I am not sure whether it is a curiosity question or has more substance, but I would be interested in an analysis of changes in majors by college students. Currently, this subject is not even considered an issue; changing is commonplace, no big deal.

Nonetheless, what I am especially interested in is the “why” behind changes which can safely be categorized as moves toward less academic rigor, e.g., from Engineering to Business Administration.

[Note: the thrust of this essay is about changes in majors after a young person has enrolled in college. There is a valid related discussion, although not here, about the age at which the conversation about different career paths should commence. Some educators believe it is middle school where the first pulling back of the future curtain should occur, and they host Career Days accordingly. The focus there is exposure to different career paths and the education necessary for those paths; there is no attempt to promote a specific career/major to a child of that age. Think of it as being more like first-level research, with the adults taking the lead in a non-aggressive fashion.]

These are some of the inputs which could be relevant to dealing with this question:

*is there a disconnect between what the student thought he brought to the table academically and what is actually the situation. The point here is not IQ, but general academic preparation.

*to what extent did the new college student know as a high schooler what the requirements (skill in certain subjects, time, energy, writing/reading loads) were for a particular major. [Enter the aforementioned Career Days.]

*more specifically, does the student know in advance when prerequisite courses are gatekeepers with respect to pursuing particular majors.

*is the role of the high school guidance counselor, and maybe the college advisor as well, too often merely a smell test concerning a student’s intentions; how often do they bring a broad and deep knowledge of colleges and majors to the conversation with the student.

*more pointedly, is the match of student and college logical for the pursuit of a specific major.

*are students, in choosing initial majors, unduly sensitive — to the desires of parents for “recognizable” or “bankable” majors, or — to those in their community who wish them to return as role models with expertise in areas of local need, as defined by adults.

*has the student arrived at a revised understanding of self and of the value of the time/cost/debt associated with the initial major he or she previously selected. [If a student has been thinking about his or her prospective path for many years prior to entering college, the odds should be greater that he or she has arrived at a better understanding of self.]

*has the previously chosen major been made questionable by a complete disconnect with a professor or individual class where the student’s confidence has been seriously shaken.

*is the change in majors really a mask for deeper issues – e.g. , an absence of academic support from the college and/or difficulties in adjusting socially to an environment new to the student.

*almost forgot – how many shifts in majors are for the pursuit of higher paying disciplines. [This can be perilous if there is no real passion for the “money major.”]

Overall, when students are thinking about changing their majors, are they undertaking serious research, asking multiple questions, consulting with relevant people, and analyzing all of the inputs?

How many such changes represent a well thought out “going to?” How many are a semi-impulsive “going from?”

Are there systemic changes in the modus operandi at the high school level which would better prepare students for higher education, regardless of their majors? (Easy answer here, “yes!”)

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

Sitting solo on a public bench outside a panaderia in Pomona, California and munching a delicious pastry from said location, watching the sun being slowly replaced by dusk and white America being rapidly transformed into a colorful mosaic, it is easy to become reflective at the corner of Garey and Franklin. With my writing energies historically being better expressed along negative theme lines (consult my therapist for the reasons), the thoughts of your lowly author went along these lines:

An affluent white person has what you might call a “perpetual passport.” He can wander into a less privileged community –physically, empathetically, financially—while always having the ability to return to his whiteness, to assume his natal place in the power structure. He needs no green card, no visa, and there is no expiration date on his passport. As part of the white history of the country, he cannot even reject his “passport.”

And yet “whitey” has only a limited ability to hold back what is happening right in front of his eyes: a transfer of power. Moreover, whether “he,” individually or collectively, has the foresight and resolve to participate in a rational progression toward greater sharing of that power, accomplished in a peaceful manner, is open for debate.

The American historical narrative that a senior citizen grew up with is being rewritten, a process which will only intensify, reflecting the combination of demographic change and greater empowerment for those who have previously been disenfranchised. What heretofore have been labeled as “aberrations” –slavery, military excursions, resistance to women being able to vote – are now increasingly considered to be integral to the historical story of white power and its hold on the structure of society.

For some, as a specific example of said revisionary approach, the fathering of an illegitimate child of a slave mother by Thomas Jefferson to some observers almost negates his many contributions to creating a new and stable country.

In such fashion, the concept of evaluating a person on his body of work goes by the boards, replaced by a simple checklist of whether he, whatever the historical context, acted in accordance with the standards of contemporary America—or at least an important and growing part of it.

As a corollary to this view, the country’s numerous foreign wars are lumped together under the heading of a military-industrial complex agenda. Little attention is paid to actions thought to be in pursuit of admirable objectives, such as saving the lives of innocent people; those are offset, in the opinion of many, by egregious errors regarding non-white cultures.

The answer to why women were suppressed is of course simple: to maximize white male power.

The existence of slavery is the clinching argument that the prior American narrative was fraudulent. Slavery is not to be considered the horrible mistake of a young, evolving nation—instead, in fact, it was the necessary centerpiece of the American white power design, of how this country was built.

What is transpiring is not a calm look at our history as a necessary initial step to preparing those in power for a hypothetical peaceful transition (aka, downgrading) in their positions. It is more akin to “The Fire Next Time,” or its contemporary counterpart, “Between the World and Me.”

Time to quit, writing that is. As is typical of less affluent areas around the world, the street lighting at Garey and Franklin is subpar, insufficient for old-fashioned writing on one of those little notepads which, with an accompanying pen, are my perpetual companions.

Will I eventually connect at least some of the above dots? I do not know. Thinking about these topics is quite depressing.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

“New Study gives high marks to Jersey Community Colleges” was the heading for a Star Ledger” article of 1-20-16. Its supporting information was that “17% of community college students earned a Bachelor’s degree within six years of starting college, versus 14% nationally.”

Yipes, with success like that, there would be no such thing as misleading advertising. In fact it seems there is justification for applying the term “misleading” to the entire educational system:

*The free high school diploma does not remotely mean the student is ready for the paid experience of college. And a student’s change during his K-12 years from ESL to regular classes does not necessarily mean no ESL will be needed at college.

*Receipt of a two-year diploma does not automatically equate with being ready either for a four-year college or for the job market.

*Earning a four-year degree is a ticket to possible conversations about employment; however, with a majority of professions and employers requiring higher credentials than ever (a nice economic benefit to vendors of higher education), there can still be a rude awakening at that first job interview. (Positive note: even during the Great Recession, Bachelor-degree holders at least were able to get jobs; unemployment was about one-third of that of high school graduates.)

More philosophically, there is a growing debate about the purpose of college – is it educating a young person to be a well-rounded citizen — or is it getting a student ready for the world of full-time employment. Some colleges and companies are collaborating more on the design of curricula; that partnership tells you directly the purpose of that school.

*No, those three-hour classes are not really three hours, more like 2.5 hours.

*Students are fourth on the list of priorities for many professors, who can be more concerned with getting published or receiving citations in professional journals or winning grants for their pet projects.

*Regardless of what college A says, or how the law reads, college B will in all probability not accept 100% of those credits from college A.

*All that hoopla about the college’s Career Center? About 2% of graduates find their jobs as a result of using said resource.

*College financial statements are insulting. Example A: the school lists 13 thirteen types of fees, ranging from $359 down to $5.00; included is a $150 fee for Academic Excellence and Success. These fee designations are simply a way that the college can say with a straight face that its tuition only went up x%, when the total cost is going up more rapidly because of the proliferation of fees. Besides, isn’t academic success supposed to be the central idea of the higher education program being sold to the customer students.

*The college financial award letter covering Pell grants and Federal loans is often misunderstood by college newcomers. Grants are not repaid, while loans must be repaid – they should be identified separately. And in neither case is the money coming from the college that is patting itself on the back for giving the award to the student. The college is fully aware that financially challenged students not familiar with the world of higher education frequently make no distinction between the two categories of financial aid. The reason is that they are simply happy to be accepted by the school, and the latter knows that if the debt portion were separately discussed, some students might have second thoughts about their selection of that college.

*College itself has been oversold, as if it were the one and only path to a happy life. It is no coincidence that many high schoolers are indifferent to the task of figuring out a life path. Simply put, they do not like school and cannot think warmly about the idea of spending another several years in a classroom, in part learning more stuff they have no current interest in and cannot see being useful in their lives.

So where is the message about the merits of becoming a policeperson, an electrician, a plumber, a beautician, a specialist in the repair of computers, an auto mechanic? Where is the analysis of what is required to earn the credentials associated with these marketable skills, which can generate income of $25-30 an hour without the time and money required for a Bachelor’s degree?

A Pew Research report of 2-5-2016 used the label of NEET to categorize the 17% of Americans ages 16-29 who are Neither Employed nor in Education or Training. The ratio for blacks was 22%; for Hispanics, 20%; for whites, 13%. Two-thirds had a high school education or less. Does not this data call for a different approach to communicating the longer list of options which are available to high schoolers not fixated on the college route to a career?

The message about different choices should be delivered at schools covering every level of the socioeconomic ladder. The profile of the messenger should vary to accommodate the logical point of view by a student that says, “I cannot be what I cannot see.”

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

In Norway, the government funds all primary and secondary schools nationally. It then provides tuition-free access to college, plus an identical allowance for living expenses. Nonetheless, only 14% of children from the least educated families go to college, compared with 58% of the children from the most educated families (Hechinger Report). These numbers are similar to those in the United States, which has a completely fragmented educational system at every level. Moreover, at present, one-third of American K-12 students are from families without higher education, which would suggest, all other things being equal, that college enrollments will not grow. Education reform anyone?

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

I have a question for suburban residents fighting against educational reform—school choice, charter schools, vouchers, revisions in the tenure system. Which category are you in?

Guilt: the past abhorrent treatment of minorities has led you to “help” the “oppressed” by lowering the academic bar so that students can “succeed” and gain the “self-esteem” so necessary to succeed in life. The result in urban education: a 50% freshman to senior drop-out rate, with a majority of the graduates requiring remedial education as their first courses in college.  Your participation in racial dialogue is the monthly diversity lunch which lists all manner of ills to be confronted by others.

Closet Racist: Probably 80% of the minorities you interact with are in subservient jobs—and that is fine with you—you treat them nicely and after all, somebody has to do those tasks and why not the underschooled. Besides, if they were educated, they would compete with your kids, who we both know are already somewhat spoiled and frequently lazy.

Ignorant and Blissful: No fault of your own, you are not aware of the perfect correlation between family income and SAT scores, which leads you to be blissfully unaware of whether your precious school is adding any educational value at all. Since you have the time and money to be involved in your child’s education, much of which takes place outside of the classroom without you even thinking of it as education (trips to museums and abroad, etc.), you have this naïve belief that if parents everywhere were simply more interested in their children’s education, reform efforts would be unnecessary.

Your exercise of school choice was moving to an area where the “schools were better.” You do not realize that people elsewhere, with thinner wallets, simply want an analogous opportunity to exercise school choice.

Frustrated and Conflicted: You are aware of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the education problem, and, on reflection over a Starbucks cappuccino, you and your friends have decided there is nothing you can do to change things, other than writing a check to ease the pain of frustration. You stay committed to family and job and remain apart from the need for controversy and dirty fingernails. You are rendered numb by the variety and scope of the tsunamis and big rocks confronting America at this point.

Proposal: Here is my request: enroll your children in a conventional urban school system—one where your child must attend the school building within your geographic zone, where showing up for school equals passing, and where many teachers work with an eye on the 2:32pm union mandated end-of-day clock. Then tell me how you feel about education reform.

http://BOBHOWITTBOOKS.COM/?page_id=22

 

 

Mentoring is all the rage, especially among professionals who desperately want to “give back” without unduly interrupting their money-making activities. And what better way to accomplish the needed interaction between mentor and mentee than through e-mail, Skype, Facetime, Whatsapp, and other communication devices that are oh so convenient. No need to take oneself out of their comfort zone, to walk in the shoes of the young person being saved by the good wishes of the professional.

And many times no real training. Success instead emanates from a big heart and that caring attitude which is so typical of people working long hours to afford their McMansion in suburbia or their high-priced condo in center city. In no time at all, the minority kid will be happily posing for a photo-op, the non-minority arm triumphantly slung around the shoulders of this youngster who has been rescued from a life without hope. No need to delve into the reasons behind the latter; the emotional deficit can be filled by somebody picked from the mentor yellow pages.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

Accountability                                       without it, regression to the mean, or lower

Books                                                  portable repositories of both knowledge and stimuli

Budget Autonomy                                 dollars and decisions must be coupled

Computers                                           for meaningful research

Copiers                                                quick response to situation

Critical Thinking Skills                         necessary for negotiating life

Dialogue                                               discussions sharpen and broaden the mind

Dress Code                                          delete consumer competition for a few hours

Extended Day/Year                              more challenges require more time

Goals                                                   if you don’t know where you are going, any route is fine

High Expectations                                 better to aim high and fall short than succeed at low level

Hiring Autonomy                                  vision, mission, and implementers must be linked

Intelligent Leadership                            necessary in any organization

Intentionality                                         important purposes require a deliberative approach

Inquiry                                                  is necessary to stay current and to have perspective

Math                                                    without skill here, vulnerable to shenanigans of others

Open Doors                                         friendliness and confidence re all constituencies

Orderliness                                           saves time for important things

Parental Investment                             education is a 24/7 task

Passion                                                makes the hard stuff easier and the journey fun

Phones                                                 communication needed among all involved

Purposefulness                                    want to get some things done, and let others simmer

Reading                                                a self-evident must

Small Classes                                       are better for individuality and dialogue

Small School                                        so everybody knows everybody

Smiles                                                  are much preferred to anything else

Teachers                                              are the key ingredients to the whole deal

Teacher Talk Time                                to share ideas and stories and other information

Vision                                                   to be able to rise above the day and see the future

Writing                                                 helps all other skills, which in turn help writing

**

In addition to reading, writing, and math, learn keyboarding, dancing, swimming, bicycling, cooking. They facilitate social interaction and are sustainable skills/avocations throughout life.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

A recent government study indicated the following correlation: for every dollar that federal financial aid provided to college students, tuition rose 65 cents. Which basically means that taxpayers en masse paid for the ability of higher education vendors to build fancy dormitories, compensate their professors at above-average rates and add administrative positions at a disproportionate pace.

Put another way, the net cost to students did not become cheaper, regardless of which combination of numbers one puts together. Current student debt levels exceeding $1.1 trillion, with default rates in the teens, are the bottom line.

Do there exist well-reasoned re-examinations of the cost structure of colleges. Yes, but they are confined to the readership of publications coming from a few think tanks. Higher education still manages, despite lamentably low graduation rates, to successfully use the defensive mantra of “you [the critics] do not understand.”

As a consequence, most providers of money to prospective collegians focus their efforts on the funding side of the issue without becoming activist on the issue of the cost of higher education. It is as if nobody cared about the cost of the car as long as the buyer could borrow the necessary money.

Leaving aside the historical role of outside college scholarship providers, there are now prospective additional entrants, who seem to have both an investor and non-profit mentality. What they do is provide funds to a college student for a stipulated portion of the net cost of college under an arrangement whereby the student repays the funding through a portion (4-5%) of his future earnings for a set number of years.  (If there is sufficient financial clout and the energy to spend hours with bureaucratic college officials, the funders may actually come to a reasonably accurate figure on the true net cost of higher education, without in any way changing the obtuse overall nature of college accounting).

The student’s repayment does not go into the fund provider’s pocket but is recycled into funding for additional students. There may not be an attempt to connect inflation rates in either individual income or college tuition, which creates the risk of mismatches, most likely going against the individual. The out from the formula is that the repayment percentage does not change and once the set number of years has been met, the student no longer owes anything, regardless of how much money has been repaid. This means that if the student cannot pay back in a given year, the deficiency is not added to the unpaid balance of the debt.

This particular student funding gambit is labeled an “Income Sharing Arrangement” (ISA). Because it is outside the federal and state loan modus operandi, it may have a dual appeal to funders who are not impressed by the role of government in general and who like the incentive alignment of an ISA. Of course, the ISA is not completely devoid of government influence as it is affected by tax policies relevant to everything it does, whether it be investing or the involvement of non-profit entities or the unique position of higher education with respect to gift tax rules.  Undoubtedly there are legal issues related to ISAs as well, which have yet to be decided upon by regulatory bodies or courts.

More importantly, an ISA could be a low-cost replacement for the government’s ultra-expensive Parent Plus Loan option, and much cheaper than conventional consumer credit.

The optics of an ISA seem to have the potential to be unfortunate: wealthy, mostly white benefactors seemingly being repaid (even if not to their own pockets) by college graduates from lesser income minority families. Such an arrangement seems likely to feed opponents of education reform, who constantly put forth the straw man of privatization (and more than a passing reference to racial divisions) to support their bogus case.

My own world in terms of funding collegians has had these characteristics: Hispanic, ESL, First Generation, low income—and more than a few documentation challenges. When I printed out the 15-page description of 13^th Avenue Funding, an early non-profit ISA effort, I had a hard time imagining anybody I know—parents, students, school officials—being on the same page (pun intended). There is already enough of a bias against the indefinable legalese of lengthy written documents. There is already a screaming need for more guidance counseling, as in human interaction, not website print-outs.

Perhaps the target audience is those of whatever socioeconomic background who have the characteristics of (1) experience with formal financial commitments, (2) income that is too high for FAFSA-based financial aid but too low to afford the target school of their offspring, and (3) a prior college graduate somewhere in the family tree.

A more specific target audience is students from the handful of urban schools which have moved their standards of academic rigor to a level that matches well with of selective colleges. Said students can benefit at the college level from the money and the support services provided in the ISA approach.

Elsewhere, it is debatable whether the combination of ISA funding and services is relevant to students who have suffered from the generally abysmal academic preparation of most urban high schools in the country, which disproportionately affects urban minority students.

Still, If incentives are properly and consistently aligned, as mentioned earlier, and high quality services are provided, there will be some broadening of the attraction of the ISA. As is true in most cases of policy evaluation, the ISA idea must be looked at in comparison with …….. fill in the blank with other financial alternatives, each with its own combination of positives and negatives.

In any event, it would be incrementally helpful if every ISA dollar was matched ten to one by funding of well-designed college-relevant reform efforts that would be more than band-aids, maybe at least tourniquets anyway, for the broken legs of the current higher education system.

Pending such an effort (which some might say is slowly taking place, through the efforts of multiple change agents and the Obama administration), if an ISA can help students who otherwise could not get to and graduate from college, it is hard to deny its usefulness. The comments above should be regarded as cautionary issues, not an attack on the ISA concept.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

Why do many high achieving minority students not apply to selective schools?

*They are afraid of the unknown. This is a totally rational state of mind, not to be confused with adults refusing to try sushi but more akin to those who believe that somebody with a different style of clothing or speech or set of beliefs is automatically to be either feared or shunned. One response on many campuses is the formation of First Generation clubs, which, among other attributes, can offer the prospective collegian a welcoming hug. This approach, in a way, is also pertinent to the “I can’t be what I can’t see” dilemma.

But wait, the issue here is not applying in the first place. Back to square one.

*Perhaps there is an implicit recognition by the student that his high school achievements are not to be construed as adequate academic preparation for truly selective colleges. This of course leads to the issue of education quality in the nation’s schools in general, with special emphasis on urban high schools. Handling this live grenade requires a series of long essays, not a few words in a blog.

*They are simply unaware that they could be accepted by a selective college. Incredible as it may seem, it is not unusual for an Hispanic graduating from a predominantly Hispanic high school to hear a message that suggests he only can go to the local two-year school or to the world of work. Even a graduate of the community college may not have been apprised of the different four-year alternatives. (Note that if he or she is a skilled athlete or musician or a star participant in important school clubs, they probably have a greater degree of awareness brought to them by those who value their specific non-academic talent.)

*Inadequate documentation to make the student eligible for conventional (government-based, federal or state) financial aid is right up there with cost per se in dissuading a young person from applying to that expensive selective school. The rebuttal which points out that said school can offer a direct scholarship of substantial size is relevant, but the amount, even when really generous, may not be sufficient in the absence of any other aid. Left for another day is the philosophical debate between “a lot for a few versus a little for many” in terms of societal resources intended to support individual students and their college aspirations. Even within the minority community, there are those who advocate financing the equivalent of “free rides” to college for a defined number of projected leaders, as opposed to spreading those dollars over as many students as possible.

*The short bungee cord of a tight-knit family may be restricting the college search to a maximum of perhaps 100 miles from home, if that. Probably the only way this impediment (which many students would not even think of as a true negative) is solved is if the offspring of friends of the family have gone outside the mileage boundary and lived to tell their story of academic and career success.

*Diversity, ah yes, the magical word, not ever to be construed in a negative way. The automatic interpretation in the Latino world is the proportion of Latino students to those of other ethnicities. However, half of Hispanic students (yes, I am using the terms interchangeably) go to local two-year colleges, where they can easily stay connected to their high school friends. Diversity of the total enrollment is misleading at best.

Another large percentage are attending an HSI, an Hispanic Serving Institution, which by definition must have at least a 25% Latino student body. In reality, the percentage is usually much higher. Again, a type of diversity which is open to interpretation. None of this commentary should in any way imply that students are doing anything wrong in gravitating to their comfort zone, but the issue of applying to selective colleges typically circles back to whether those seeking diversity can envision themselves in classes where they are a small minority.

Collectively, the descriptors above cry out for the availability of better prepared, trained, empathetic, readily accessible (for free) guidance counselors, which ideally would be located at high schools, but could be found elsewhere. The issues pertinent to applying to college are all addressable, capability of being put in a framework that is understandable by the prospective college student, who can then choose to apply based on a fuller appreciation of all the factors involved.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

WHY IS COSTCO GOOD AND WALMART BAD?

WHY IS BEN & JERRY’S GOOD AND McDONALD’S BAD?

These are among the critically important philosophical questions of our times.

Costco and WalMart

On my semi-annual shopping trip to the nearby WalMart, I see ethnic diversity that is only matched by the rush hour crowds in a Port Authority Bus Terminal passageway. Income diversity — clearly not so much; one-third of WalMart patrons live completely paycheck to paycheck. They come to the store because product prices are stunningly low (a revelation I know).

One would imagine that those of good heart, the description of all liberals, would applaud such an endeavor as an economic benefit of major proportions to a diverse and needy consumer group. But no, there is constant sniping, and a sneering attitude by many, who prefer the more comfortable surroundings of a Costco, where greater discretionary incomes can buy much larger quantities of everything, including unneeded stuff (which certainly happens at WalMart as well).

“WalMart is the reason that small town merchants are being eviscerated” is a leading complaint. Presumably JC Penney, Sears, Macy’s, Kmart and a long list of other larger retailers never had any impact on their lesser-sized competition. Meanwhile, Amazon, which everybody loves because of its incredibly efficient order/delivery system, is in the process of competitively punishing every retaler with an immobile physical location, and making WalMart itself think more deeply about geographic spacing of its stores in the United States (it is closing a few outlets) and other operational issues.

Next—“WalMart does not pay its people well and its healthcare benefits are poor.” Let’s see, the overall turnover rate in the retail industry is about 50%–in six months, a number which historically has seemed impervious to well-intended training programs and which has argued against arbitrarily paying more than the compensation level at those extinct local businesses. (Nobody ever criticized a clothing store for simply hiring young customers who looked good in their clothes and giving them virtually zero training.) Business owners typically are not persuaded by the logic of pouring money into an approach which has no payback attached.

Ironically, WalMart itself is now ignoring much of the truism concerning retail staffing and is currently injecting both additional training and higher pay into its operating approach. It is doing this, not for political correctness, but for good business reasons, stimulated by incremental competition from below (dollar stores), the excesssive costs associated with such personnel turnover, and the need to create a better customer experience. And it is willing to suffer a decline in profits to accomplish its new approach. Will this revision in the company’s modus operandi ultimately prove beneficial? Who knows: the free market will provide that answer, not any of the critics.

As for healthcare plans, they are the subject of controversy and different approaches throughout corporate and entrepreneurial America alike. WalMart is only different in one respect –it is big, very big: 4500 stores in the USA alone.

Aha, a major discovery: “WalMart buys stuff made by low-paid workers in China.” Now that is an argument clincher, a revelation completely unique to WalMart, a business approach unknown to any other company on the Fortune 500 or 1000 or your neighborhood store. The issue of labor cost and conditions only arises when a person wants to make a political statement; otherwise, and for all the other products in either closet or pantry, the critic is mute. (From a philosophical standpoint, if labor and capital have no border controls, should people? But that is too heavy a concept to tackle in this essay.)

On the other hand, enter Costco and its more affluent shoppers: average household income of $75,000. Does anybody question whether the success of this company has cost jobs at prior suppliers to either wholesale or retail accounts? No, the people are nice (probably higher paid than at WalMart) and there is a pleasantness to the place. I dare say that some of the shoppers would admit, “there are more people like me here” (i.e., different from the situation at a WalMart, with its less privileged clientele).

Because of the good aura surrounding Costco, you do not hear about their sourcing patterns. Of course, neither do you hear anything about conditions relevant to the Far East seamstresses of haute couture dresses and gowns found in ultra chic Fifth Avenue shops.

Does anybody recall criticism of Costco, one of the largest booksellers in America, when the 40,000 employees of Borders lost their jobs. (Does anybody step back from an iPhone because of its sourcing situation? Nah, because we like, no love, the product. All other considerations ebb to nothingness, just as the Sierra Club builder of a vacation home does not omit Brazilian flooring because the Amazon rain forest is being cleared.)

Ultimately, the fundamental philosophical question is clear: who will be the decision-maker on which businesses live, which grow, and which slowly dwindle to nothingness. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, I would rather leave these decisions to the first twenty names in any phonebook than to twenty professors or twenty government officials.

Ben & Jerry’s and McDonald’s

I am salivating just thinking about it: four fluid ounces of chocolate fudge brownie ice cream! And only 270 calories. I will simply ignore the accompanying “nutritional” data: 22% of daily fat, including 45% of saturated fat; 23 grams of sugar, and 17% of daily cholesterol. Thirty days of eating this delicious food will bring joy to heart surgeons. But the perpetrators are good guys, their cows are “happy” and everything is fair-traded. Ben & Jerry’s, gotta love them.

When you “Super Size” your eating approach at McDonald’s, it has a similar deleterious impact on your health. But Mickey D’s is, boo, bad. Why—the company is big, corporate, does nasty things to its cows, and disproportionately promotes its unhealthy food to impressionable kids. Ben & Jerry’s, on the other hand, promotes its products to everybody. See the vital difference!

Meanwhile, please take a look at a chart of per capita sugar consumption plotted against the incidence of diabetes, then go to your local supermarket for an informed shopping experience.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22