultaneously (I have done all that and more). You can call me names and discount my experiences, but you have never walked a single step in my shoes. 

Success may come in time. You may grow into the world, gather and leverage experience, and derive increasing value with decreasing effort as you mature and evolve. But to expect that as a new graduate or when entering the workforce is not realistic. Those expectations will lead to disappointment, frustration, and even upset. Those emotions will not likely be positive for you. Do not invest in college degrees that are economically misaligned with your expectations. Study those probable salaries before picking a path. Pick a path after you have carefully examined your desires (what you like to do) and your expectations (the income, work life, etc). 

Do not borrow money to obtain anything without careful research and introspection. Whether it is an education, a car, a house, or anything, you are making an investment. What do you expect of that investment? Can you reasonably expect a return? Will that car be dependable? Will that house be resaleable? Will that career bring fulfillment or income or both? Study that before you buy that thing. Figuring out the challenge of that consumption after you spent the $80,000 can be frustrating. If I emotionally invest $80,000 buying a combine and then find it is not ideal as a commuting vehicle, shall I complain that America is to blame for my decision, my uncomfortable and slow commute? No, I bought the combine. I selected the vehicle. I have to learn from that, drive the combine, and perhaps make a better choice next time. 

So, set reasonable expectations and make plans. Study and weigh before you consume. Ask old folks about their perspectives and let them help you; they really want to help. Do not forego the work-life balance. Respect yourself, your value, and your needs. However, do not expect to earn a full-time salary for a part-time effort. Do not expect to earn three times the average salary in a career if you do not bring significantly more value than others who work there. Will your customer pay you three times the price for something they could as easily buy from a competitor? To earn above average, you will likely find you must produce above average. 

Get over the "fair" and the "I want." In the end, no one is looking out for you to the degree that you are. Life will bring reward and sacrifice. There will be ups and downs. All of it will enhance you, and you will grow. There is great value in being productive, active, and achieving. Go at that with gusto. But do so realistically and with appreciation for the fact that work is a value exchange. What value do you bring, what value does your employer or customer(s) bring, what relationship between those is practical and acceptable to you? 

Words, Meanings, and Questions

Words have meaning. They are the tool of lawyers everywhere, and the law often turns on the use of them. The expressions may be in statute or contract. They may be written or spoken. Their meaning may be patent, or subject to interpretation. There are times that even the punctuation between them will bring meaning or doubt. See I Never Knew Oxford had a Comma (March 2017).

Long ago, judges began to establish rules of construction. These are paragonal constructs through which the courts strive to bring predictability to the law, and structure to their work. The use of words is given structure. The Florida First District provided a broad overview of these in City of Bartow v. Flores, 301 So. 3d 1091, 1096–97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020):

"When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning ... the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.’ ” Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. New Sea Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So. 2d 954, 960 (Fla. 2005)."

"In construing a statute, we presume that the Legislature knows the meaning of the words it uses and that it intends to employ those meanings in the statute. Overstreet v. State, 629 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1993)."

"The Legislature's use of differing language in the same statute is a sign the Legislature intended varied meanings. Carlson v. State, 227 So. 3d 1261, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“The legislative use of different terms in different portions of the same statute is strong evidence that different meanings were intended.”)."

These are examples, there are other citations provided in that interpretation, including a secondary source written by a former United States Supreme Court Justice. These are illustrations of the manner in which maxims have evolved and of the importance that words have.

It may be important that the "varied meanings" expression is focused upon use in the "same statute." Nonetheless, the use of words is subject to far broader interpretation. When writing, one faces the challenges of words. They can be powerful, useful, persuasive, and distracting, confusing, and vexing. Words convey import. We learn that at a young age. Perhaps the reader remembers Alice in Wonderland and the intriguing exchange between a novice and all too frustrating Leporidae?

The furry mammal's interchange with Alice, including interjections from others, went:

“Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.

"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least-at least I mean what I say-that's the same thing, you know."

"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"

"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"

"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"

"It is the same thing with you." said the Hatter

Is it, in fact the same thing? Is meaning what you say of value? Is saying what you mean of value? But in the end, more importantly, do the two phrases in fact mean the same as Alice assures, or are they so different as compelled by the Hatter, Hare, and Dormouse? As an aside, should any of us be garnering grammatical advice from such a cast?

Are words synonyms or are they merely similar? What do we mean when we employ them? And in the end, what is the purpose of words but to inform? Perhaps if you are Lewis Carroll or Charles Dodgson, you will have a gift for words. Or, perhaps you are willing to work hard to craft and draft, substituting elbow grease for talent. But you may also be a simple reader as am I. You may crave the simplicity of one merely telling it like it is.

My reader, by now, is likely used to these exceedingly long introductions. There is a patience that allows one to reach this stage of a post without utter frustration. But here, in the end, I strive to get to the point. In recent months, there has been what some see as a trend in word use in Florida appellate decisions. There has been a seeming avoidance recently of the word "reversed."

In fairness, no judge has ever been enamored with the word "reversed." It is universally disliked. More than once, I have heard it described with energetic and even vulgar disdain. There is more of a split in sentiment among lawyers, as their perceptions somehow seem to depend on whether the word is used in their favor or their defeat. That is all-to-often true in the broadest view of individual proclivity and perception. A "roll tide," no matter how intended might engender a high-five or a face slap.

The questions began for me in early October 2023. I received an email when the appellate court published E. Coast Waffles, Inc. v. Haselden, __ So. 3d __; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). It summarized the outcome in all caps: "SET ASIDE."

As a broader "aside," not to quibble, but some perceive all caps as meaningful. 

What, I was asked frankly, does "set aside mean?" Was the decision "reversed?" Was the judge below intended to conduct further proceedings ("remanded?"). Upon further reflection, perhaps clarity dawns? The trial judge there found benefits due, and ordered the employer carrier to provide them. The appellate court nullified that order ("set aside"). Thus, the injured worker there failed to prove the case, and is entitled to nothing. Seemingly, perhaps, there is no point or purpose in further action by the trial judge. Fait accompli?

The topic came up again. On October 25, 2023, the appellate court rendered Siena v. Orange County, __ So. 3d __; __ Fla. L. Weekly D__; No. 1D2022-0958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). This case involved a JCC denying a benefit based upon an interpretation of a question of law. The appellate court disagreed with the denial and the outcome was a resounding "ORDER VACATED." Thus, the JCC order is of no import. Should the JCC rehear the case and decide if benefits are due? Are benefits due as a result of the court's conclusion?

Vacated: "to make legally void: ANNUL," according to Merriam-Webster. Perhaps "vacated" and "set aside" could be synonyms?

I was motivated to pursue further. I began pulling previous opinions of the court. In August, there was N. Collier Fire Control v. Harlem, __ So. 3d __; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). There, the question was of law through which the JCC had awarded compensability. Perhaps ironically in the context of this post, it was about interpretation of words. The appellate court concluded there with "Vacated." (no ALL CAPS). Notably, this interpretation of words included reference to some of the same touchstones mentioned in City of Bartow (above).

In August, the decision in Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, __ So. 3d __; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) was more simply "Vacate." Is there a distinction between past and present tense? Or, is this a typographical oversight?

In May, the decision in Churchill v. DBI Servs., LLC, 361 So. 3d 896, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) was a more familiar and perhaps commanding "REVERSED and REMANDED." There, the JCC denied compensability. Perhaps in that there is more necessity for further proceedings? But more so than in Siena? (above). Is the "reversed" more compelling? Is the "remanded" more instructive?

I have written before about the intriguing performance of Demi Moore in A Few Good Men (Columbia Pictures 1992). One of the great courtroom scenes of all time is not the "Perry Mason Moment" (copyright 2019) with Colonel Jessup ("you can't handle the truth"). The highlight for me is instead the criticism of Leitenant Weinberg (Kevin Pollak) "Oh! You strenuously object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider.” Uh, no. I think the "overruled" likely gets the job done there. Does the "vacated," the "set aside," or the "reversed?" Or, is there a point in the "remanded?" 

If the trial judge's order is no longer efficacious, then what? Something must follow. Is the trial judge able to proceed without the "remanded?" Seemingly so. Even in light of the "vacated" and "set aside" that are not accompanied by the "remanded?" I spoke with one scholar who suggested the recent absence of "remanded" is a recognition that perhaps the judicial branch is not able or willing to tell the executive branch what to do. That is, a separation of powers recognition might be inferred?

I am doubtful of that one for several reasons. The most pertinent, however, is the recent (May) employment of "remanded." But in fairness, there have been lots of "remanded" over the years and not a whisper of separation of powers. Not saying it couldn't be, but expressing sincere doubt. 

Is there distinction between "vacated" and "set aside?" At least some believe there is not ("There is no substantive difference between "setting aside" and "vacating" any judgment"). But that is just what some lawyers think. Thesaurus.com does not list "set aside" as a synonym when "vacate" is searched, nor vice-versa. Thus, perhaps they have the same import, but are not synonyms? Perhaps they are synonyms, but only in the legal context? 

The folks at Cornell Law School, a noted repository of legal definition and knowledge, seem to see at least similarity. In defining "set aside," the authors or editors there add "see also annul or vacate" In defining "vacate," the Cornell team says the meaning is "To set aside or annul." Perhaps the more narrowly focused legal definition supports these are synonyms despite the thesaurus?

Is there a difference between those two words and "reversed?" Believe it or not, there allegedly is (or at least was) a Style Manual that is used by the United States Supreme Court. I have never seen it, so "alleged." But, I read about it on the Internet and everyone knows you cannot put it on the Internet if it's not true. This style manual reportedly says:

"This Court should reverse if it deems the judgment below to be absolutely wrong, but vacate if the judgment is less than absolutely wrong. Questions in difficult cases should be directed to the Chief Deputy Clerk.”

Question one: the judge of the Supreme Court (presumably who wrote the style manual for that court and who make its decisions) should consult the clerk? I digress. 

Question two: that is the test? "Less than absolutely wrong?" I wish these people had represented me in my childhood debates with mother. She did not believe in something "less than absolutely wrong," did anyone's mother see grey area? 

Question three: does this seemingly recent foray away from "reversed" suggest that the appellate court has concluded that the feelings of the trial judge (or non-prevailing party) must be assuaged? Does someone feel better being "sort of reversed?" Can everyone in the case get a trophy? I knew a girl in high school who told people she was "sort of pregnant." Well, we all know how that "sort of" worked out. She "sort of" had a baby. 

Back to the good folks at Cornell, they say that "reversed" means the trial judge is wrong. They say reversal means:

"The result of reversal is that the lower court which tried the case is instructed to vacate the original judgment and retry the case."

So "reversed" maybe reaches the same result, but in addition to the spanking the trial judge in that instance must also "get the switch." Old folks perhaps will get that; the next generation has somehow struggled with it on the vast expanse of knowledge that is Reddit. Perhaps this reads too much into the "reversed," as it is never about the judge, reversed is always about the decision, error, and justice. I am always concerned with "I got reversed"; no, it was never about you. 

I arrive (as I so often do) at the conclusion of Mr. Spicolli, a great legal scholar and notorious gentleman (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Universal Pictures 1982): "I don't know." Mr. Hand loved the answer, and I am a bit enamored myself frankly. It almost always works (though it never did with Mom). 

Perhaps for clarity, it would be simpler for the courts to stick to a word that has no chance of confusion or misinterpretation? How about "affirmed?" Friesen v. Highway Patrol/Division of Risk Management, 364 So.3d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). I'm just sayin. 

Rebecca Solnit is purported to have said “you can use the power of words to bury meaning or to excavate it.” Perhaps there is merit in that. But, in the meantime, some suggestions*:

1. Anything other than "affirmed" means that the trial judge was wrong (quibble with degree or extent if you "sort of" wish). 
2. Anything but "affirmed" should cause the trial judge to take another look and ask introspectively "what could/should I do next?"
3. Any party to a case that desires further trial judge action following the issuance of a mandate should be prepared to seek it (file a motion?) if it does not come spontaneously.
4. Any party can advocate further trial judge action, or argue against it. Then the trial judge can make a decision. 
5. If the parties don't like that decision, they can seek review by the court. 

Or, perhaps there are better or other ways to interpret or proceed. That, you see, is up to you. But always remember that Mr. Spicoli's answer has merit. 

* This is a blog post expressing questions and ideas. It is not legal advice and is of no precedential authority whatever. This blog should not be cited in any legal proceeding except in the event of utter desperation. See Citing Authority (August 2023).

 

Purpose

What is the purpose of government? Some would posit various arguments, definitions, and thoughts. Perhaps what government brings is security and safety. I have suggested that it is when we fear for our safety that we cede our rights and convey power to government. See Citing Authority (August 2023).

Government may thrive, or languish. Through its action or inaction, people might be attracted to, complacent in, or driven from any locale. When it fails to deliver safety, we see tragedy. An example is Mali, which lacks stability. It has relied upon France, the United Nations, and armed mercenaries for security. Through it all, the country has been disunited according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (Inside Mali, August 2023). People there are reportedly suffering from violence, disease, and disfunction. 

When government fails in its primary function of security, people suffer. In the ancient past, I lived near "the City by the Bay" (Journey, Lights, CBS Records, 1978). That tune expresses "I want to get back to my City by the bay." Of course, more famous, Tony Bennet recorded I left my Heart in San Francisco back in 1962. That one forever romanticized the Golden City, the "Paris of the West."

I happened upon the locale in between the releases of those two mega hits. There was a time I was enthralled by the place, the people, and the atmosphere. Baz Luhrmann advised experiencing the world, including such locales. In his Everybody's Free (the "Sunscreen Song")(EMI, Capitol Records, 1999), he exalted:

Live in New York City once but leave before it makes you hard

Live in northern California once but leave before it makes you soft

I never lived in New York, but I both lived in northern California and left. Certainly, a great many have moved to California and stayed. But a great many have "been there, done that," and simply moved on. 

San Francisco was never a perfect place, is anywhere? But Mr. Bennet's song resonates with its rejection of New York, Rome, and Paris. No, he exalts the city "high on a hill," the "little cable cars," "chill in the air," "windy sea," and the "golden sun." It was, indeed, a magical place in my youth.

That is nostalgia. Even then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the quality of life in San Francisco had its detractors. There was a perception of danger in that city. Drugs were a perceived problem in the Haight Ashbury district. There were many "hippies" throughout the city, and there was discussion of changes in populations and the cost of living. I recall talk about the challenges in "the Tenderloin," the "Mission District" and "the Wharf." Despite my youth, I was aware of the dangers to some extent and strove to understand them. 

But, mine was a relatively secure existence across the wonderous Golden Gate in Marin County, and in a guarded community. That county was a miraculous place of extreme beauty that encompassed Samuel P. Taylor State Park, Point Reyes, Muir Woods, and more. It was a phenomenal place. I perhaps viewed it then through rose-colored glasses. But on several return trips since, my sentiment at its beauty has been affirmed. 

The area was perhaps never inexpensive. But in the years since my departure, it became incredibly expensive. The influx of technology and those who produce and manage it changed the "city by the bay." And the area changed in other ways. 

Drugs remained a challenge there. The rate of Drug use is notable according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. It notes that "21.9%" of the population "used any illicit drug in the past year." Pot use was 17%. Both of those exceed the rates "in California and the Nation." Many lamented the prevalence when I lived there. It has not apparently improved. There is seemingly some acceptance of drug use. 

San Francisco perceives a crime problem. The city contemplated in 2022 deploying "robocops" capable of deadly force. See These are the Good Old Days (December 2022). Also in 2022, we learned that retailers were closing stores. See Evolution in Economy (January 2022). We heard that people defecate on the sidewalks in the Paris of the West, such that an App was developed to help people avoid the poop. The city did not prevent the public hazard, but in a city of almost a million, it deployed a five-person crew to make an appearance of effort in cleaning it up.

I returned to Muir Woods this century. I found spots on the road that had collapsed. The solution was not to fix the roads, but to put orange cones there. Those warned drivers of the holes and the routine was for drivers in each direction to share the remaining lane at those junctures. The great state of California was unable or unwilling to patch its highways.

I returned to the Wharf on that trip. Unfortunately, I did not feel safe venturing beyond the Wharf itself. The food was fantastic, the scenery sublime, and the atmosphere appealing. But a few blocks off the water, the feeling was simply to return to the Wharf. There was a feeling of diminishing hospitability as one gained distance from the main tourist enclave.

There are those who decry California's approach to property crime. See Theft and Violence (May 2022). There are undoubtedly other cities and states that suffer from such challenges.

But since the pandemic, there is now a reference there to a "doom loop" in San Francisco. There is concern that economic realities may be damaging to "the City by the Bay." The Wall Street Journal has noted the potential. Others are discussing it also. In a recent message on X, the closure of a retail "flagship" in San Francisco was noted. The author of that X said “The city is in a doom spiral," and yet the author committed to remain there.

Some in those articles see the potential for violence as an extension of previous attitudes and responses (or lack) to seemingly more minor challenges. Some lament that challenges have migrated to what they perceive "used to be a good part of San Francisco.” There are those who strive to defend the city from perceptions of "doom," but even those who would "debunk-the-doom" are noting that overdose is prevalent there, and other challenges persist.

One concluded "that no one will catch you if you fall" there. Is there a better definition of community than there will in fact be others there to catch you? Perhaps. The city is now reportedly trying security guards, retired police, and at least once it appears the National Guard was deployed there. The theme seems to be public safety.

Local businesses are closing. National retailers are leaving. And there are those who see the police as the problem, choosing to preclude armed and uniformed police in their businesses. That is anecdotal, but a Google search will find more anecdotes. Despite the portrayal of "doom," there are those who see opportunity. The mall from which retailers have departed may be turned "into a soccer stadium." Would such a facility draw patrons?

What is the purpose of government?

San Francisco is not alone. Business Insider notes that "downtown vitality" is struggling in America. It suggests struggle in St. Louis, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, and Kansas City, Missouri." Those cited in that article support the contention that this is "a people problem, not a business problem." There are arguments that downtowns have been too focused on business, and have not been effective at addressing the desires and needs of people.

And there is the rub. There is no difference between people and business. Business is people. Those people are owners, managers, workers, visitors, and customers. All people. We work to survive, but also to self-actuate. Our interactions and engagements are very often either in our work in business or our patronage of business. It is incredible that one might view people and business as severable or even distinct.

Government has to make environs safe for people and business. If businesses are not secure and able to thrive, the San Francisco example demonstrates there will be closures. If the customers do not feel safe, they will not visit, and business will suffer and perhaps close. Sociologists and similar will lament the impact. Recent news on "pharmacy deserts" is in that vein. They will complain that businesses leave, but will perhaps not acknowledge that poor policy, inadequate security, and bad decisions have made business persistence there untenable.

Government can step into the resulting void. It can elect to own and operate retail stores in those environs it has created and facilitated. Chicago is contemplating that now. A government-run store can persist perhaps when private enterprise cannot. No matter how much is stolen or destroyed, tax dollars can nonetheless support ongoing operations. Government, in this context, need not have a profitable store as it has broad and powerful other methods of financial support.

What is the purpose of government?

Through its decisions, government can influence whether people feel safe. Those decisions and policies impact whether businesses have customers and thrive. Government can provide safe and inviting locales, build thriving environments, or it can ignore people pooping on the streets, camping on the sidewalks, and otherwise making others uncomfortable.

The Wall Street use of "spiral" is apt. Environments may spiral upward because of customer demand. As business in an area is successful, customers will be drawn there, more businesses will open, employees will be hired, commerce will thrive. Or, if customers are aloof, scared, or reluctant, then businesses will suffer, jobs will be lost, and closures will occur. The "spiral" can go down as well as up.

What is the purpose of government?

There is a persistent push for workplace safety. We have an abiding concern for reducing accidents and ensuring people have a suitable environment for their labors. But employers cannot make a neighborhood safe. They can, perhaps at best, pick a safe neighborhood. When employers and businesses look out for the workers, the customers, and the business, who has a right to complain that an environment was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that businesses leave for greener pastures? "I cannot believe business left" might instead be "I cannot believe business stayed so long." 

That is the purpose of government. It should ensure a safe environment. It should facilitate a community in which people can work, live, and thrive. That will include encouraging and supporting the workplaces that support the employees, the customers, and the community. 

Dosage Discrimination

I have been on a couple of exposes regarding discriminatory medicine in America. See Race-Based Medicine (August 2021); Hippocrates, Harm, Racism (May 2022). I have also been on more than one sidetrack about obesity. How can they Both Increase? (February 2019); I am What I am (July 2013); Obesity Could Kill Me (March 2015). The evidence suggests that there is potential for discrimination in medicine. And there is also an alleged disparate impact of tools like the Boby Mass Index (BMI) on various populations. The BMI Conundrum (August 2022). 

These posts point out examples of our modern science coming up short from time to time. We are struggling societally with the challenges of obescity, and the many complications that can bring. People are dying right here in America from the silent killers that are frustrated by, caused by, or exacerbated by the great overconsumption of calories and underactivity of our lives. Some people are fat. Sorry, that is the truth. Some people can change that, and some people cannot. That is likewise the truth. Hard, but the truth.

The USA Today reported last week that there is another wrinkle. This is alleged to result from a blind spot in the manner in which we vet and approve medications in this country. It is 2023 and someone just recently noted that we are not including the obese in the process for testing new medicines. Some contend that 40% of Americans are obese. Our medication approval process is somewhat ignoring 40% of the American population?

USA Today reports that the ignoring of these people in our testing and approval process is resulting in that segment of the population being administered medication at the wrong dose. See, they believe that "it may not be just the extra weight that adds risk." In addition, they now believe that "people with a lot of body fat metabolize drugs differently." The body, is an extremely complex conglomeration of tissues and systems. The critics think that with obesity comes further complexity. The article lists various medications, discusses the science of "fat solubility," and explains that obesity may mean a patient needs a different dose, may retain a dose longer than other patients, or simply may need different attention. 

In multiple tests, the researchers have concluded that people "might be getting the wrong amount of needed medication." The medication dosage is set through the clinical trial process. That process, it seems, is focused on a one-size-fits-all paradigm (or a most-sizes-fits-all?). And, in a nutshell, we are not all one size. Is there a reason that children are prescribed different doses? They are generally smaller. They may likewise have different reaction and interaction. That is logical. If the patient's size has potential impact, why not consider this? If the volume of fat cells has impact on the solubility of the chemical, why not consider this?

There is consideration of the needs of children in those trials and research. The researchers contend that there is no (or little) consideration of the obese. And one researcher is blunt about why. He contends that "people don't care about obesity." Perhaps. Or, is it that we do not care about the obese? Are we all a little too quick to judge and condescend? Is there just a little fat shaming in all of us? Are we too ready to think its the cookies, the soda, etc.? Are we conscious of our potential bias?

The article cites examples of people having minimal or no reaction to their medications. There is discussion of the manner in which these chemicals interact with our bodies and produce results that are therapeutic, or not. And, perhaps there is too much tendency to say "well, the package says that dose is appropriate, so let's discount the patient's reported results." What are the downsides for the doctor if she elects to exceed that "appropriate" dose determined by the clinical trial? 

There are various perspectives offered. There seems to be one sentiment that would test drugs specifically in this context. That would add a layer of regulatory research and would perhaps cost in dollars and time (getting the product to market and aiding the patient is important). But, others note that there need be no deep dive on every drug. They suggest that instead we could begin by simply asking the question "Oh, would this (weight) be a problem?" within the analysis of a drug.

To be clear, the challenge is not in precluding participation. The obese are not per se excluded from clinical trials, but their presence is not required. That said, some who are obese are excluded because of comorbidities "such as high blood pressure or diabetes," and so there is some suspicion of a resulting absence. Others contend that there is some tendency among the obese to lack faith in the medical profession or in their potential to benefit from treatment. Some perceive that population may harbor some degree of detachment or even resentment resulting from prior medical experiences ("the drugs the doctor gives me do not help"). 

Thus, there are concerns about treatment efficacy. There are concerns about patient perceptions. And to round it out the quota proponents are seeking to have a government mandate regarding obese participation in drug trials. So, if such a mandate is a good idea, does that mean it is a good idea to forego trials, progress, and potentially life-saving treatments for all if we cannot meet the quota in a given instance? Quotas are perhaps potentially a dangerous path forward. 

That said, there are sound arguments presented for testing that includes broader populations. There is likely room for definitions, "best practices," and progress. This might all be accomplished with encouragement, advocacy, and science. The involvement of the government, quotas, and regulation is likely not necessary or advisable. 

Safe Workplaces in Challenging Times

It is a challenging time for many. The last several years have brought us a pandemic, hurricanes, wildfires, and more. There is a general sense of angst I experience periodically among those with whom I converse. The invasion of Ukraine has been a topic so often, and it is difficult to fathom that we now approach a two-year anniversary of that fateful February 2022 date. There is a consensus that our present is challenging, hurtful, and anxiety-ridden. 

In a different age, Billy Joel recorded We Didn't Start the Fire (Columbia 1989). See, it is easy today to think that the world is in a general state of higgledy-piggledy. People are no doubt anxious, confused, and even angry. There is some tendency to long for the "good old days." Well, folks, let's face it the world has been challenging for as long as I can remember. And based on what the old folks told me when I was young, it was challenging long before that.

Was there really a time when people lived in iron lungs? Was there a miracle vaccine that people lined up to obtain? Was there a fateful war in Vietnam? Were there entertainment figures dying senselessly from drug use? Was there a nuclear threat from the Soviet Union? Were there debates over books? Was communism a threat to freedom? Were there various powers exerting influence outside their own borders? The fact is, the world has not always been at peace. That 1989 recording notes all of the above, and also references "Lebanon."

There are those who hear nothing in Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire except confusion and disconnection. But others hear a litany of challenges and reminders.

We live today in a world of conflict. That is not new. We live in a world of challenges. That is not new. We live in a world of misconception and confusion. That is not new. We live in a day when trust in the media is at record low. A poll recently concluded:

"Only 7% of adults have a ‘great deal’ of trust in news media, a new Gallup poll found. 38% say they have none at all."

Was the media ever trustworthy? Or were us old folks simply too naive to notice indiscretions and inaccuracies? Are today's critics smarter than we were back in the day, or are they just armed with the benefit and miracle of social media and near-instantaneous communication? Were the "good old days" really "all that good?" Billy Joel, Keeping the Faith, Columbia, 1984).

Amazingly, in a world of creativity and "new," a band called Fall Out Boy did a remake of We Didn't Start the Fire (Elektra 2023). It is a reboot, an update, a recitation of "newsworthy items from 1989-2023," according to the band and as reported in the LA Times. Some will view it as flattery. Some will demonize its unoriginality. There will be fans and haters.

Well, you may be able to settle into each successive "new normal." You may or may not be "Instagram Famous." Neither of my followers thinks I am (thanks Mom!). That there are successive "new normals" seemingly daily is not a recent development. We have all had to face a myriad of challenges in our world. They can tear at us, intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally.

I wrote last summer about the impact of social media and our differences. See The Buck Stops (July 2023). I got some angst in response to that one. One critic assured me that after multiple trips through that post the reader was reassured that the message was of accountability. The unwritten criticism was more to point that I did not take a stand of some kind on the emotional topics in the beer dispute discussed. Over the years, I have learned that usually people who think I should take a stand on difficult or controversial issues only think I should so long as I agree with their views.

Let that one sink in. Is that true in your audience, circle, or similar?

By the long route (I know, that just the way I write), I reach today's topic, the Middle East. It may be that whatever words I might use would inflame or disgust someone. See, there is angst about "that" we do or do not say something. Similarly, there is likely to be criticism of "what" we might say. This is dissected down to word choice, timing, and even the perceived enthusiasm of the message.

The Associated Press reports this week that there is fallout regarding the when and what of people's reactions to the Middle East. Companies are vocal or not. Their expressions were prompt or not. Their thoughts and sentiments were clear or not. The examples listed are interesting. I have followed the many news stories in recent days, and this AP story is a reasonably thorough catalog. The piece is well worth the read. But be prepared to find something in it you will not like. And be prepared to disagree with my assessment that it is worth reading, that it is a news story, or anything else you read here, hoped to read here, inferred, etc. etc.

Think about that one for a minute. You are not entitled to find agreement and harmony with your own thoughts in all that you read.

A couple of thoughts from the AP bear amplification. Some are "fearful of the possible consequences" of sharing their feelings about the Middle East. They are perceiving that they "risk" careers and more by speaking out. Newsflash, that is always true. That has always been true. That can often be regarding import and at times even of minutia. I knew a fellow once who lost a job for wearing the wrong football jersey on the Friday before a particular game. You decide if that is important or minutia. (Hint, it likely depends on you).

Consider that it is a choice. To speak or not to speak is choice. To hold a sign, add a bumper sticker, or write a social media post is choice. And to decline is also a choice - Freewill (Rush, 1980).

Recognize that around the world, the country, the community, people are making that choice. And that is impacting the workplace and people's relationships with it. This blog is about workers' compensation and thus the workplace. The AP story supports that the Middle East is impacting the workplace. The thoughts expressed by individuals is impacting hiring, sales, worker retention, and more. The effects on the workplace are in the news.

The effects on the workplace are potentially broader. There was news last week of violence. A boy was stabbed according to CNN. More recently, the president of a synagogue was found stabbed, according to the Detroit News. These were not workplace violence. They were clearly violence. What is clear is that various people have deep feelings about the world, their perceptions, and therefore each other. It is challenging to work through the melange, to sort through the various messaging in the news and social media. All employers should be focused on the challenge of keeping the workplace safe with the potentials that exist for emotions, reactions, and violence.

But, critically, that is nothing new. The workplace is always going to involve differences and dissent. The threat of workplace violence is always going to persist. The success of business will be inexorably tied to public perceptions, of the product or service, of the company leadership, of the company personality, and of the company character (actual or perceived). Action and inaction will always matter. Those are difficult choices. But workplace safety is not a choice. It is an imperative. 

What will not ever change is that people will be different. They will disagree and at times their disagreements will variably be principled, emotional, logical, calm, or even unhinged. In the end, it is impractical to expect that individual conclusions will change or be assuaged. Try to explain to a _______ fan why their perceptions of their team are misguided. Good luck. Thus, there will be anguish, grief, and backlash. How is this workplace tightrope to be walked?

In the end, the real point is that the world around us is in fact in disarray. It has been historically and it is today. We can rest assured that it will be tomorrow. There is no easy path, no universal consensus, and no safe spaces (I hear troubling things constantly). But, the truth is that there never has been and nonetheless we are here today. We have survived thus far. We have disagreed, been disgusted, and been hurt. But the workplace can survive. It is possible to choose those with whom you associate. It is possible to admit that you cannot please everyone, or change their minds. Is it really that hard to get over the adamant expressions of others?

Nonetheless, perhaps it remains possible that even in our chaotic and challenging world there are still both "right" and "wrong." We may have perspectives, and we can each believe in these. We can wish those opinions were universal. They are not. But we owe it to ourselves to keep the workplace safe from violence and injury. This is among the challenges for management and ownership and should receive its share of the consideration and concern. 

In the end, the critics will address this post. "why didn't you . . . ." And so in the end let me just say this about that: I believe . . . ..

AI and Mental Health

I ran across a headline recently: Pros and cons of using TikTok for mental health advice. You read that right. Mental health advice from social media? There are those who might view this as similar to hosting an AA meeting in a bar. But, jumping to conclusions is untoward. The article lists the advantages as "affordability and accessibility." It is lauded for "raising awareness," and there is some suggestion that people may be more willing to view such information privately rather than attend an appointment with someone.

But, there are warnings of unlicensed and unqualified people on social media meting advice. There is the probability of misinformation, which is commonly acknowledged. Much of what the World Wide Web contains is garbage and everyone knows it. The author's article concludes that there are better sources of help, including: "mental health helplines, support groups or counselling."

So, good to know.

Elsewhere on the Internet, it has been suggested that teenagers today are facing an array of challenges. Thank goodness there were no challenges for us teens back in my day. But I digress. There are those who see "widespread use of digital technology" as part of the problem for teens. Just to be clear here, they are using that tech to peruse the vast wasteland of the Internet and social media.

This article concludes that studies (one is cited - Michigan) could lead us to conclude that "the influence of digital tools and gadgets is the reason for teens to be in a downward spiral of depression and hopelessness." There is the suggestion that teen detachment and dissatisfaction or unhappiness is rampant, and the rates of complaint have doubled in recent years.

Ok, so Internet and social media - not helpful.

The Michigan study includes a great many other troubling facts. It says that the "use of marijuana and hallucinogens . . . reach(ed) all-time highs in 2022." There are more specifics cited with vaping and dope. The bottom line is that "marijuana and hallucinogen use as well as marijuana and nicotine vaping significantly increased in the past five years." I cannot understand that. With all the misinformation about "legalizing pot" (pot remains illegal throughout America) why are so many people doing it? Sarcasm, apologies.

Ever heard of an algorithm? They get a lot of blame in the world of computers. They deserve a lot of credit too. In fact, it is fair to say that there would be no tech revolution, no era of information, no age of enlightenment without them. They are the instructions that computers follow to accomplish tasks. Though I thus praise them, some are not so admirable.

We hear that some people believe big computing uses algorithms to steer us. If we do an Internet search for wine glasses, the ads on every website we visit in coming weeks will persistently be for wine glasses (trips, blue jeans, lawyers, you name it). But some contend such steering is unbiased, pure, and helpful. No sinister steering or undue influence intended or accomplished.

Well, why did I read the stories cited above about mental health, tick tock, and more? Why did I read a story from Fortune about parents consuming toys and the efforts to integrate mental health into those toys? The answer is that I suddenly had a great many mental health stories in my daily news feed. Imagine that.

Well, I read an article on the New Statesman about artificial intelligence and mental health. That is where it all started. That led me to another on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) about AI revolutionizing mental health diagnosis. They have a whole page devoted to the mental health questions of various groups. It is new, but not that new, this 2021 article attests to that. And there are both supporters and doubters. So, read a mental health story, and suddenly you are swimming in mental health stories.

Should we be turning to AI and chatbots for mental health?

One gentleman has alleged that an AI Chatbot encouraged him to violence. Others have provided less-then-stellar advice (told someone with weight challenges to "count calories," not a widely admired weight loss process though it does work). There are examples of less-than-stellar performance elsewhere in medicine. Another of the weight loss examples is here.  

Just in case you are Stadler or Waldorff and want to scream about this being a workers' compensation blog, know that workplace health is a persistent issue. The well-being of employees impacts the occurrence of injury as well as the propensity for remediation and recovery. The mental well-being of management is also crucial, patently so, in all aspects of the job, safety, and return to work.

There is evidence that these AI bots are becoming part of the workplace experience. Forbes reports workers are taking their emotional health into their own hands with these AI bots and other tools. If I give mental health advice or dietary advice, I am likely to be prosecuted. What happens when bots render such advice about medicine, the law, or beyond?

COVID in Retrograde?

We stumble through the "new normal" of the "post-COVID." We are perhaps of a mind that the pandemic has ended or that it never began. I have heard many prognostications on the challenges that we have faced. I am not at all certain that there was ever a valid reason for the panic that ensued regarding SARS-CoV-2. There will be studies, experiments, and more in years to come. I am certain, at a minimum, that we have much to learn about such viruses.

But, what we do know with some reasonable certainty is that the government's reaction to COVID was real. There were some marked variations across the country. Some states acted more strongly than others. Some took actions that perhaps were immediately harmful. Others took radical actions regarding laws.

Some workers' compensation adjudication systems shut down, ground to halt, and left the injured workers and employers waiting. I add here, yet again, how proud I am of the Florida OJCC team that pesevered throughout. There was no shut down, no closure, and not pause. To the benefit of employers, employees, attorneys, adjusters, physicians, nurses, and more, this system kept on ticking. I will never tire of congratulating the team that was so focused, dedicated, and purposeful.

Now, the virus is being discussed in the world of insurance. You see, in Florida workers' compensation there is an annual ritual that involves the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) applying a great deal of experience and mathematics to the question of insurance rates. It files a proposal each year with the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), and ultimately the OIR decides what next year's workers' compensation premiums will be. That is an oversimplification but work with me here.

Insurance News Net reports that in 2023 there is a proposal for "the largest workers’ compensation rate cut in (Florida) history." The NCCI proposal is for a 15.1% decrease in 2024. That is a big number in any setting. Imagine if you could lose 15.1% of your body weight, or earn 15.1% on your savings account? That is significant. However it is particularly significant in the realm of workers' compensation.

This might be expected to be greeted with unanimous approval and excitement. But, the story reports that there are concerns. For one, it notes that "Florida already enjoys some of the lowest workers’ compensation rates in the country." The cumulative effect, if this latest reduction is approved, will be "a more than 70% reduction in rates over" recent years.

There are employers that are arguing against this decrease. They are concerned about "experience" and "frequency." Frequency refers to how often injury is occurring. The evidence supports that frequency has been on the decline across the country for decades. We have been witnessing the cummulative effects of more safety focus, better medical treatment, and more logical workers' compensation laws. The decreasing frequency is a persistent driver of decreasing premiums.

Don't believe me? Hit a conference or two with the actuaries and you will hear this message. Or, study the latest NCCI report on the topic. Or delve into the conclusions about data provided by the Workers' Compensation Research Institute (WCRI). If you prefer, google "workers' compensation frequency in America" and look at any of the various exposes of the topic.

But we cannot forget the other side of the coin, the severity. How serious the injuries are can play a large role in the costs that they present. Frequency and severity have to go together in helping us to appreciate the experience that is resulting in any workers' compensation marketplace. And it is that experience this year that is largely releid upon to predict next year. The prediction of next year drives the premium discussion for next year.

Despite the first reaction of celebrating lower rates, and the potential for business to prosper and profit, there are those in the business world that are not cautiously optimistic, but instead optimistically cautious. They want to believe that rates could viably decrease as proposed. They harbor doubts though. They fear that the rates are being set with reference to the accident counts in that short pandemic era that spawned telecommuting, less vehicle use, less injury risk, and perhaps decreased injury rates.

We heard repeatedly during the pandemic that orthopedic injury was down. We heard that severity of physical injury was down. There were those who prognosticated that the volume of "accidents" reported remained significant, but many were reports of COVID as an "occupational disease" and perceptions that such claims were either denied, settled rapidly, or in many instances of minimal expense in terms of duration and medical care.

There were those who therefore appeared at the hearing on the NCCI proposal and argued that "data supporting a further rate cut was flawed." They expressed concerns of the unkown, and that any cut at this time failes to "take into account current trends." There is recognition of the current stability in Florida workers' compensation and the admirable availability of free-market coverage. But there is concern expressed that too little premium will be collected in reliance on the COVID years, and that will lead to challenges as experience, frequency, and severity perhaps increase back to pre-COVID experience.

This is noted as to increasing work, and the related potential for injury. It is being suggested that new hires in the post-COVID environment are less experienced, familiar, and prepared for some workplaces. There are suggestions made that some of those workers may face greater chances of mistake or accident, and thus injury. That sentiment is one that is periodically discussed in the world of workers' compensation.

The one encouragement is that we will soon know. The Office of Insurance Regulation will publish its order and we will know what the 2024 rates will be. Whether the experience and exposure in years to come justify that rate, whatever it is, will take many years to discern with certainty. It will be interesting to watch in any case, as will be the coming studies, reports, and research on the SARS-CoV-2 virus that spawned the pandemic, panic, or disruption (with all due respect to whichever perspective you have). 

I Missed my Chance

It was September 28, 2023, and I missed it. I mean completely missed it. There are a great many "Hallmark holidays" that people contend are primarily or perhaps solely monetary or commercial purposes. The dictionary includes in this category:

"Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, and Father’s Day, along with lesser-known or less-established holidays like Sweetest Day and Boss’s Day."

While we can all see some imprimatur for the first three, "sweetest day?" Really? Yes, Sweetest Day 2023 is October 21, 2023. Its purpose is stated as "a day to be sweet by sharing a kind thought, a small gift, or a gesture of kindness." That is a nice sentiment. You still have time for that one.

Boss' day? Really? That is a curiosity perhaps. But there it is. Where? Well, sorry for the short notice but it is October 16, 2023. This one dates to 1958, and it reportedly took Hallmark 20 years to come up with a card for the celebration. I am guessing a fair few did not engage in celebrating and thus the profit motivation was just not there on this one. Advice on how to navigate through this one may be of assistance.

But I digress. As usual, distracted down yet another rabbit hole. I never see a rabbit, but I do chase down a lot of tunnels.

No, I missed my chance. September 28, 2023, was "Ask a Stupid Question Day." And, in my inimitable style, I missed it. There are so many I want to ask. So many that cloud my mind each day. So much doubt and only one day each year to strive to address the banality that is circling my frontal lobe in search of an outlet. And I deprived it of a chance. Well, blame it on the hippocampus.

Ask a Stupid Question Day is generally only celebrated in schools on the "last school day of September." The idea is novel and is focused on empowering those who fear the attention of class participation. So often a student suffers in silence, obeying the old maxim (perhaps from the Bible, Proverbs 17:28): "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." There are those who attribute this to Lincoln and Twain.

So, we have this opportunity to ignore the consequences, "removing all doubt" and "letting it all hang out." There is some expectation or intent that disguising ability with this "holiday" will prevent "being ridiculed by classmates," and encourage questions as they are "an integral part of the educational process." The intentions are laudable and perhaps effective. I do my teaching in night class and the odds are not great on my class falling naturally on September 28, though no doubt there will be a " "last class day of September" I might substitute.

How many times have you heard that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers." Google's Artificial Intelligence search attributes that quote (or something similar) to Dear Abby, Margaret Hamilton, Ramon Bautista, Carl Sagan, and more. They are some pretty smart folks, but did they realize we celebrate the stupid question with a holiday? And who are they to decry or belittle the stupid question? Next, they will tell you there is no "Great Pumpkin" (thanks to Charles Schultz for that one).

So, if you missed "Stupid Day" too don't feel too bad. First, there is some chance your question is not nearly as stupid as you might think. Perhaps it is not stupid at all and you merely lack the depth to discern the brilliance of your own query? Why not ask the question? Even if it is not as deep or cerebral as you might like, why not ask it anyway? Will anyone really laugh out loud? Who knows, if they do perhaps they simply are not bright enough to see your brilliance?

Or, call it quits on "Stupid" for 2023 and start saving those questions for next September? But in any event, take a moment to say hello to your boss Monday and simply say "thanks" for making this a great place to work. It does not require "ribbons . . . tags, . . . packages, boxes or bags." (How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, Theodor Geisel, 1957). There is no need to grab a Hallmark card or really go to any trouble. The best course is a simple acknowledgment of whatever you value and appreciate.

Come to think of it, do we really need a day for such acknowledgment? Whether praising or expressing gratitude for those you work for, with, or manage, why not let such recognition be a more frequent opportunity? Or, you could wait until next October, but let's face it delaying positive feedback in your work environment would be truly stupid.

Edible but Stomach Churning

Several years ago, I penned New Testing for Marijuana (April 2016). That post centered on the drive for decriminalizing pot and the arguments many advocates raised. Back in 2016, the FDA had proposed changing the pot listing, removing it from Schedule I. The point would be to further promote the availability of this substance. In August, Politico reported that the Health and Human Services Administration is again advocating for "weed." Time will tell if that process moves forward.

I have written of the hypocrisy of dope. See Marijuana May be a Problem (January 2016); Measuring Marijuana Intoxication (July 2015); and Medical Pot Evaluation in Florida (July 2021.

But, there is a punch line in the New Testing. It focuses on the pot consumption in what is called "edibles." A great deal of cannabis is converted to foodstuffs and consumed without the dangers associated with smoking. That said, some believe that smoking pot is not even potentially dangerous to your health. See Agnotology (February 2023). That is indeed interesting, but I digress.

There are many who preach that marijuana never killed anyone. Politifact concedes that it is difficult to overdose on pot. That said, there is some evidence that pot can lead to accidents, injury, and even death. Some claim it is second only to alcohol in that. As an intoxicant, it is hard to see how it would not be troublesome for a vehicle driver to have ingested it.

But overdose? We have heard for years it is not possible. Florida Atlantic University has published a study that claims it is not only possible, but that it has occurred. The study suggests the odds of death are highest for old, non-hispanic white, males. Uh, hold on there a minute.

Furthermore, possibly, some cannabis gummies recently caused illness in children. US News is more direct in claiming that exposure to cannabis is increasing. And the concern is about "pediatric exposure." As much as one might want to find the article credible, its lead with the false premise that pot is legal or that there has been legalization undermines its credibility horribly.

It turns out that many children are hospitalized following exposure to edibles. Some require critical care. Poison experts claim that "life-threatening side effects can occur in children who consume cannabis edibles." NBC reports that such exposures are on the increase. The rate of increase? a 1,375% over just four years. Yes, it appears that kids are getting ahold of this "harmless" stuff and it is making them ill. Adults are suffering medical complications and challenges from this "harmless" stuff. 

To make it worse, there is a raft of regulations protecting kids from harm. The federal government forbids "candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes that appeal to kids." The alcohol industry agrees to not market to kids, and various states preclude such advertisements. There are efforts that react to the recognition that kids need and deserve protection. 

But the dope dealers are big on dressing their products up like candy. So much so that "big candy" is angry according to the New York Times. There are a multitude of "look-alikes" and their products may well fool a few adults. If alcohol, big tobacco, and others can be steered away from children, why are dope dealers (an illegal product) allowed to persist with the charade?

In the end, the bottom line is that kids are at risk. This is due to their naivete, their thirst for adventure, and their perception that everyone is doping and it is cool, hip, or down (the author has no clue what these kids today are saying sometimes). They are doing it because it has been decriminalized. They are allowing the weed or "edibles" to fall into young hands. They are responsible for the result.