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. 

AI is a Tool

There has been a great deal written about artificial intelligence. It has been featured here many times. Chatbot Wins (June 2016); Artificial Intelligence in our World (January 2017); Intelligence (November 2022); You're Only Human (May 2023). I have been similarly concerned with the potential for manipulating what we see. Metadata and Makeup (May 2022). Most recently, AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023) focused on the challenges with the law addressing this new tool that will change our world.

Imagine my surprise to soon after run across an article in the British Broadcasting Corporation pages on "a sleepy little town in southern Spain." This seemingly quaint spot provides an example of much that we should fear and loathe in artificial intelligence. It is child pornography, but with a twist that is virtually unimaginable, and frankly shocking.

In this example, no one took untoward pictures of children. No one downloaded such images from a server, dark web, or worse. These pictures were "generated" by an artificial intelligence. It was provided pictures of fully clothed children and told to hypothesize or generalize or create images without the clothes. The original pictures were posted in the public domain voluntarily. These young people or their acquaintances posted those originals on social media of their own free will.

The horror of this attack impacts (ongoing, not past tense) more than 20 children. The miscreants that created the images were classless in their creation. But, striving to outdo their depravity, they also elected to share these creations online. Children are reporting to their parents that deepfakes of them are being shared about town.

There is discussion of support groups, police investigations, and potential criminal prosecution. There is discussion of the potential that extortion was involved and how applications like WhatsApp and Telegram may have been (mis)used in the process. I shudder at the implications of such technology and the depravity of those who would exploit children in such a cowardly and despicable way.

The article reports that impacts seem to be varied. Some of the victims, and they are victims, have retreated into their homes. They have been driven to isolation and reclusiveness by the actions of others.

Despite the clarity of this situation, there is apparently "public debate" over the situation. There is discussion of shame associated with "crimes of a sexual nature" and the potential for reluctance in reporting. And there is reportedly failure of the law to keep pace with evolving technology. Specifically, it notes that "Spanish law does not specifically cover the generation of images of a sexual nature when it involves adults, although the creation of such material using minors could be deemed child pornography."

Could be? One might wonder what else it might be. At a minimum, it is cyberbullying. Potentially, such misuse of people's photos might be prohibited and policed. With facial recognition and similar algorithms, it is nearly certain that social media filters could spot these photographs, note their state of undress, and prevent their dissemination. Certainly, without question, more could be done than it appears has been discussed as yet. 

Fortunately, many parents are reportedly worried. Those with sons are concerned that they might have participated (or perpetrated). Those with daughters are "even more worried, because it's an act of violence." There is anger, recrimination, accusation, and angst. The deepfake concept is not new, and has been a thing since digital photos burst on the scene. But this is admittedly different, more disturbing, and predatory.

There is much to unpack in this story. There is criminality, morality, and fragility. Are we, society, prepared to sit back and allow miscreants to engage technology in ways that damage the most vulnerable in our midst? Will we allow the deployment of software that has such capability for harm and violation? Will we allow social media to hide behind its "we're just a service" excuses while such assault and attack occurs?

The entire world of business will be impacted by artificial intelligence in weeks, months, and years to come. There will be impacts on our health, safety, and welfare. We will be touched, perhaps aided, and certainly impacted by the new world coming. But, will we be forced to accept the surrender of our humanity in exchange?

The time is ripe for hard questions about how, when, and why to engage this new tool. It is imperative that we remember that it is a tool. A hammer is a tool, and likely indispensable. However, in the wrong hands, it may be a weapon rather rapidly. The key to tools is that their use or misuse is in the hands of the user. The challenge of the law is that it regulates that user effectively and sufficiently.

As we strive to see our future, let us remember those unfortunate children in Spain victimized by a tool and laws not prepared to protect them. The tool is inevitable, the failure of the law to address it is avoidable and frankly tragic.

The Challenges of Misdirection

The environment of work is a challenge from various perspectives including productivity, expenses, sales, staffing, safety, and more. Management or owners struggle persistently with maintaining a work environment that is amenable to the customer, the employee, the supplier, and the goals of the owners. And business of all sizes is impacted by the actions of government, state, local, and federal. Each influences the environment in which the business strives to persist and perhaps thrive.

The news is persistently, presenting us with examples of misdirected youth, lawlessness, and challenges. In the words of one tech entrepreneur, America “is going full joker.”

The impacts are being seen across the country. I have written about the closures of retailers in the past. See Evolutions in Economy (January 2022). However, the pace and pervasiveness seem to be increasing. One major retailer recently announced plans to close outlets in various locals. In other locations, it is locking its valuables behind cages. Once upon a time, such valuables included electronics, gems, jewelry, and similar. No, this retailer is locking up laundry detergent, baby, formula, and razors.

The latest example of youthful exuberance occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Apparently using the convenient communication tool that is modern social media, "mobs" of miscreants descended en masse upon retailers and wreaked destruction. Catching a shoplifter, deterring a lone, miscreant is difficult. Confronting a massive gang is simply impossible. And when insurrection arises, government may be impotent to respond. As violence and even battles rage in America, there is little publicity or news reporting to support that those responsible for death, mayhem, and destruction in the supposedly "peaceful" demonstrations of 2020 have been brought to justice or even pursued.

The symptoms are all around us. I recently had the opportunity to visit one of the grandest malls in this country. It is a multi-level, conglomeration of some of the ugliest, goriest, and most expensive materials one might ever experience. I like my purses more staid and reserved. My distaste for such conspicuous consumption is apparently rather unique, as I can assure you many of my fellow mall patrons were not browsing, they were buying. I struggle to understand how one earns enough money for a $500+ handbag (For example only, I saw a lot of expensive merchandise).

But I was surprised there, to find my access to stores limited. Gone were the open and welcoming mall store entrances of my youth. Instead, the stores had glass display windows and lockable front doors. Most store doors were attended, and access was limited ("two at a time please"). Some stores, for whatever reason, had delegated an employee to this potentially dangerous task of access control. Others had engaged some third-party vendor in a security uniform. Two of those were armed security (nine-millimeter pistols with multiple visible extra clips).

How did America reach this stage? As I dictated that, I was drawn towards the word "nadir," but hesitated because I was uncertain we have reached the bottom. How? It began in the 70s, to my knowledge. (I don’t remember a great deal before the 70s, so it’s possible it started sooner but without me. The apologists of that era began explaining persistently that there were no bad people, only bad circumstances. They excused the "demonstrators" and made excuses for the assailants.

These social science advocates persistently pushed the narrative that everyone in society should be afforded every opportunity for rehabilitation and re-acceptance. In their enthusiasm and zeal, they were often heard to rely upon emotional arguments regarding some past wrong, misfortune, or disadvantage suffered by the unfortunate. The social scientists were adamant that tragic circumstances, humble beginnings, and more compelled us as a society to be understanding, forgiving, and complacent to the infractions of some (or all).

50 years on, no shock to many of us, America has grown into an increasingly lawless society. California has essentially endorsed shoplifting. In their efforts to avoid the emotional turmoil of dealing with wrongdoers, they have simply redefined “wrong.” This is an easy way out. There is a legal argument called the "slippery slope" that advocates use to argue against exceptions to rules and laws. Once you begin to make exceptions, they argue, you are on a "slippery slope" and may thus slide to the bottom eventually. Detractors find the argument unpersuasive at best and fallacy at worst.

Other jurisdictions find themselves plagued with roving bands of young people. We will refrain from referring to them in the pejorative “gangs,“ in order to preserve their impressions of self-worth, value, and equality. Video outlets are filled with examples of these mistaken, misdirected, and unfortunate youth temporarily procuring (in no way, casting dispersion, nor alleging their specific intent to deprive) automobiles that belong to others. Through no fault of anyone but these coddled, and enabled, miscreants, vehicles are stolen and driven at ridiculous speeds. People and property are damaged and law-abiding citizens are threatened.

Customers are deterred. People do not wish to visit shops in a location that threatens safety. People do not want their cars stolen. They do not want miscreants driving at ridiculous speeds in the streets, parking, or otherwise. Their high-speed antics are dangerous and a deterrent. Like that or don't.

These jurisdictions find themselves, unable to confront these threats. Too many have undermined, constrained, and vilified their law enforcement professionals and departments in recent years. They find those ranks diminished and ineffective (some claim "scared" to engage). They struggle to staff a police shift. And the police are at least somewhat reluctant to become involved for some reason. Some might cynically suggest that reluctance is based on the potential of becoming themselves vilified for having taken the miscreants to task.

What municipalities don’t lack is lawyers. There’s always plenty of lawyers. And therefore these cities are facing the miscreant theft problem with lawsuits. No, they are not suing the miscreants or their families or guardians. These municipalities have elected instead, to file lawsuits against the companies that build the automobiles. These cars, you see, are allegedly, simply too easy to steal. In the law, we might perceive this as an allegation of those cars being akin to an "attractive nuisance." That would be fallacious, but there it is.

The logic is predictable. The blame for poor behavior lies not with the perpetrator. The blame lies with those who suffer it.

Perhaps municipalities can begin to bring lawsuits against retailers, who failed to post armed guards at the door to their premises. In time, perhaps unguarded retailers will face increasing litigation pressure, and the financial impact of damages. Those damages will, similar to blaming the car producer, be based on that retailer having had the gall to place their goods in such a theft-ready posture. Retailers will perhaps shut down. They may close facilities, quit producing, or increase costs to all consumers in order to finance the resulting loss(es).

There may also be recriminations. As prices increase and availability diminishes, there can be complaints as to the decision. Jurisdictions may see repercussions. Those may be decreasing retailer populations. Those may be increasing prices of products (I designed a "100% safe car" years ago. It would be improbable to suffer any injury while driving it. It had a strange resemblance to an army tank but with much thicker armor. As designed, the vehicle had a top speed of 7 mph and took three gallons of fuel to travel a mile. But safe? Oh my! it would be safe). What a dumb idea. I have chided myself for the lack of environmental consciousness that led me to that impractical design.

Who should decide if an inexpensive vehicle should be on the market to facilitate different income brackets? Is there value in affordable cars? Some well-paid union members have complained that they cannot afford vehicles. They lament the challenges of the middle class. What of those struggling to reach the middle? Who is to blame when the most basic vehicle is priced out of reach due to all the gadgets and gizmos legislated?

Will anyone forego the recriminations for the producers and sellers? Will anyone suggest that theft, destruction, and ineffective justice contribute to encouraging the miscreant? In any population of cars, some model will always be the safest and another the least. One model will be the easiest to steal and the other the most difficult. If the manufacturers toughen a model in response to the cities' litigation, will that stop the miscreants or will they just move to the next easiest model to steal? Well, human nature being what it is, the miscreants will likely admit defeat and just quit stealing cars. Bravo cities! (Apologies for sarcasm, on the upside, the cities can just move to the next lawsuit). 

“Full Joker?“ Some, perhaps, interpret that characterization as referencing caricatures. Perhaps that reference evokes intrigue and even humor. The mistaken, collective, belief at the root is that punishing convicted miscreants is somehow inappropriate. The punchline is our willingness to punish the law-abiding while we ignore and coddle the criminal. We punish people who cannot shop in their own neighborhood. We punish people who cannot afford the overbuilt safety. It is deemed appropriate for those to pay the price in order that the miscreant is not put-upon, prosecuted, or prevented.

There will be those who expressed disagreement with these perspectives. They are perhaps the forgivers, the enablers, and the excuse-givers. They are maybe the folks who think everyone can have everything and the cost does not matter. They ignore the reality that if you make one substance hard to obtain, there is some population that will not forego, they will just switch. Have you tried to buy spray paint lately? Bring your identification, I kid you not.

Perhaps, instead, we might consider personal responsibility? Perhaps we might bring communities together to support the rule of law? What if we prosecute and punish the miscreants who are stealing the cars? Well, perhaps you can just call me mean or naive (I have been called worse, regardless of what adjective you might choose).

The alternative is pressure on the business. That pressure adds to the cacophony and distraction from the essential equation of employer, employee, safety, appeal, sales, profit, and persistence. By ignoring bad behavior, we threaten personal safety, workplace safety, and the existence of both employers and jobs. By ignoring, we create environments in which businesses do not thrive. Then we lament and complain when they close, when jobs are lost, when access is lost, when communities suffer. In the end, it is the customer and the employee that bears the burden of such decisions, but employers are impacted as well. 

The Emerging Leaders

It was another great day in the community on October 4, 2023. I was in Ft. Lauderdale (FTL) for another meet and greet with the local bar, judges, and more. It was so encouraging to see another community eager to gather in person again. There were some really pertinent questions and some good criticism. It is healthy to hear how the community perceives the OJCC, the judges, the mediators, and each other. 

Special thanks go out to the Section, Chair Paolo Longo, and Broward County Bar Secretary Diana Castrillon. I am so old, I remember her as a "Young Lawyer," and it is shocking to me that she has been in this community for twenty years. Throughout that time, she has been a contributor, organizer, and advocate for the practice, the local bar, and the community. I find her enthusiasm, energy, and longevity inspiring. 

A very critical point at FTL came with meeting a first-year associate. With every one of these gatherings (JAX, FTM, TPA, and now FTL), I have met young people. They are new, enthusiastic, and engaging. Let's just agree, we have to look to the next generation to replace us. In the meantime, they can supplement our efforts, learn from our mistakes, and contribute to the community. They bring a new wave of enthusiasm, energy, and ideas.

I have stressed this in a variety of posts. See Positioning Comp (April 2023). That post followed on the heels of the first OJCC Academy, a full day of socializing, skills development, collegiality, questions, and commitment. Another of those is booked full for October 16, 2023, in Tampa. The leadership for this programming has been primarily Judge Margret Kerr, with support from Mediator Ana Gonzalez-Fajardo. That does not discount the who-is-who of judges, mediators, and lawyers who have served as faculty. In all, a great program!

But, it is rewarding to see young lawyers in workers' compensation. They have great energy, but they face challenges. First, they are eager and willing. Unfortunately, some tell me that they are not getting the opportunities to get their feet wet. We have to remember that all briefcase-carrying and no responsibility makes for a dull job. People will not persevere or persist in dull jobs.

We have to remember that learning is critical. It can come from books, lectures, and observation. But, anyone who does much training at all will tell you that the act, the doing, is a critical part of education. These young folks did not go through the law school experience to carry someone else's papers, make coffee, or proofread filings. They want to practice law (so did you). They have the skills and the education (so did you). They respond to opportunity and engagement (so did you).

Next, we will roll into 2024. The coming of November marks some reasonably desirable road signs on the journey. For one, I do not tend to travel in November and December. Responsibilities call and the season can be demanding. 

Also, hurricane season officially ends in November. I am sure that many bad storms have come in November before, but I don't recall any. I am told that the aggregate is 35 since 1950. So, it is not unheard of. Only 21 of those strengthened into hurricanes. In my mind, getting through October unscathed, feeling those temperatures drop here in Paradise, and the unworldly displays of Halloween decorations, all signal an end to my least-favorite season of the year. 

But November also marks the "end of the beginning" of our planning for the annual OJCC education seminar at the First DCA. So we are now finalizing plans for that. We will be in Tallahassee for this program on Friday, March 1, 2024 (we have to get used to writing that year soon enough). It is going to be a great program and features a panel on emerging leaders in the practice of workers' compensation law.  Judge Hedler has been in charge of that program this year and has done admirably. 

Next year will also bring the second "annual" OJCC Academy, back in Orlando. The date is TBA, but will be in October. 

We will be striving to also visit law schools for the opportunity to speak to young lawyers about this practice, this community, and their place in it. There is so much opportunity here. Do you take opportunities to address law students? Do you have a connection with a Florida law school? Can you facilitate this type of event for the bar?

In the meantime, the Emerging Leaders of The Florida Bar Workers' Compensation Section is springing forward with programming. They are gathering and meeting. The young attorneys are sharing, growing, and interacting. They are building their own community within ours. How else can we support and encourage those Emerging Leaders? We need your suggestions and support in this effort. 

We are only about six months from the Forum in April 2024. Will you bring a law clerk or a young associate? How will they break into what's good here if you don't introduce them? In that vein, if you do attend any of these programs, please introduce me to your younger Emerging Lawyers.  There is much here, many here, and good here. Let's appreciate it, celebrate it, promote it, and share it!

Ready to Eat?

A couple of years ago, we heard the tale of a lawsuit over consumer expectations. Forbes explains that Subway was sued because it marketed "footlong" sandwiches. A customer noticed that his sandwich was eleven inches and sued back in 2016. The company settled the lawsuit paying "about a half-million dollars--almost all of which goes to the plaintiffs' lawyers." The litigation was intriguing to many. Forbes explains that most sandwiches were in fact 12 inches.

Another critical point was that the volume of dough was identical from sandwich to sandwich, and a few baked up a bit short. They estimated usually no more than 1/4 inch short. Those that were shorter instead were wider or thicker. Regardless, the volume of ingredients within the bread was standardized and identical. So, footlong or not, the product delivered the same.

The court in which the Subway litigation proceeded concluded that there was no systemic and persistent "less than 12-inch" damage. Thus, the character of the "class" in this class action was challenging. How would someone know if they did qualify? Did you ever measure your sandwich? Do you have some proof of that beyond your recollection? Did you say anything?

Forbes concludes that there were "many holes in the plaintiff's case." Nonetheless, the lawyers got fees and the case went away. The article offers advice to advertisers. Care "with numerical promises to consumers" was on this list. Beware also that lawsuits on the basis of "false advertisement" may fail to demonstrate "fire behind that smoke."

I was reminded of that in late July when a court dismissed a claim against macaroni and cheese, as reported by Reuters. This was a "$5 million class action or force Kraft Heinz to change its packaging." The macaroni maker advertised, including on the package, that the product would be "ready in 3-1/2 minutes." The plaintiff complained that time did "not include time to remove the lid, add water and stir in a cheese sauce pouch." 

Well, it did not include the time to get it off the shelf at the store either. The time commuting back home was likewise not included. The court did not notice that even with that "remove, add, and stir" time you might still eat it in 3-1/2 minutes. Who has not had a friend that preferred macaroni "al dente?" Some people like their grits that way. My Cousin Vinny, 20th Century, 1992. Who can forget "I'm a fast cook I guess." 

Another point that was not seemingly raised is the variable of temperature tolerance. Do you eat something fresh from the microwave? Or, do you let it cool? I know people in each camp, and we are seemingly a bit unpredictable in that way. Is it "ready" when it is done cooking or does it become "ready" when it is appropriate to eat as according to my particular preferences? In other words, is "ready" an objective measure?

The macaroni litigation was dismissed for a couple of reasons. First is "standing." We are obsessed in the legal world with standing. We do not allow people to pursue litigation because they perceive someone else having a problem. The problem must affect us, the plaintiff, personally. 

I explain this to my classes with a very insensitive joke about "shame" and "tragedy." Do you know the difference? Well, if your neighbor's house burns, that is a "shame." If my house burns, then that is a "tragedy." to have standing, you must demonstrate a "tragedy" in that sense - personal and actual injury. 

The Miami court in this instance noted that the plaintiff "never alleged that she could not eat nor had even tried to cook the" macaroni. This is not a conclusion that the plaintiff did not. She may have bought the product, tried to cook it according to instructions, and failed to consume it. She may have done so many times daily for weeks on end. But, she did not allege that she had in the lawsuit. 

Furthermore, the cooking process, as instructed, may have delivered a product "so flawed as to be rendered useless." But, in the end, we will never know because the attorney did not allege that. There must be tragedy (standing), and there must be personal damage, and the lawsuit must allege it, the proof must demonstrate it. 

The court also noted that future injury is unlikely as the plaintiff now knows that the 3-1/2 minutes is only the microwave time. Knowing the truth may make the representations on the package less damaging? There is also the insinuation that the 3-1/2 minutes was not meant to be inclusive of the time you spend considering it, pulling it from the shelf, buying it, driving it home, moving it toward the microwave, reading the complex directions (remove lid, add water, add cheese pouch, stir), following the directions, and microwaving. 

Maybe "microwave 3-1/2 minutes" really means that is how long you microwave it. Maybe, how long it takes to be ready comes down to a bit more time and may depend on whether you are the Mama bear, the baby bear or somewhere in between? What if you like yours molten and mushy? Perhaps your preference requires four minutes? What if my microwave is not as powerful as yours? What if, what if, what if?

I was reminded again of this story when CNN ran a story in September about a "flurry of lawsuits." It turns out that food in restaurant advertisements looks fantastic, tantalizing, and downright pretty. We are drawn by it, enticed to it, and perhaps disappointed by what we receive when we purchase. Reportedly, suits have been filed against "Taco Bell, Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Burger King and Arby’s" on the basis of pretty food (pictures) that is not so pretty.

There is potential that class action lawsuits will prevail against some purveyors on the basis that sandwiches were actually bought (standing) and failed to live up to expectations (tragedy). But, does any advertising stand up? Do the plethora of beauty products actually make me beautiful? Does that shampoo actually make my hair fuller? Does that clothing brand really make my life better? Doubtful. Long ago the law adopted the caveat emptor stance. Thus, it is to the buyer to decide quality in the process of purchasing. 

So, when the food is delivered, the consumer can choose. If it does not look like the picture (on the menu, the billboard, or the television) the customer need not consume it. Decline the proffer, and ask instead for your money. Go down the street to the next vendor and try your luck with their pictured fare. You see, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but many of those are the words of the observer. And advertisers have many tricks to make the photos attractive. 

Who has not checked into a hotel to find the rooms are not as large as they appeared in photos? Who has not ordered something from the Internet and been disappointed? Hint, nothing on the Internet or on the earth will make me look like George Clooney. I know full well that when I order fast food it will look like fast food and not like the Madison Avenue, dream world, impression used to sell it. If that disappoints or angers you, buckle up. AI and deepfake are bound to make that situation worse instead of better. 

I have heard through the grapevine that individuals do this. Some perceive a lack of candor in people's photographs on the Internet. My own associates have suggested it is time for a new profile picture on my social media. Alas, I perhaps do not look as good as I did in that photo twenty years ago, for which I paid hundreds of dollars to Glamour Shots? When you pick me for a panel or presentation, should you be able to sue when the old, real world, me shows up instead of the airbrushed, deepfake profile pic?

You mean the world is not straightforward and easy? You mean that I have to look out for myself? You mean I have to spend 30 seconds putting water and powder in my 3.5-minute meal? Yes, yes, and yes. Look out for you. You will be surrounded by efforts to gain your trust, engage your hubris, and entice your consumption. They will be less than forthright and may be puffery. They may be exaggerated to gain your trust and money. That said, it is unlikely that consumers will gain compensation for their disappointment. 

The fact is that most of us put our best face forward. We use a variety of efforts to look better than we actually do. The world of business uses puffery, exaggeration, and more to gain our business. But in the end, we decide whether the burger on the tray fulfills the expectation and deserves our dollar. If it doesn't, send it back. But please don't turn me down when I arrive for that panel. I am old and getting there is not as easy as it once was. 

Electricity and Socialism

We tend to think of the world as static and many struggle to understand that our modern world is pretty recent. You can make a case for automobiles dating to the 1880s, according to Whisbi. But the Stanley Steamer is given credit for much and was initially on the scene only in 1897. Oldsmobile is credited with being the first mass-produced automobile in 1901, according to CarsGuide.com. Ford gets credit for the assembly line in 1908. There is a lot of history in that article. There are those who see 1923 as a watershed moment, exactly 100 years ago. 

A lot of history in the last 100 years. Lenin's Bolshevik revolution dates to 1917-1923. Communism in the totalitarian state of Russia, the Soviet Union, and later Eastern Europe is recent history. The Chinese communist party is a little over 100 years old, and the totalitarian People's Republic dates only to 1949. Communism is simply not that old. Totalitarianism is admittedly much older. Britannica's discussion touches on some world history, Czars, Emperors, and Kings; its discussion centers more on authoritarianism and totalitarianism in a modern context. Much of it socialist (Germany and Italy) and communist (Soviet and China). 

So, automobiles have really only been a thing for just over 100 years. If you think of the volume of concrete and asphalt out there, we have been pretty impressive with our infrastructure response. Despite all that building, there remain places where persistent road shortages nonetheless seem to persist. Even where the road volume is perhaps sufficient, we hear tales of "crumbling infrastructure" and the need to rebuild. Perhaps to the tune of $2 trillion. That is what some would consider a large number. 

Oregon was a big innovator in the automobile. Oregon? The Reason Foundation notes that it came up with the idea of taxing gasoline in 1919. That makes sense. If you are going to build roads, bridges, and parking you will need money. All the states followed along, and the federal government joined the gas tax club in 1932. The national government and the states all collect significant gas taxes on the sale of gasoline. 

And, they have grown. Reason Foundation notes that "Currently, state gas taxes range from 14.32 cents per gallon in Alaska to 62.05 cents per gallon in California, not including the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax." The fact is government is addicted to the inflow of revenue from gas taxes. According to Consumer Reports, "Fuel taxes account for 84 percent of federal and 29 percent of state highway funds." Like it or not, gasoline is building all those onramps, overpasses, bridges and more. 

Note that these are expressed in "cents." Investopedia explains that these are "excise taxes," and are largely expressed in this volume manner, so many cents per gallon. Despite that trend, "some states charge based on the amount spent rather than the volume of fuel purchased," a "sales tax" model. The per-gallon rate will not keep pace with inflation. There is a big difference between a $.1432 tax in an age when gas costs $1.00 per gallon (14%) and when it reaches $5.00 (3%). This is not calculus. Even I can do this math. As gas prices skyrocket is there any reason to suspect the price of concrete and labor will not? The excise model is designed to fail in this regard. 

Notably, the same era dating to the early 1900s defines the age of American workers' compensation. It too was designed by most states to be self-supporting without general tax revenue funding. Assessments (like taxes) are collected on each policy sold. Carriers contribute this way to trust funds that carry the cost of regulatory and adjudicatory services. In some states those funds contribute directly to worker benefits, education, and more. Workers' compensation is clearly socialism in the spreading of loss across large populations. One can argue it is capitalism in that private carriers cover risk and draw profits. But the socialism argument is far more persuasive. 

Back to the way gas taxes began as a "user pays" concept. The vehicles would be the customers using the roads, and by taxing the gasoline those who use the roads most pay the most. Drive more, pay more. This was even reasonably logical in the context of commercial vehicles, heavier vehicles caused more wear and tear on those roads, but they require more fuel and thus contribute more to the revenue model. Some will see a simple and logical foundation for "user pays."

But not all the gas tax money collected goes for the facilities, roads, and similarly related needs. Reason notes that 25 states divert funds from their fuel tax collections for other purposes such as bicycle paths, transit projects, police protection, and even education. The gas tax has become a driver of roads, development, and yet more. 

And, in a general sense, Investopedia notes that "the revenue raised from gas taxes has failed to keep up with rising infrastructure costs and inflation." So whether from shortfall or diversion, the taxes are not keeping pace with the expenditures. Believe it or not, electric cars are part of this, fuel-efficient cars are part of this, and inflation is part of this. The problem is multi-faceted and complex. See, anything that decreases gas sales diminishes gas taxes. It is simple math.

So road tax revenues have fallen short in recent years. The cars have become more efficient and the gas prices have discouraged travel. The inflation cycle has impacted both revenues in and the cost of projects out. See Inflationary Cycle (July 2023). Despite the revenue shortfalls, "Revenues from fuel taxes were approximately $32 billion at the federal level and $51 billion at the state level in 2021," according to PlugIn America.

In just a few (7) short years, if all goes to the master plan, "50 percent of all new vehicle sales (will) be electric by 2030," according to the White House. That will mean a great deal of market shifting. As a student of history with a memory of the Cold War, I vividly recall studying the Seven-Year Plan of the Soviets. It was a take-off from the earlier Five Year Plans of totalitarian regimes. Some believe the resort to 7 years was an admission that 5-year plans did not work. Despite the many Soviet failures, the Chinese joined the Soviets in their pursuit of centralized market controls. You honestly cannot make this stuff up. Governments have persistently failed to reign markets. You can argue that the socialists did exactly that in those totalitarian regimes, but they will have to face the reality that their central control merely fed the rise and growth of black markets where capitalism and reality supplemented their failures.  

Despite criticisms of totalitarian or authoritarian government, it can absolutely influence the consumption of products. The government can legislate availability to some degree. The U.S. government effectively regulated convertibles out of the market in the 1970s. Oh, you could get them, but you had to buy a regular car and pay an after-market shop to cut the top off (thus a market existed, but not one the average consumer could readily access). The government can tell you not to grow wheat, force you to buy health insurance, and the list goes on and on. It can make businesses ensure worker livelihood by insuring against workplace injury. That creates costs for all employers that are subsumed within the prices we all pay for goods and services. Workers' compensation socializes injury costs. 

While we are not there yet on cars, there are indicators. You cannot buy a car without seat belt alarms, airbags, backup cameras, and soon impaired driver detection. That is a regulatory path. Government is driving up the cost of goods, enforcing its view of safety, and in the process deciding what we can or cannot buy. I would love to have a car without all that junk installed. Similarly, the federal government has been giving tax credits to people who buy certain EVs since 2009. With a carrot or a stick, the government can decide what you should buy and strive to convince you. The tax credits are carrots, and one might argue the gas tax is a stick. The higher the price of gasoline, the greater chance you will give in and go electric with less muss, fuss, and angst. 

That is worth repeating. The government has used tax money to pay people essentially rebates on cars that do not contribute any road tax revenue. The electric car purchaser enjoys two benefits, tax credits, and fuel tax avoidance. Gas consumers pay for their road and the road used by the non-contributing electric car. In the interest of full disclosure, I have invested some in several electric vehicle manufacturers. The fact is that electric is likely to grow market share with or without Uncle Sam. I am betting, through my capitalist investment, that it will grow and profit. 

As the EV population grows, how will electric vehicle owners pay their "user pays" contributions to the roads, bridges, and more? How much do EVs contribute to the road taxes? In the plainest sense, they haven't yet. You subsidized your neighbor's EV purchase and you subsidize its use each time your neighbor drives somewhere. Your neighbor is cruising and you gas users are paying the bill. But various states are now struggling to find a method for finding that fair share, through "revenue replacement" according to Plug in America. This may come in the form of taxes or registration fee differentials, but it is coming. See as electric increases so decreases the gas consumption and the tax revenue. 

That is one complication. The other is the electric supply. I ran into a college-educated scientist one day at a social gathering. The scientist engaged in an argument with an electrician (who installs EV equipment as a regular part of work) about electric amperage, service, and supply. It was depressing. The scientist could not grasp that electricity has to be made somehow, transmitted, stored, and distributed. The scientist literally said, "No it doesn't, it's in my house, I just plug into the wall." A scientist. I kid you not. Let's be clear, electricity does not occur magically. 

Where does it come from? Most (80%) of it comes from burning fossil fuels and nuclear. The alternative fuel folks admit that only about 20% of electricity in America is from "renewable energy," like wind, hydro, solar and similar. But wait, the central committee says we will have 80% of electricity from renewable by 2030 (another seven-year plan) and 100% by 2035. Many are betting on this. Others have some doubts. Regardless, government has decided on this course. This blog will remain in 2030 (even if I quit writing new stuff). My prediction today is that these seven-year plans of the central committee will not come to pass. 

The LA Times reported this year that California expects fewer "brown-outs" (power shortages) in 2023 after significant investment in its power grid. Some fear that electric cars will create voltage demand, and strain the power grid. Others cite examples in which EVs have dumped their charge back into the grid in peak demand moments because electricity was needed and otherwise elusive. Of course, that was in the same era that EV owners were told not to charge their cars in the first place to decrease grid demand. When you are told you cannot charge that car, it will not be of much use to you. 

Will there be enough electricity to charge all those batteries? If so, will that energy be more or less efficient than the fossil fuels of today? Will this country spring from 20% to 100% renewable energy in the next dozen years? Will Americans accept nuclear as a solution? On the horizon is cold fusion. It has made some interesting progress lately. If not, then we will continue to burn fuels in order to generate electricity. As demand increases, we will burn more. The solution in transportation may drive higher costs for electricity generally.

It is all so challenging.

See, the same issues apply to workers' compensation. The inputs, the costs, are all subject to supply, demand, inflation, regulation, and more. There are only so many doctors to treat injured workers. They can each be told by the government what can be charged, but that may simply drive them to treat other patients instead. We can strive to limit the care available, but that may merely drive patients to consume in some other market using her or his own money. We can charge premiums based on payroll (increasing inflow) and yet limit benefits (maximum compensation rate) to deprive high-performing employees of their share. This allows the social insurance system to provide benefits to the lower-earning employee. It is subsidy and socialism. 

Back to electricity. Make no mistake, California is an EV place. Its Governor said that 18% of all car sales there were EVs in 2022. Forty percent of the EVs sold in America are sold in the Golden State. They love EVs in California. California plans to only sell EVs, 100%, there by 2035. But, who will pay for the roads in an all-electric California? That will be a challenge to face. 

But wait, there's more. Forbes just published an expose of "a shocking new income re­distribution scheme" in California. The state has implemented a "graduated" scale for electricity rates. The utilities are working now to implement this Marxist plan: “From each according to ability; To each according to need.” The government is apparently going to share Californian's income information with the utility companies and direct how those companies charge for their services. 

The utilities will charge people for electricity based on how much they use (like the rest of the world), a consumption or volume measure. However, the innovation is that the rate will be adjusted based on the income or wealth of the consumer. The more money you make or have, the more electricity will cost per kilowatt. This perhaps fits well with the new "7-year plan" to expand the population of electric cars. It will also help to collect the "more" from those who can pay and facilitate subsidies to others. 

But this is not just to charge your car, but to run your air conditioner. It is a graduated rate for all electrical consumption. The person that lives in a 2,000-square-foot house already pays less for electricity than the California celebrity living in 10,000 square feet. That is because of consumption volume. The new price scheme will exacerbate this. This new plan will allow your proverbial neighbor to benefit from you paying more, or for you to pay less because of the wealth of your neighbor.  "To each  . . . "

Hotels are reportedly already getting into the spirit of EVs. One is reportedly offering a "free" car charge if you stay there. Well, that is, it is "included" in a mandatory "destination fee" that all guests will have to pay at this hotel, $30.00. So with some clever doublespeak, "offering" becomes a mandate, and "free" becomes $30.00. So those not driving EVs will subsidize those who are (all guests pay the $30.00). And the hotel will charge everyone this new tax whether they want any of the supposed amenities or not. All for the greater good. Perhaps the Capitalists can get along with the Marxists. 

More electric cars, more renewable electricity (or nuclear). It is all in the current seven-year plan, or the twelve-year plans. Is Marxist electrical cost the answer?

But, these two plans need not be inextricably intertwined. This Marxist methodology could be as easily implemented with internal combustion. Gas is averaging $5.00 per gallon in California according to AAA. Perhaps the government there could require that you input your license tag number or driver's license when using a gas pump? The registration would tell them how expensive your car is. If the car is new and expensive, then perhaps $25.00 per gallon. If the car is old or inexpensive, then perhaps $1.00 per gallon. You could pay for your neighbor's gasoline and their electricity. 

Wait, this could be even bigger. Why not have cameras at the fast food drive-through, to evaluate your wealth similarly? If you drive a nice car, the "value meal" is $35.00, and if you drive an economy car it is "2.00?" That might even get a few of us out of our cars to walk into the counter? We could link people's tax returns to their credit and debit card accounts. Want a new shirt at the Big Box store? Scan your card. If you make money, the shirt is $100.00, and if you are a more modest earner then it is $10.00. "Oh, brave new world." You could do so much more for your neighbors. They deserve it. 

Weight. There is a great point. Harvard says "Roughly two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese (69 percent) and one out of three are obese (36 percent)." If you add up the two out of three and the one out of three, you might get 3 out of 3 (Note, I did not attend Harvard). But, this more likely means to convey that 1/3 of us are obese and 1/3 are overweight (those two added together get you close to the 69%, the "two out of three"). How about a scale at the food store? The more you weigh, the more the government taxes your food? Fat people could be made to subsidize food. Thin people would pay less and could thus buy more and vice-versa?

Government could bring a utopian existence in which everyone lives together in perfect harmony. Through regulation and directed taxes, it could coerce us in what we wear, eat, drive, and do. With good seven or twelve or five-year planning and market direction, all inequity and suffering would end. (Sarcasm, sorry). 

Folks, socialism was a farce when Marx wrote it. It remained a farce as some of the largest economies in the world repeatedly sought unsuccessfully to engage it (none of Stalin's thirteen five-year plans ever fulfilled their purported destiny; yes thirteen). Socialism remains a farce today. The only thing that has changed over the years is that the epic failures and suffering of Marxism, socialism, and communism have been forgotten by too many and never learned by some. And don't get me started on authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

There is much income re-distribution in America. It exists today in a variety of government programs. It is nothing new. I might argue that as a whole workers' compensation has been spectacularly successful as a cohort of capitalism. It has been a constrained, defined, and predictable method of assuring the costs of injury are in the price of the goods and services that are produced by any business. The costs are real, and it is socialization. It has included detriments (drug-free workplaces, safety device use, etc.). It has included incentives (premium discounts for various behaviors). And it has been less than static with various states engaged in some form of tweak or adjustment over the decades. 

But this recent move in California is worthy of study. The implications of such a plan on such a scale are intriguing. The specter of Marxism is apparent. The move toward greater socialism is as curious as it is troubling. We might even reach a point where the American taxpayer bails out people who make poor purchasing decisions and incur loans that they cannot or will not repay. I know a few people who owe more on their cars and homes than they are worth. The government might borrow from our children or tax one segment of society to afford relief for the bad decisions of other segments. 

You cannot make this stuff up. But you can think about it. Can socialism co-exist in a market economy? Workers' compensation proves it can, and successfully. But is there a tipping point at which people with means will simply shift their location or consumption to avoid costs and contribution? Perhaps. If nothing else, this latest California experiment will be intriguing to watch. What will the view look like in 100 years looking back?