Neither snow no rain nor heat or gloom

Does anyone else remember that famous slogan of the intrepid and the persistent?

Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds 

The undaunted and strong nature of our national postal service was embodied in that jargon. That is actually a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) motto. There are two, however. The second is 

The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.

I really like the adjectives. USPS services shall be "prompt, reliable, and efficient." There are many jokes about mail, but Pat Paulson is perhaps the quintessential with: 

"The federal government spends millions to run the Postal Service. I could lose your mail for half of that."

January brought intriguing news from the great bureaucracy that is the USPS. There is unlikely anyone who would argue the USPS should be seen as an exemplar of efficiency or effectiveness. Recent news stories around the country are about significant delays in delivery (80 days, "prompt?"), deficiencies, and issues. These little trucks ply our neighborhoods and communities bringing an endless supply of irrelevant coupons, unwanted catalogs, and monetary pleas.

There are many good arguments for avoiding the USPS. Some might even say price is an issue. Money magazine reported recently that

"Stamp prices will rise to 68 cents this weekend — the fifth hike in less than three years. This probably won't be the only stamp price increase in 2024, either."

Yes, the good news is that while service will be dismal and delayed, at least the price will be higher. Reportedly, the rapidly escalating prices at the USPS are due to

“inflationary pressures on operating expenses and the effects of a previously defective pricing model.”

Yes, that is what it says. The admission is that the USPS has been poorly managed and that has enabled an economic outcome that is not sustainable. Perhaps the only flaw is in the "previously," because the increases will continue, the waste will continue, and the defective will continue. It is not news here. See E-Filing Landmarks (March 2014). I have noted before that postage prices have not paced inflation, but those concerns were ignored. E-JCC Saves Millions (October 2013)

We announced recently that the Zip Code for our Tallahassee office (including our Clerk’s Office) is changing from 32399 to 32301, based on guidance from that local post office. The Post Office has struggled recently to deliver the mail that is labeled 32399. One must discount and ignore that the exact same Post Office has been successfully delivering our mail with this Zip Code for decades. What changed?

To paraphrase Rick Springfield (Jessie's Girl, Working Class Dog, RCA 1982):

But lately something's changed

(and it's) hard to define

This is a challenge. And it will be compounded when we ask you to change your contact information for us again in a year or so. Yes, after decades on Apalachee Parkway the DOAH operation will be moving to a new location. That will take some getting used to in a broad sense, but for now change our Zip Code to 32301. Of course, there is little purpose for the Postal Service in Florida workers' compensation. Since we switched to mandatory e-filing, it has been a redundancy in most instances.

EXCEPT: if you have something that cannot be e-filed, such as a video, or an x-ray film, that can be mailed to the clerk's office. Occasionally, we get a demonstrative filed (one of the objects the plant was manufacturing and the worker was lifting/carrying/handling). These instances should be rare (judges don't read x-rays, we count on experts interpreting them). If you are filing an x-ray film, ask yourself about relevance, context, and probity. But, file what you believe you must. 

Why did the USPS suddenly decide that the Zip Code we have been using forever is no longer valid? That is hard to say. If only it were an isolated challenge.

I recently got news that there is a mail issue at the Rodhe Building in Miami. That houses our Miami District Office and has for decades. One tower was built in the days of Wage Loss (1976) and the other shortly after (1986). I think the OJCC moved into the South Tower in about 1977, and to the North Tower in 2007. It is a state-owned building, full of state agencies. And daily, it seems, "they've got mail." And, like so many buildings of the era there are USPS mailboxes built right into the building. That's convenient.

Well, that was convenient. Those who deliver to that address have decided that those built in, time-tested, convenient mailboxes no longer suffice. Rumor has it they are working on a motto change from

"render postal services to all communities"

to

"render postal services to all communities (that have kept up with our changes regarding mail boxes and our convenience)"

So, the mailboxes, after decades of consistent use and acceptance, are somehow (ambiguity is king) now inappropriate. So, the postal service has decided not to use them any longer, pending a visit to Miami by a postal service official from Washington, D.C. Yes, we understand that a mailbox expert will be dispatched from the nation's capital to review the mailbox situation and perhaps propose remedies or remediations. This is, indeed, apparently rocket surgery and expert USPS consultation is required. 

In the meantime, the USPS might just deliver the mail as they have for decades. But, instead, they have elected to deliver all of the mail for the agencies in the two, ten-story, Rohde building to one agency.

That agency is not equipped or staffed to distribute the mail to all the various tenants. So, the mail is unceremoniously deposited in a hallway, in a cardboard box marked "mail" in sharpie. To protect the mail from any impacts of weather, or mopping, the box is carefully balanced on two five-gallon buckets. It has to be seen to be believed.

Thus, the realities of the deteriorating world of service reinforce the OJCC Rules. E-file your documents. Do not send paper mail to the District Offices. Tell your clients not to send mail to the District Offices. Electronic Filing is mandatory, not discretionary, except for the unrepresented (see below). Any documents or materials that are mailed should be sent only to the Clerk's Office (use that new Zip Code - 32301). 

Thanks for reading. I have to go now and read my Christmas Cards that just arrived. Oh, to have holiday greetings now that spring has come. Perhaps they were stored in a cardboard box somewhere while my thirty-year-old mailbox was being expertly evaluated by a world traveler, Kevin Costner perhaps? (The Postman, Warner Brothers 1997).

I am certain that you just cannot make this stuff up. Thanks to all the intrepid letter carriers out there. We appreciate your efforts and regret the many trepidations and challenges you face in this complex world (yes, sarcasm, sorry).

Central Clerks Office

Email: AskOJCC@doah.state.fl.us
Phone: (850) 487-1911 Fax: (850) 487-0724
Mailing Address
Office of the Judges of Compensations Claims - Central Clerks Office
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32301

60Q-6.108. FILING AND SERVICE

(1) Filing.

(a) All documents filed with the OJCC, except documents filed by parties who are not represented by an attorney, shall be filed by electronic means through the OJCC website. Any document filed in paper form by U.S. mail, facsimile, or delivery shall be filed only with the OJCC clerk in Tallahassee. Documents shall be filed by only one method, e-filing, facsimile, or U.S. mail, and shall not be filed multiple times. Duplicate filings will not be docketed and will be destroyed.

Supply and Demand

There are many interesting applications of the economic concepts of supply and demand. Those are largely lost on the population, but the effects of economics are arguably universal. They surround us in our daily lives. We address them individually and collectively. Imagine a workforce that would band together to artificially control supply, and thus strive to manage the economic equation regarding the value of services.

To increase price (wages), one need only increase demand for the service or decrease the supply of those who provide it. Either of these paths will increase the price to the consumer. I illustrate this in class with the observation that some rocks (diamonds) are deemed more desirable than others (granite). Yes, I realize diamonds are not rocks, but if you get mired in the various forms of carbon the whole conversation takes days. Despite common misconceptions, carbon is not your enemy

There are natural examples of scarcity. Physically, only a percentage of us are capable of dunking a basketball. Mentally, Einsteins come along only so often. Those people are scarce. But we create scarcity artificially as well. Make no mistake, there are various reasons why government might legitimately restrict access to various occupations. The predominant of these in the United States is the “police powers“  described by the words “health, safety, and welfare." Check the U.S. Constitution, Amend. 14 for discussion.

In that vein, it makes no possible sense to allow me to open an appendectomy store in the local mall. I lack medical training and expertise regarding the procedure and the potential for untoward outcomes or problems is nearly endless. I do, however, have "the ultimate set of tools," Jeff Spicoli, Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), or perhaps as apropos "I can fix it." I could do brain surgery as well, given a few moments to think it through. 

But seriously, anyone interested in having me perform their appendectomy has far larger issues than appendicitis. It makes sense that only doctors can legally do surgery. We have seen that with fake plastic surgeon, Botox injections, allergy treatment, physical therapy, and more. People are injured when the untrained and unprepared perform medical treatment. 

By the same token, however, such government licensure arguments can be easily made in favor of electricians, contractors, architects, engineers, lawyers, and more. There are legitimate interests in protecting the public. Some other licensure requirements may be viewed more as revenue-generation tools than public protection. As perceptions shift, areas, occupations, or professions might be discussed in such an analysis with varying degrees of agreement or dissent.

However, licensure requirements are generally intended to assure that those who practice in such occupations and professions possess the requisite skill, experience, and knowledge to both benefit their customers and to avoid harm to either the customer or the public.

A recent story from Korea is far different, British Broadcasting Corporation, February 2024. Physicians in South Korea are protesting by way of non-attendance or resignation. They are not seemingly delivering “health, safety, and welfare" arguments in support of their slowing or stoppage. Instead, they seem to be making simple supply and demand arguments. Their contention is that the government, allowing more individuals to be licensed, increases the supply of skilled practitioners, and thus decreases the price which each can viably demand in economic exchange

There is an effort to increase the supply of doctors there. The doctors are opposed. Their message is simple, too many practitioners (supply) means too little reward (wages). The argument is not about delivering better care, attaining better outcomes, or the public good. But really, is having too man doctors in society a bad outcome?

America is presently in a difficult position as regards, medical care. Becoming a professional can be long and arduous (10-12 years of hard work and studying). Furthermore, there is an understandable inclination for anyone undertaking such an investment to spend 30 to 40 years thereafter practicing that profession. It is understood that those who invest in that career path will want to make a living, recoup for lost time in achieving the status, and succeed.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are jealous of the wages doctors and other professionals earn. That four years of undergrad, three years of grad school, and pittance in initial earnings equates to a huge investment of deferred compensation. There is a huge emotional, financial, and chronological investment to join such a profession. That decade or more of deferral is being compensated, or it should be. If it is not, that will deter great students from taking that path. There is a benefit in attracting good people to the practice of any profession. 

That said, the tail end of the baby boom generation (with admitted self-interest by yours truly) has snuck into the medical-consumption years. While it is not absolute, young people tend to require less frequent and less pervasive medical care than the older generations. And it seems that the curve keeps turning upward the older we get. Certainly, I am worried mostly out of self-interest. But that does not mean there is not a real problem that will impact many people. 

Medicare will not, has never, paid the full cost of care. In Florida, workers' compensation pays doctors 110% of Medicare. Some have proposed increasing that. If we need to pay 150% or 200% of Medicare, does that mean workers' compensation would overpay? Or, does it suggest that Medicare is not paying enough to compensate providers? 

I am inclined to disbelieve that workers' compensation would overpay. So, it likely means that the burden of caring for those on Medicare/Medicaid (whose care is discounted by the constraints of those programs) is being shifted to the provider or facility that then shifts it to other consumers like workers' compensation. This differential is an example of socialism at work in the delivery of medical care. "To each according to his needs." Karl Marx. The price of every product and service we consume is inflated by the price of workers' compensation subsidizing the medical care of others through this shifting. 

And the U.S. is is already short of physicians. OPAGGA (Florida government agency) says Florida faces "an anticipated shortfall of nearly 18,000 physicians by 2035." That seems like ages, but it is literally 11 years away. And, this is not a "Florida thing." Fortune reports "30% of Americans don’t have a primary care doctor due to a shortage of providers." Fortune notes "The Association of American Medical Colleges projects we’ll be short as many as 124,000 physicians by 2034." That is almost the entire population of Gainesville, Florida.

Let's build medical schools on every corner! Hint, I am not competent to provide care. Do not let me open a medical school. However, there are a plethora of qualified institutions and doctors that could appropriately train new doctors. 

But opening schools today might not help much. Look above at the 10-12 years. Even if we could divert more college graduates this year into medicine, the "medical school (four years), and a residency program (three to seven years)" would still see us just beginning to make a difference in 2031. In reality, the curve we are behind is at least 7 and more like 10-12 years. Why were we not building medical schools a dozen years ago? Did no one see this coming?

Any increase in production of positions, in anticipation of the aging, baby boomers (a dozen years back), had to be weighed against the probability of a potential decrease in demand for services for later generations. That is, was the deficit predictable? Or have we seen some exodus from the profession? (Note - I do not speak for the AMA). The AMA says that there is "burnout" that drives early retirement, "cut back hours," or "leave(ing) medicine altogether." The AMA also lists the stated reasons. Was this exodus predictable?

For whatever reason, medical school output does not seem to have kept pace with medical practice demands. On top of that, there is some likelihood that a population of medical professionals found our recent SARS-CoV-2 experience demoralizing, stressful, and retirement-inducing. That is likely true of various professions. Do not get me started on the projected nurse shortage (1.1 million, I kid you not). 

Notably, others "insists there isn’t a nurse shortage at all. There are plenty enough nurses for the country, they say — merely a shortage of nurses who want to work under current conditions." There it is again, supply and demand. The supply is being constrained by circumstances of the workplace, perhaps, or by the output of the schools? Does it matter why there is unmet demand in the workforce? In the end, I am doubtful we patients care why there is no willing provider (doctor, nurse, etc.), we are simply pained that there is a shortage. 

Nonetheless, expected or not, there is a shortage of physicians. There are persistent acknowledgments of challenges with finding willing providers. This is notably true in Worker’s Compensation, but more broadly also. The result of an insufficient supply will lead to increased prices, even without the boomer bubble. If demand only remains constant and supply decreases (retirement, etc.) prices will rise. This is only aggravated further by the increased demand of the aging boomers.

Price? Might prices have an impact? Would it bother anyone to know "that more than $100 billion may be lost in fraud, waste, and abuse annually?" That means each year folks. And, that is the figure that the government will own up to. Others claim that the waste is more like 25% of the "$4.3 trillion" in health expenditures. That is about $1 trillion of waste. I love those who strive to cast blame and propose easy answers to our challenges. But in the end that is still $1 trillion. It is easy to point fingers, but this is not a simple societal problem. It is a deep and murky challenge with many moving parts. 

Who pays for waste? We all do. Sure, in one characterization, "34 percent of the nation’s healthcare spending is funded by the federal government." That is painful. The taxpayer is funding 34% of $1 trillion of waste. But wait, there is more. We all pay for waste more directly. What is the doctor busy with such that you cannot get an appointment? Well, the statistics here suggest that about 2 hours per day (at least) is "waste." That is a great deal of time that might be spent treating a patient instead of completing a form, interpreting a rule, or complying with a bureaucracy. 

Would decreased red tape, forms, and constraints be a quicker path to more physician time (supply) than building medical schools? Would decreased bureaucracy mean more physician retention and satisfaction? (Supply) Is the challenge the fault of insurance, business, government? Many are quick to jump on the "fault" wagon. I watched an evolution recently on social media that illustrated the failure of the masses to think critically about medical care. 

That debate was rife with indignation about people with insurance facing medical costs. The insurance is not covering everything! Notably, the government stepped in a few years back and mandated that people can wait until their house is on fire and then purchase insurance against fire. With it came the first mandate compelling Americans to purchase a product that they did not want (if they wanted it, they would have bought it without being told to). 

Demand increased. Consumption of services increased. Someone, somewhere, is astounded that these increases led to price increases. When demand increases, and supply does not, prices rise. Water is wet, the sky is blue, and the Browns don't win Super Bowls. 

There were many promises that prices would not increase (they did), that we could keep our present coverage (we didn't), and that everyone could have more and it would cost us all less. That this was promised is not surprising. Promises are easy. That anyone believes that everyone can get more for less is astounding. People seem enamored with the idea of taking more of what belongs to others, but then they are surprised when there are market corrections and impacts. Markets react. 

Turning back to South Korea, one might wonder what the demographic shift portends in that nation. Is the supply that is being discussed an intended replacement supply, an increase in anticipation of greater demand, or an intended expansion of the current supply? In a nutshell, one might broadly question who is making the supply decision. Is it a central government, or a market economy? Are they planning more production (starting supply in the pipeline) as a reaction to insufficient current supply or proaction?

The point to this all is that there are impending storm clouds. The numbers in America point to many of us having little or no access to primary or specialized care. The trends are set, and there is no time to build our way into solutions. There is room to discuss why there are not more medical schools. There is room to discuss how we could avoid such a challenge in the future.

But, there also has to be some way to discuss how we provide the marketplace today with enough willing providers in the near term. How will workers' compensation work, how will anything work, without an adequate supply of willing providers to deliver the care, remediate the damage, and palliate the symptoms? 

I doubt a strike such as South Korea's will make a difference. However, there has to be a way to prioritize and manage the needs of the population. Perhaps through leveraging technology? In tech is there any immediate path to efficiency or efficacy that would provide relief? 

Those who would leverage other professionals (nurses, see the 1.1 million number above) are not likely to solve the problem. 

Those who would blame these, those, or them are ignoring the problem. Blame will accomplish nothing. 

Increasing demand is certainly not the answer. More waste, fraud, and abuse is not the answer. 

The problem is simple supply and demand. There is too little supply and too much demand. The time has come to work on it in earnest. Or, we could just let folks like me start doing appendectomies? Trust me, my dad's "got this ultimate set of tools."

A Social Media Post

I was surfing LinkedIn Friday and came across a post from Mark Pew. It is one of those eye-catchers in which he illustrates what he has been up to. Since he began educating in the workers' compensation community in 2012, he has tracked his public presentations and some of the associated demographics (over 70,000 attendees at programs and over 40 jurisdictions). However you might carve that, it is a lot. Perhaps Mark will eventually make it to all 57 states?

He noted that he has reached 700 times presenting educational content. I thought I was the only person on the planet who kept such information, but it's worse. I texted Mark and he has much more data on the subject than he included in his post. He has co-presenter names, topic titles, and more. He offered to send it all to me, and I did not reply. The last thing I need is more data.

So, perhaps the point is to congratulate him on the milestone? Well, that too, but no. The simple fact is that the post struck a chord with me in multiple ways that are worthy of addressing.

I have also kept track of statistics over the years. I had an older lawyer tell me early in my career that I should keep track of trials and the information would be of assistance with a board certification application. This lawyer presumed I would seek that one day (I had no intention of it). As a result, for years, I kept that data as well as counts on depositions, hearings, and more. That is all lost to the ages at this point. I do know how many presentations I have delivered, but all that other data went the way of the floppy disc.

Mark's post got several comments. There were the brief "congrats," and some more in-depth. Some noted how he had been a mentor to the commenter. He replied to several of those and noted how he had grown or learned from them. There were mentions of OCD in the keeping of date, compliments, and collegiality.

No, the point is not the post itself. There are several points actually.

First, note the mention of mentoring. I had a lawyer tell me to track data. She assumed I would seek certification one day. She presumed I would remain in the practice, and progress. In being a mentor, she did not question. Her approach was to offer advice for the success she presumed I would one day enjoy. That was a confidence builder. Who do you mentor? How do you mentor?

Mark's commenters congratulated, but several noted he was a mentor. I am certain that was not isolated. But, do you need to post on LinkedIn to get that kind of feedback? If you had a mentor, like Mark, why wait? Reach out to them spontaneously (today maybe). Tell them how you are doing, what they did to inspire, guide, or support you. Why not share that feedback in a world that is too often weary and challenging?

Reverse that. Mark's reply to one commenter was essentially about how much he has learned from this mentee. If your efforts and course have led you to someone from whom you have benefited and grown, ditto the above. Why not reach out and say so? Every day has a bit of challenge, and sometimes that is the preponderance of people's day. Think how valued such a quick text or call might be.

Second, note that in his comments Mark admits that he had little in terms of credentials in 2012. He said he kept the numbers as the "only thing I had at the beginning as a complete unknown with no credentials but lots of opinions." I am not a fan of "fake it 'til you make it." And in truth, he is being self-deprecating as to what he brought to the table. But, the point is to strive for what you want. 

Know this. There are lots of opportunities to do what you would enjoy. If that is speaking to groups, do so. I know, "I never get invited." Have you let anyone know you are interested? Have you sought out people who produce education programs? Have you offered to help them, to serve on panels, to support their efforts? Some programs are "pay to play," but the majority are not. They pick people on a different basis. They want and value hard work, sincerity, and collaboration. 

Know what you know and what you do not. Find topics that you can be passionate about. When you experience a great presentation, take the time after to compliment the speaker. Ask if she/he would join you for a cup of coffee and pick their brain. Some may defer, but many will not. Don't hate those who defer, but treasure those who help you. Generally, this community is full of good people who will revel in your success as much as you will.

Third, Note that Mr. Pew is not a spring chicken. Sorry, Mark. I think he already knew that, but really age is in the eye of the beholder. I mention it because he notes that his odyssey into public speaking began about a dozen years ago. You can evolve and you can try new things in life and work. You can find purpose at 23, or perhaps a few years later. You can wander into passions and pursuits, or purposefully seek them. But one must persistently remember that it is a decision to open doors or to walk on past. You decide but do so consciously. 

Finally, I note persistently that when he travels for such a presentation, he spends time at the event. There is value to both the speaker and the event from such engagement. I have persistently struggled with that. I find myself always short of time and resistant to extended travel. I have many times driven in an hour before, and been gone again before lunch. Always trying to cram too much into limited time. 

But there is value in the experience. The Pew post notes the power of networking and connecting. It is extremely difficult to build relationships virtually. Networking in a 3-hour stop is challenging as well. There is value in being present, watching presenters, and engaging with them. There is no speaker from whom you cannot learn something. Find a way to be present and to participate. I have recruited many a speaker because of familiarity and persistence. 

The lessons that this seemingly innocuous social media post conveys are clear and notable. Engage in your community with a mindset that both mentors and mentees benefit (sometimes you cannot tell which is which in a relationship). Lead with what you have, passion, experience, curiosity, you name it. Any strength can be leveraged. Know that life will throw challenges, changes, and curve balls. It is always all about how you elect to interpret them and respond. Be present when you can, and engage with the community. Growth and opportunity come through involvement, not through isolation.

I reflected on many conferences I have attended that included Mark as a speaker. I am reasonably confident that those did not include us sharing a stage. I texted him to confirm, and he reminded me that we did share a screen once on The Point (he also noted that he did not find that in his list, so he is really at 701 presentations). He also suggested an occasion in which I did not show up as planned (not my plan, they planned and did not tell me I would be called upon). Sidenote, be prepared for the unexpected. 

See, Mark keeps records of those appearances and of topics, co-presenters, venues, and more. My record-keeping is a bit more rudimentary (date, sponsor, town, topic), and I lament that in retrospect. As a very old dog, I will adapt to his trick moving forward and note my colleagues. 

There is a great deal about social media that is a complete waste of time. But we can learn from it, and be reminded by it, if we take a critical view. Find social interaction that brings you value, whether that is in the real or virtual world. Recognize that either may bring you both ideas and strength. I have met many people through those interactions and I stress to my students to find ways to do so. 

When you choose a professional social media, and nonetheless note a post that really belongs on FaceBook, you can lament it, comment on it, or just move on. But pause for those that describe things that worked or did not for people. Learn from both the mistakes and the successes of others. You can evolve slowly while making all the mistakes yourself or you can absorb the experiences of others and grow with less pain. If they insist on telling you about their lunch or offer an inane poll, perhaps just scroll on by. They are trying to be relevant with their macaroni and cheese, perhaps that works for them?

In the end, there is much to learn and the path is long. Few will find a "forever home" in business (even people with their name on a door often find some young protege eventually showing them that door). Careers will be even more evolutionary in years to come. Change will be increasingly a challenge. The workplace and professions will be persistent opportunities for growth and fulfillment. But that will require conscious engagement, persistence, and focus.

Find your center. Choose a (new?) passion. Plot your course. Change your priorities as needed. Engage your community. Know that there will be disappointment and challenge. Keep swimming. The fact is that success is out there if you care enough to pursue it. Watch for those who can inspire you, strengthen you, and reinforce you. They are rare and worth keeping.

So, congratulations on the 700 Mark. That is an incredible achievement. While it has delivered value, the real point is that you are engaged in the community in a way that fits both you and the community. You are an example for your peers, and more critically for the next generation of contributors, writers, or speakers (of whatever age or experience). 

A Special Circle

Dante suggested that there is probable difficult terrain ahead for those who are less than stellar in their participation in the living world. He espoused several "circles" in hell. A Penguin Bool review describes them in some brevity and they need not be repeated. There is some humor there, but it is a workable overview.

The character traits that present dangers of such an eternity include Limbo, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and Treachery. An intriguing list that some see as all-inclusive and others see as a good start. Each is tied to an eternal punishment, and thus there are supposedly after-life consequences to poor behavior.

The book review says such may include things like "You’ll have television, but all of the channels will be set to CSPAN," or being surrounded by "supposed 'IRS agents' who insist on being paid in iTunes cards," or "Washington, DC in February." Like I said, there is some humor. History Defined provides a more classic discussion of the nine circles.

Some who read Dante were thereafter taken with vague references to the "circles" thereafter. Many a criticism has begun over time with the wish that "there is a special circle for people that _________." I found myself on that page this week.

The national news came alive with the story of a misguided youth who decided that his wants and needs justify theft, (greed, violence, treachery). He decided to steal and thought the best victims would be some young Girl Scouts selling cookies in Fort Worth, according to 5NBCDFW. Hint for miscreants, jurors like young kids doing good and may not like big kids stealing from them.

There is a manhunt on for the young man accused of "grabbing a bag from behind the table before sprinting into the parking lot." He planned the hit well and made a clean escape. Kudos perhaps for the careful preparation. Shockingly, it turns out that the retailer or landlord there in Fort Worth had a couple of surveillance cameras and this young man is now a national celebrity. See Orwellian Store Security (August 2022). 

Who knocks over a cookie stand?

That said, there is a challenge in anyone that turns to thievery as a path to sustenance. It is difficult to understand in a world that offers great opportunities and a variety of safety nets. The national news just featured the amazing expansion of "campus food pantry" efforts to feed college students, 800 of them (pantries, not students). Anyone who got through college without discovering 100 ways to tolerate macaroni and cheese from a box, or the wonders of peanut butter as an entree, well kudos to you. But, the fact is that there is help everywhere. Society is doing great things, providing great opportunities through scouting and similar. 

Why people resort to theft and violence is troubling. This exists in the world around us though, and it seems to be increasing. Let me check Google. Thanks for pausing with me while I looked that up. The answer, according to the Marshall Project is clear. Violent crime is "up and also down." I like clarity in many things, but the "it depends" analysis makes for interesting reading.

That report explains its equivocacy with "Property crime and violence against young people are both up, recent federal data shows, but other crime trends are murkier." That is interesting in the draw. It made me want to pause to read the whole article, but I did not want to leave you waiting here for too long. The point crime is increasingly "against young people." That is troubling in a number of ways.

First, young people today, well anytime, are not as financially resilient. There are generally less resources and less favorable paths to recovery. Second, whether you like it or not, those young people are your future. As they succeed or fail, so goes society. You know, the society you expect to care for you in your golden years?

There is little doubt that the young cookie sprinter in DFW will be brought to heel. There is a clear still from the surveillance that is making the rounds on social media. Someone is going to rat out this misguided youth. Good advice, if he is reading this, turn yourself in and make it easy on yourself. A good bit of remorse and sincere contrition can go a long way in the American courts. As some cynics will note, perhaps he will not do so, and the intrepid system will have to hunt him down. Yes, the local police will not just do a report and drop this like they do most property crimes. They may actually investigate and make an arrest (after all, people are watching). 

The DFW dasher is not alone. If you take a moment with the web, it turns out that knocking over Girl Scouts is a thing. In 2023 a Troop Treasurer was arrested. There was an alleged 2023 snatch-and-grab in front of a retailer. It happened in 2022 in Houston. There was the Great Minnesota Heist of 2021. There was another one in Kentucky in 2020; and a counterfeitor was also accused in 2020 in Oregon. Some may see a pattern developing. In each instance, there is some individual responsible for taking what belongs to others.

The other pattern that seems to become an American norm is that such incidents are prone to generate great outpourings of both sympathy and dollars. In the end of this story, funds will likely be replenished. In the end, the girls robbed here will not suffer. They will learn some hard lesson from the miscreant, but will likely see a great outpouring that reinforces some great societal attributes. Hopefully, none of the instances end in more serious consequences, such as injury or worse. But, it returns me to the original premise. Is there a special circle in hell for those who would rob children?

If so, what would it look like? Perhaps those who find themselves in such circumstances will be surrounded by the colorful boxes of Thin Mints, Samoas, and Raspberry Rallies. Perhaps they will even enjoy the smell. But each box they open will be empty, a tribute to the vacant character of those who steal from children. Too harsh? Well, perhaps they will be surrounded by ample supplies of such cookies and yet not a drop of milk will be found? Or, maybe all the boxes are empty except the S'mores? Ouch, sorry if that cookie appeals to you.

Yes, this blog is still about workers' compensation and the law. I can hear Statler and Waldorf in the balcony. The point in the big picture is that stealing is troublesome. It need not be grand theft, and need not make the national news. Theft is theft. It impacts everyone. The miscreants who shoplift toothpaste make life hard for others as stores lock up shelves. They make life even harder as stores abandon neighborhoods because the economics simply do not work. Pundits and prognosticators make vapid statements about store closures, but the bottom line is that no one closes a profitable store (or stops eating Thin Mint cookies). 

Make no mistake, the prevalence of waste, fraud, and abuse adds to the cost of everything. Those who would supply a market will make economic choices. If the Girl Scouts are no longer outside your local grocer, perhaps there is a reason? Are we willing to forego the cookies, or shall we make our communities safe? 

In that vein, some believe that there is $34 billion in annual workers' compensation fraud. The cost of that is being borne by those who do pay premiums. The cost of that is being borne by the genuinely injured who face cynicism, delay, and doubt in their quest for valid and necessary care, treatment, and sustenance. Those who are responsible for waste, fraud, and abuse color the market for all who work, pay premiums and rely on this safety net. 

Are those who cheat this safety net, who deprive others through their actions, any better than the young man who stole the cookie money?

A Theatre for the Common Woes of the Common Man

The news is persistently about Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). It has been revolutionary in recent years both in the investigation of crimes and in the exoneration of those convicted in the past. This month, NBC News reported on a "50-year-old Colorado" case that was solved. The evidence led the police to "a career criminal who spent much of his life in and out of prison." The perpetrator is long dead, but there is a benefit in bringing closure.

There are rarely circumstances in workers' compensation that warrant the attention of the media. But such a case made the news in 1963. The story had curiosity, intrigue, and tragedy. Two developers with a "family dream called Tierra Verde" were allegedly killed in an air crash. They were father and son, and the father had "bought 2,000 acres of land in lower Boca Ciega Bay," back in the era when a landowner could dredge and fill. That era has long passed. The federal government began regulating dredging in the 1970s. 

The developers had made money in construction. They had "built bridges, tunnels, and military bases." Their company, "Berlanti Overseas Corporation was reported to have contracts worth more than $100 million in the Caribbean." It had been working on a "giant housing project in Cuba in January 1959 when Castro's forces took the island."

The developers convinced the public to fund a bridge between St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg Beach. They fought against the inhabitants who liked their "quiet little town" and were resistant to change. They spent $50 million dredging (about $500 million today). In mid-August, one of the developers, Fred Berlanti, took off from St. Petersburg-Clearwater Airport in a private plane. His destination was Miami, intending to pick up his father, the other developer.

That evening, bad weather diverted them from Miami to West Palm Beach, they departed close to midnight. There was a mysterious call supposedly from Fred, from Miami. However, the evidence demonstrated he was in West Palm by that time. One press report noted the "three types of time" and that the "Flight Timetable (is) a Puzzle." Different records or statements may have referenced "Eastern standard, Greenwich Meridian, and military time." The judge involved is said to have contacted "three conflicting witnesses" regarding the potential conflicts. See Sleuthing Addressed Again (January 2018).

The two developers did not return home on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. The following Monday, "fishermen found first one, then two severed arms in the 730-square-mile Lake Okeechobee." There were reports of a "plane burst(ing)into flames late Friday or early Saturday." Officials continued to search, and more remains were found. A "torso, almost 20 miles from the spot where the other arms were found" was identified as Fred's.

Incredibly, "there was no sign, nor would there ever be, of the aircraft." The plane simply disappeared. But there was one witness who later testified he saw the plane hidden in a Guatemalan jungle. He also testified to seeing Fred in Guatemala. The press portrayed the witness as a character, and there was criticism of his credibility. 

The recovered limbs and torso were "not enough to put to rest the mystery of their deaths." There were "courtrooms and insurance hearings." Press reports said there were allegations that the two Berlantis were murdered. Others alleged that "the Berlantis had disappeared to collect insurance money," essentially to save the Tierra Verde development. There were allegations that the Berlantis had a "confrontational relationship with Fidel Castro's regime" as well as significant debts.

The forensic evidence was disputed. Though the FBI concluded that fingerprints found on the recovered body parts matched the Berlanti's, there was contradictory expert testimony. As the litigation proceeded, that contradicting "expert changed his mind and finally agreed with the FBI." Expert testimony can be challenging, see Daubert's New Day (May 2019).

And, amidst this major news story, "it seemed strangely incongruous that it should all come to rest in a workman's compensation court, a theatre for the common woes of the common man." Odd that even in the days of "Deputy Commissioners" there was a persistent misconstruction of calling things "courts." Mrs. Fred Berlanti had "filed a $14,000 workmen's compensation death claim," and it was contested. There were "months of workmen's compensations hearings" before Deputy Commissioner Silas Daniel. The press opined "The wildly bizarre story that has unfolded . . . is almost certain to have a dull ending."

The press noted that despite all the intrigue and accusations, the case would come down "ironically" to "three rather sterile issues." These were (1) whether Fred was "an employee of the Tierra Verde City," (2) if so "was he working or was he on a personal mission," and (3) "assuming he is dead, could his death be blamed in whole or in part on a previous physical condition." In truth, many disputes come down to "rather sterile issues." If we could just maintain our focus on them. 

There was evidence that "Fred was out of the business" before the crash. There was medical evidence that Fred "was suffering from multiple sclerosis and that it had affected his eyesight and use of his legs," though he had not told his wife. Other press reports said the diagnosis was "muscular dystrophy." Whether there was a medical dispute or just bad reporting is lost to the ages. Innuendo can become a fact to be proved or disproved. And some lawyers can run down a dead end with amazing zeal. 

The press stressed that the claim was for $14,000 and questioned the time and effort invested in the dispute. Clement Ehrlich of Miami defended the claim. He told the press, the case was "a Viet Nam," and "one move just led to another." The case, it seems, came to have a life of its own in both the press and the hearing room. This is more common through emotion than reason and logic. 

But, others contended the degree of defense in the workmen's compensation proceeding related to "set(ting) a precedent for disposal of other life insurance claims - estimated unofficially as high as $8.5 million." The trial before Deputy Daniel was extensive, "day-long." And, the press reports sound as if he thereafter did his own investigating instead of deciding the case on the record presented. 

In the end, after two years of litigation, Deputy Daniel awarded the $14,700 in workmen's compensation. This along with "several lots on Tierra Verde and life insurance payments" left the widow "very comfortable." She claimed that in the end, she gave up fighting and accepted what the estate offered. She found the financial experience "mind-boggling."

That $14,700 in 1964 was worth about $148,161.11 in 2024. The sum is coincidentally not dissimilar to the $150,000 cap on death benefits in the statute in 2024. There are some who love the dog whistle of a "race to the bottom" and decreasing benefits in workers' compensation. They rarely have facts to support their hyperbole. Deep dives into benefit comparison do not support any significant diminution in Florida benefits since 1935. 

Additionally, Deputy Daniel awarded her attorney $7,000 in fees for litigating the claim.

Would DNA have made the circumstances simpler? Would the results of DNA testing have been accepted, or doubted as "new and novel?" See Daubert, above. As we progress and continue to witness the arrival of new technologies, there is perhaps the temptation to believe each new tool is the next DNA, but with it the fear or anxiety that it could alternatively be the next empty promise.

There are lessons in the history. First, the facts in any case are likely to be disputed. Various witnesses may bring perspectives that are discordant and that perhaps change. That is for the lawyers and parties to pursue, not the judge. Litigation can take on a life of its own. Disputes can persist despite no one being able to explain the forces driving litigation. There is an obligation there. Attorneys must focus on the dispute, not the personalities. There should be professionalism on both sides of the table, and emotions should be relegated to their appropriate role.

And in the end, we should be proud not that trials are sometimes theater. But we should be proud that there is such an opportunity for the "common woes of the common man." Certainly, there is the probability that any trial will "have a dull ending," but the purpose of this system is not intrigue, notoriety, or excitement. The purpose is for ordinary people to have their day in hearing (no, not their day in Quart), to be listened to, and to pursue the outcome they hope for. Dull, is not a bad thing. Due process is not a bad thing. Finality is not a bad thing.

This post is compiled from press reports, and all of the quotes here are from the following articles:

Tierra Verde: Plane Crash Dashed a Dream, St. Petersburg Times, March 1985, Page 4a.

Widow had to fend off speculation, St. Petersburg Times, March 1985, Page 4a.

Mystery, Millions, Intrigue, and the Berlantis, St. Petersburg Times, July 4, 1968.

Adventurer Shocks Insurance Hearing, St. Petersburg Times, September 5, 1964.

Berlantis' Flight Timetable a Puzzle, Tampa Bay Times, September 29, 1964, Page 5

A coin in the head

I remember many years ago encountering an individual with a spinal cord injury. He had some assistive devices and used a "mouth stick." Another recollection is more recent of a person using a "tongue drive" that was somehow interpreting tongue movement to steer a wheelchair. At a conference in Florida recently, I watched a demonstration of a device that somehow allowed blind people to "see" and the connection to the brain there also involved the tongue. In each instance, I was astounded at the efficacy and more so the ingenuity. It is an amazing age in which we live. Few of us likely understand these marvels, but the technology surrounds us. 

But, there are hopes on the horizon of a deeper nature. I was astounded to learn that last month (January 2024) a company called Neuralink has performed its first human "brain implant," according to Business Insider. The device "is about the size of a coin," and they "embedded (it) in a person's skull." it has wires of some description that are used to interpret, record, and "potentially stimulate" the brain.

Artificial intelligence scares you? Imagine a computer hard-wired to your neurons. Business Insider says "The tech has some potential near-term medical applications." That said, it is rudimentary still (it notes "1,024 channels is not that impressive these days"). It sounds to me like an 8088 processor when we first heard of computers. Sure, it is magical and mind-blowing, but how long will it take to double in capacity? Will Moore's law be implicated here?

The article describes an intriguing installation process in which those wires are "punched" into the brain, "a bit like a sewing machine." No worries, the attachment is accomplished by a robot. And I let AI scare me. in this instance, the brain can apparently control a computer directly.

For the astounding nature of this, and the potential implications, the BI article notes that some scientists could be more impressed. Some say this has all been done before (I never knew), and one says "arguably its origins go all the way back to the 1960s." Another critic says

"If you just watched this (Neurolink) presentation, you would think that it's coming out of nowhere, that Musk is doing this magic, but in reality, he's really copied and pasted a lot of work from many, many labs that have been working on this."

Well, that is part of it perhaps. Maybe today's science stands on the shoulders of yesterday's? Did anyone say such things about various computers, softwares, and applications over the years? Does anyone out there think there was "no imagination" in the Star Wars, underdog, overcoming evil storyline? We still loved it. And perhaps it is not new per se, but a fresh look even at an "old hat" might be productive in finding it a new purpose.  

But as importantly, it turns out that one of the competitors of Neurolink, Synchron, involves a former "Neuralink president, Max Hodak." He departed in 2021, and Synchron "implanted its first device into a US patient" in July 2022.

What is more interesting is that there are multiple competitors in this space, and there seems to be a broad focus on developing innovative human interaction with information. It is perhaps unimaginable that we might forego keyboards and the mouse. If we are honest, perhaps even the screen becomes a novelty? Could the chip simply tell our eyes what to see? And as insane as it may sound, we have heard some whopper predictions from experts past.

Remember Ken Olson in 1977: “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Or, Robert Metcalf in 1995: "But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” Or, Nathan Myhrvold in 1997: “Apple is already dead.” But, maybe Bill Gates was the most disappointing, in 2004: "Two years from now, spam will be solved.” Here I sit on my Apple iPhone pocket computer surfing the internet and fighting my spam addiction. You cannot make this stuff up.

Yes, it is easy to make predictions and it is easy to be wrong. Spectacularly wrong is achievable. And, beyond such glowing examples, there have been a multitude of failures and flops. But perhaps none are more imperative than Elon Musk's. Apparently, in 2019, he "said Neuralink could in future 'solve a lot of brain-related diseases,' and named autism and schizophrenia as examples."

The Business Insider article is critical of both examples. And perhaps those predictions will not come to fruit. Perhaps the controlling computers will not either. But, perhaps, both predictor and critics neither know everything there is to know about the human brain. Perhaps as these competitors delve more deeply into what the brain can do, then is it possible science might advance, improve, and evolve?

The New Professionalism

I did a computerized search for the Florida Supreme Court opinion regarding professionalism ("supreme court professionalism"). It yielded results back to the 1950s. I re-sorted from "relevance" to "date" and the July 6, 2023 order was still number 8 on the list. The July 2023 decision is In re Code for Resolving Professionalism Referrals, 367 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 2023). It could be easier to find. 

It is worth a read, with coverage of a variety of points. It culminates an odyssey that began in May 2021 while the world remained primarily concerned about the creeping virus and striving for normalcy. The Court noted at the outset that this is not a new effort. It has been ringing the professionalism bell for years. Unfortunately, many lawyers have steadfastly ignored the entreaties.

But 2023 brought a new code that "replaces the 2013 Code with the Code for Resolving Professionalism Referrals." 2023 brought a professionalism overview reminding that there are "four sources that make up the standards of professionalism in Florida; the other sources are the (1) Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, (2) The Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, and the (3) Rules Regulating The Florida Bar." in addition to (4) "The revised Professionalism Expectations."

I have the utmost respect for our judiciary, Board of Governors, and for many lawyers. That said, I have a mental image, I just cannot shake, of a little boy sticking fingers and toes in an increasingly porous dike. See Hans Brinker, Mary Maples Dodge, 1865. There is a leak or two out there, and you cannot fault this effort just on that basis. But, the bottom line is that the Court needs more fingers to plug all these holes.

What is new? That may be troubling to some. The Court emphasized that the adopted standards "apply to all forms of communication, including online communication, and to both in-person and remote (video or audio) interactions with others." The cynics in the crowd are likely wondering why that had to be said. Did someone escape punishment by claiming their abuse of opposing counsel or some party or witness was "only" remote or "only" online? Was there some sentiment that it is acceptable to berate and belittle in certain settings or paradigms?

What is new? The requirement for continuing education decreases from "33 credit hours" including "at least one . . . (hour) of an approved professionalism program," to "30 hours per reporting cycle," but that must include "a two-hour legal professionalism course produced by The Florida Bar and approved by this Court." So, fewer hours overall, more mandatory professionalism, and more focused or specific professionalism. The two-hour CLE is now ready. I sat through it recently (there are no choices, watching it is mandatory).

I am a big fan of professionalism. I like to experience it on the bench. I like to see it in the work that is filed. I would be inspired to see it in the real world. Imagine the national news running a headline like Furious Travis Kelce grabs, screams at coach Andy Reid. What an inspiration for all the children watching at home. Is this an exception of professionalism or the modern rule? 

Remember when professionals did not scream at officials, throw equipment, or otherwise emulate the "terrible twos?" The Bleacher Report compiled 25 Terrible Examples of Sportsmanship back in 2013. It remains compelling today. The best line in the article is "big tool? or biggest?" Somehow that says it all. Is the ultimate goal to win? Is that so compelling that it is worthy of any hold ("no holds barred")?

The answer from many quarters will be yes. I have seen it, reported it, and lamented it. There is a great deal of hand-wringing about lawyers and their behavior. And, to a person, they are reluctant to report the behavior of others. There is inclination instead to had wringing and complaining. The CLE program includes the point that lawyers see the lack of professionalism as the biggest challenge in the practice of law. Ruminate on that.

There are vast numbers of people who cannot afford legal services. There are congested court calendars. There are cyber miscreants engaged in a full-on assault on your privacy and success. The artificial intelligence is radically shifting the way we acquire and process information. We have law schools graduating students who progressed through multiple-guess exams. Despite these challenges, and more, number one is the lack of professionalism. If that does not alarm the reader, one perhaps wonders how.

What are the key points of the video? Watch it yourself! Now that was an unprofessional taunt. Five-yard penalty, still second down (sorry, football on the brain"). Did anyone else notice they were playing football between the commercials at the super bowl? I kid, but really, I love the commercials.

One of the CLE speakers reiterated more than once, referencing points and anecdotes "surprising, but it happens." There were references to missed deadlines, poor work, and worse. Sorry, but that "poor work" is not professionalism, it is a failure of competence. Let's quit that characterization. If a doctor leaves a sponge in your surgery site, or does not suture you up, would you say "well, that's not professional?" No, you would say that is not competent. Let's be real. Let's speak real.

Another speaker noted that "ethics is the floor" and professionalism is our aspiration. But the Court is shifting us from that. We have professionalism expectations. We have a new Code for Resolving Professionalism Referrals. This defines "unprofessional conduct." This incorporates the numbered points above. This clarifies that unprofessional conduct "may be referred to The Florida Bar for a disciplinary investigation," and perhaps "formal disciplinary process." Will we see disbarment?

One of the CLE speakers dropped a bomb that everyone should likely listen to twice. (You do not have to, another speaker repeated the spirit later). The first point was essentially "you are a lawyer 24/7." My notes on that are not so clear, but that is the point I got. The speaker suggested that you cannot "get in a fight" with the valet who parked your car. OK, really? Did that happen? Inquiring minds want to know.

The reiteration later in the program was perhaps more eloquent or maybe my notes were just clearer. This speaker said "once a lawyer, always a lawyer." Another reiterated "Professionalism is a must." The theme was recurrent. The point was inescapable. There is seeming unanimity among the presenters, the committee, and the Court. 

All that said, the world did not change on July 6, 2023 (opinion date). It did not shift seventy-five days later when the comment period concluded. It did not transform when the CLE program dropped, nor when I watched it. No, words are words. And with all due respect, we have heard much of this before. 

Today, there are likely still lawyers filing evidence they have physically altered. Not every day perhaps, but it is happening at least weekly. There are likely still lawyers attesting to patent falsity. There are probably still lawyers unilaterally scheduling discovery, failing to return calls, and berating each other in emails, texts, and more. There are likely even lawyers who file documents with factual assertions that are unsupported by any evidence. Does argument extend to fabrication? Will any of that change?

Will there be a greater willingness to report poor behavior to the Bar? Will there be more stringent recommendations of discipline by the Bar? Will the Court drive home its point in specific instances? In light of the common perception (number one, see above), perhaps some will hope so. Others will likely proceed on as if nothing has happened. They will sit through the CLE and claim their participation trophy. And the really disappointing part is that 98.43% of the lawyers that will invest 2 hours are literally in the choir already. 

But will those who watch be better attorneys? Will the behavior in the market improve? Will the avoidable disputes, name-calling, unenthusiastic, unconcerned, indifferent, and worse improve? Time will tell. Color me skeptical for today, but hopeful that this voluminous effort does in fact bear fruit. In the event it does not, public perception will erode, lawyer stress will increase, frustration will fester, and we will all return to the topic again another day when more territory has been yielded, and fewer professional lawyers remain to lament it. 

What of the Economy?

We have known for some time that the economy is being impacted by long-forgotten inflation levels. The pandemic was a time of great panic and economic turmoil. Perhaps there has not been a similar time of economic upheaval, and certainly not in living memory. In retrospect, there were so many poor decisions made regarding federal borrowing and spending. With the dollar tied to no standard, money is worth what we perceive or believe it to be worth. The more dollars there are in the economy, chasing goods and services, the higher prices will go. According to Investopedia, this is the borrowing record of recent presidents:

The borrowing during George W. Bush's administration exceeded the borrowing during the three presidential terms (20 years) prior. Not to be outdone, the overspending during the Obama administration almost doubled that of Bush (W.). Explaining the largess of either is a frustrating endeavor. The pandemic years were not better, and there is no apparent end in sight. We might discuss the pandemic, with words like unprecedented, urgent, or more. 

But nonetheless, the spending has been significant even against the backdrop of the Obama years. Despite the graphic above of 2.5 trillion during the Biden administration, Investopedia says that the debt "has grown by over $6.24 trillion since Biden took office." If that is valid, then the last eight years have exhibited over $12 trillion, and that is close to the overspending of the 52 years prior combined. 

We are paying interest on the debt. Even if we quit borrowing now, the expense of paying the interest on all that past consumption and debt would continue. The total debt of the country is unprecedented, and much of that money is running through the economy here and abroad (when you buy a product made in a foreign country, that money goes to that economy).

According to CNN, "Sixty-seven percent of employees say the cost of living is outpacing growth in their salary and wages." This is largely because money is being persistently poured into the economy through trillions of dollars in increased debt. Those dollars all chase the same supply of goods such as homes, cars, and other consumables.

Wages have been artificially increased. Instead of market forces determining how much someone earns for an hour of work, there have been various government efforts to increase the "minimum" wage of workers. As those wages increase, the cost of the goods or services that they produce will also increase. The cycle will continue. And as wonderful as the fiction of legislating success may sound, the results are sometimes unfortunate (and to those who cannot comprehend consequences, perhaps unexpected.

California legislated a new $20.00 minimum wage. This is an apparent attempt to regulate out of the impacts of prior poor regulatory decisions. Previous legislative efforts have raised rates, which raised prices, which did not result ultimately in better living for the working. Continuing to legislate ever-increasing minimum wages will continue to drive prices. The results are as elementary as they are inevitable.

KTLA reports that several businesses have elected to therefore lay off workers. Those who would like to deliver pizzas for the $16.00 per hour they were working for last year now find themselves without a job. The result of the government management of private employment relationships has not lifted those drivers, but unemployed them.

The Daily Mail says 1,200 will lose jobs. Drivers feel they have been "slapped in the face." The food companies have said they will instead use gig services like Door Dash and Uber Eats (on a recent order, I saw that add $6.00 to the price of a pizza. I will order less often as a result). Other impacts are also noted with major fast food outlets saying that menu prices will increase. 

Wages rise, prices rise. Then people who eat fast food will feel their earnings not going as far and they will seek raises, and the prices of their services will rise. The quest for a "living wage" won't be fulfilled by legislators striving to micro-manage the employment relationship. The impacts are being seen now on fast food, with consumption reactions according to the news. 

One news source recently asked "Is the $18 Big Mac combo what finally broke America?" Does anyone remember when the "minimum" wage was $7.50 and so was a combo meal? I wonder what would happen if we forced the wage upwards to $20 per hour? Everyone would make more money, and as Louis Armstrong noted "What a wonderful world it would be" (1967). Perhaps if we raise the minimum wage to $50 that would fix the "living wage" conundrum? 

Some think that the fault is on product producers. They take to the airwaves (or the web) to complain of "Shrinkflation." See Shrinkflation and SB 959 (December 2021). See a producer can maintain the price, or slow the increase, by using less inputs. That means robots instead of humans in some instances, but could mean less product in the bag or cheaper ingredients in the product. That is the "shrink." The shrink is a reaction to economic reality and it does impact the price we pay. Is it as insidious as injecting trillions of dollars into the economy? Likely it pales by comparison, but it is easier to point a finger at in distraction and denial. 

According to Business Insider, people have reacted to the insidious lockdown mentality of the pandemic. The government's reaction to SARS-CoV-2 destroyed much of the American economy directly. But it also changed the way people think and feel about their existence. The BI article notes that people "prefer to spend their weekends quietly at home over socializing." The impact is personal, but it is also economic. Those people staying home are not out dropping $15.00 on a cocktail and tipping their server. For that matter, they are not dropping $18.00 on a Big Burger Combo nor paying $6.00 to have it delivered to their home. 

One quoted in the BI story notes

"If I leave my house I spend at least 100 dollars,"

Another that

"Everything is so expensive it's not fun anymore."

The cost is not because of some unseen and unforgivable supervillain (OK, perhaps there are some villains out there). The cost of going out is increasing because the cost of wages is increasing. The wages at the restaurant, at the trucking company that brings things there, at the brewery that makes/bottles the beer, at the trucking company that brings supplies to the brewery, there is a cascading impact in the economy of every increase in wages. Wages are a part of every element and segment of the product and its consumption.

And this is not an American thing in isolation. Last year, the Guardian brought us news (not news really, we all knew already) that "the cost of living crisis is destroying young people’s social lives." The young are not headed out to socialize in the United Kingdom because of the cost of living. This failure of socialization has an economic cost. But moreso a personal cost. What are the impacts on mental health? What are the detriments to our collaboration, collegiality, and cooperation from isolation and introversion? The young likely want to meet for coffee and cannot afford a cup. 

The impact of that is fewer customers. Fewer consumers will drive down the demand for goods and services. That is less sales by the business. But, with government-mandated wages, the pay at restaurants and similar establishments will (can) not respond by similarly decreasing. The only way for business to respond to the decreased demand and thus decreased business will be to lay off some portion of the workforce to cut costs. People will lose jobs. Artificially force up particular costs and the market will react.

There are discussions in the news about human reactions to stress and challenges. There are natural human emotions and COVID has impacted people, some deeply. The overall impact of that virus has been felt personally and variously. But in addition to the great personal loss experienced by many who lost loved ones, the economic loss persists. The emotional impact of the virus that was loosed upon us resultingly continues and is pernicious. 

That emotional evolution will impact the employer/employee relationship for years to come, as will the ongoing effort to legislate relationships and myths such as the "living wage." The world has witnessed multiple attempts at controlled economies. In the end, those have brought societal ruin and ultimately failure. Socialism, communism, and variants of each have failed consistently and spectacularly. What controlled economy has demonstrated long-term success?

In America, we have seen some attempts at central control, but moderated by largely free-market, laissez-faire evolution and freedom. Government has been able to periodically tweak without destroying. Workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, Occupational Safety and Health, are all good tweak examples. But, there will be a line somewhere that cannot be crossed. 

As the nation adapts to the "new normal," and the evolution of workplace, retailer, and wage earner continues, the great engine of American economics must be allowed to rev. People must be allowed to thrive in their production, contribution, and consumption. Value must be generated, products and services must attract consumers, and people must be confident in their existence and economic desires. It is the secret of our success and our only hope for tomorrow.

Ambition and optimism built this country. The expectations of today are in need of resuscitation and rejuvenation. People must be able to see their futures as attractive and motivating. The young must perceive opportunity and progress. The answer is not in dumping billion after billion (trillion?) of debt into consumer's hands. If it were, the government could borrow another $2 trillion and cancel all the credit card debt that has been unwisely accumulated). If we relieve the people of all consequences related to their decisions, will that lead to better decisions in the future?

The answer is in opportunity, ambition, and the American dream. Young people must come to realize that no one had it easy. The challenges have always existed. A poster on LinkedIn recently overviewed what the people born in 1900 faced. It is a real eye-opener. 

For example, here is what those folks faced on various birthdays during their lives:

14 - WWI

18 - Still WWI

25 - the Great Depression

39 - WWII

45 - Still WWII

52 - Korean War

64 - Vietnam War

As the poster so eloquently put it, "How do you survive all of that? A child in 1985 didn’t think their 85-year-old grandparent understood how hard school was." Yes, I was young and naive once. I doubted and questioned the "old folks." But look at what they lived through. That person born in 1900 evolved from horseback to Tesla; from telegraph to iPhone; from the invention of the airplane to the moon; and from the Second Industrial Revolution to artificial intelligence. 

And, in truth, they did complain from time to time. I heard them. But they persevered, adapted, and gave us the world of today. A world full of advantages, technologies, and opportunities.

The fact is, those challenges were overcome by legions of ambitious and motivated people who clawed their way through difficulties and challenges. They found frustration, discrimination, and unfairness. They fought through it, and they (we) made great strides. It will not be easy, but today's young will eventually embrace it. I believe they will grow, evolve, and thrive. But it will not be because we deride or belittle them, it will be because we enable and encourage them. It will not be because we collectively borrow more money, flood more markets, or inflate more prices. It will be because we lead.