Technology Hazards

    Most of the time, I always have my cellphone on me. I check my email, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram every few minutes, similar to the majority of Americans these days. In fact, one of the reasons why it is taking me so long to write this blog post is likely thanks to the fact that I have Facebook open at the same time.
    According to research from Carnegie Mellon University’s Human-Computer Interaction Lab, as this article explains, an experiment was performed at Carnegie Melon in which two groups took a test; one group was not interrupted and the other group was interrupted by an instant message. The result was that the interrupted group answered questions correctly 20 percent less often than members of the group who were uninterrupted. This is even further of an issue because "a typical office worker gets only 11 minutes between each interruption, while it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the original task after an interruption." All these distractions really do make people dumber and less affective in getting things done.
     Thinking more about the issue of all these technology-based distractions, it does not seem like there is really any cure for it. Technology only continues to advance in America, which just increases our access to social media and other ways of communication through technology. Thus, we will just continue to have more and more distractions. While technology advancements are good in some respects, the harm that they do to a person's brain power need to be kept in mind. As the experiment described above shows how technology interruptions make us dumber, it also affect our social skills. Take me for example: just a few minutes ago I was sitting next to my mom typing away on my cellphone while she was talking to me. After five minutes, I realized that I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, thanks to the meaningless conversation I was having via text message. The more and more we text, the less likely we are to have skills in talking to someone face-to-face. How, if in any way, can these interruptions be lessened, or are they already built too far into society?
    

An Irreversible Loss?

    Among the many factors driving the widening income gap between the rich and the poor is a replacement of middle-class jobs with low-class jobs. In other words, a decline in manufacturing jobs, an area where people with lower educations were able to make decent wages, has resulted in more people having to make a living working low-wage jobs instead. Despite Obama's efforts to aid this issue (increase in minimum wage and creation of the American Opportunity Tax Credit) as this article states, "inequality has worsened during his administration." Although he has made many efforts, "Real median income is eight percent below pre-recession levels and middle-class jobs continue to be replaced by low-wage jobs." The decline of middle-class jobs, particularly in manufacturing, began in the 1980s when large industries started finding cheaper labor in other countries.
    A documentary called Roger and Me, by Michael Moore, exposes how big of an issue it became when manufacturing jobs started to go overseas. As seen in the trailer attached below, nearly 30,000 people in Flint, Michigan lost their jobs all because the General Motors factory was moved to a different country. While the majority of Flint was affected by the loss, there were a few very wealthy people who seemed to care less about the issue because they were still extremely well-off. This reminds me of The Great Gatsby because most of the characters seem to only focus on their wealth and materials, and might not even know or care that poor people exist. The manufacturing jobs that have been lost do not seem to be coming back any time soon, which makes for a smaller middle class, and a much bigger lower class.

What even is the Income Gap?

  

    Before I began my junior theme, I didn't know anything about the gap between the rich and the poor. Sure, I knew that it was "widening," whatever that meant, but I never really understood how severe of an issue it is. And that's the problem. Americans know that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that's pretty much it. Many people don't know, or don't understand that, as the attached video states, "The richest 1% take home almost a quarter of the nation's wealth." I'm not a numbers person, but even I understand that a quarter of the nation's wealth, is a lot of money. People also may not be aware that "The CEO now makes 380 times the average worker's. Not the lowest paid employee...the average one." I can't help but ask myself, doesn't this anger people? A CEO could be working just as hard as one of its workers, yet it is making 380 times more?!? I'm sure that people are angry, but we just don't hear about it. 

    Finding a solution to this growing issue is going to take a lot of work involving many different aspects of our society (taxes, education, technology, etc.), but in my opinion, before any of that happens, the leaders in our society, and people in general, are going to have to start understanding, and being more open to how huge of an issue this really is. Just take a look at the video; it is clear that Americans' perception of how wealth is distributed is skewed, not even close to the reality. One of the reasons for this could be because of how politicians treat the issue. As Peter Edelman mentioned in his book So Rich, So Poor, in regards to the Recovery act, "Obama made little use of the word "poverty"...[but instead] used the word "vulnerable"...to characterize low-income people." Poverty is a real thing and as the income gap grows, it only is going to become a larger issue. If the leader of our country can barely make use of the word, then American people will not think of it as the serious issue that it is.

Less Stuff, More Benefits

Graham Hill in his 420-square-foot apartment

    Here in America, and especially on the North Shore, we have a lot (and by a lot I mean an excessive amount) of "stuff." Noticing the room I am in now, I see how many items devour the table at which I am sitting: books, magazines, computers, phones, clothes, a purse, a stapler, a three hole punch, and picture frames (it is messier than you are imagining). Looking to the room next to me, which I will call the "living room," I can honestly say that I do not know what purpose it serves; nobody ever seems to be using it! My point is, why do we have all this stuff and space, when it seems that much of it goes completely unused?
     Graham Hill, an entrepreneur from New York, had the same question, but unlike most of us, he eventually did something about it.  It started after he sold his company for a whole lot of money.  He was living in an enormous apartment, and buying endless amounts of "stuff." As time went on, Hill, as explained in this article, started to become "numb to it all." The word "numb," meaning deprived of feeling or responsiveness, reminds me of how many American people unknowingly are today. Buying so much stuff seems like no big deal, when, after years of being piled around the house, garage, or a storage unit, most of it just ends up in the garbage. After realizations and experiences, Graham Hill decided to stop putting so much to waste. Although he could be living in a luxurious home with an abundance of all sorts of "stuff," he instead decided to move into a 420-square-foot studio. In it he has a bed that pulls out from the wall, 6 shirts, 10 bowls, an extendable dining room table, and some books.
     Hill says that he is now lives a "bigger, better, and richer life." Although this is just the story of one man, the message that he is sending is one that many American people simply do not understand, or choose to ignore: having an excessive amount of material does not make someone have a better, happier life (proof is shown in a study conducted last year). So, why is this belief engrained in our minds? Even if we are aware that materials cause more stress than happiness, why do we ignore it?
  

A Change of Heart

    On friday, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio announced that he  is no longer opposed to gay marriage. Portman, who is known for co-sponsoring the federal ban on same-sex marriage, and voting to prohibit same-sex couples in Washington from adopting children, is now the only sitting Republican senator to publicly support gay marriage. What, you may ask, caused this sudden change of heart?   Well, Portman's son came out two years ago and as this article states, he "did not want his son Will, who is 21, treated any differently because of his sexuality." I think it is interesting how this quote says that he didn't want his son treated any differently. I applaud Portman for his decision, but think it is interesting  that Portman didn't appear to have sympathy for gay people until one of his own family members came out.
     Personal experience gave Portman a reason to really think about the issue, rather than just go along with what he had always believed and with what the majority of his political party had always believed. No matter what it took to get Portman to the position in which he now stands in, I would say that it marks much progress in our society. It is a good sign that Portman, in a party known to be against same-sex marriage, was able to publicly announce his new position, instead of silently keep it to himself. Hopefully, hearing people speak out for same-sex marriage will cause others to rethink their position on the issue, not just for the sake of a family member, but for the sake of society as a whole. What do you think it will take (if anything) for more people, particularly political figures, to change their views on same-sex marriage?

School Closings for the Better?

    In Chicago, around 100 schools have been closed since 2001 and another 129 are being eyed for closure. Living on the North Shore and going to a school like New Trier, it's extremely hard to picture this is happening.
     Even if the schools that shut down were low on enrollment or struggling to afford to stay open, I still think it is important for schools, as this article states, to "serve as refuges in communities that have little else." The word refuge, meaning a condition of being safe or sheltered from pursuit, danger, or trouble, suggests that the students already live in a dangerous area, and it is made even more hazardous when their school closes, forcing them to walk or be bused further distances through more dangerous areas. For most students, closing down their school is not helping them to get a better education at another school, but mostly  just setting them up to be in an even worse situation.This is a sharp contrast to our lives at New Trier. We, at NT,  drive a maximum of 20 minutes to get to school and are in an extremely safe area. It would never cross our minds to be nervous about having to drive through Glencoe every morning, whereas for many students in the city, walking through their neighborhood every morning is a risk. Although we do not live in a town that has "little else," I would argue that New Trier also serves as a refuge, but in a different way than many of the schools downtown. Many students that attend Chicago Public Schools need their schools to serve as a safe place for them to go. On the other hand, at New Trier we take for granted the fact that there is pretty much always something going on and it's open to students many hours of the day, even when school isn't in session. We may not see New Trier as a "refuge" because there are already other safe places that we can go, including our homes, which may not be the case for some students in Chicago.
     According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 1,929 schools across the country were closed between the years 2010 and 2011. For me, this number was pretty hard to wrap my head around, and it made me think about how lucky I am to go to a school at which there is no possibility for it to shut down. What do you think it would feel like for your school to shut down?

Queen Bees of the Workplace

"The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their own"(Wall Street Journal).

Image from the movie Devil Wears Prada

    For women in the workplace, getting a job might not be the toughest part. "Queen bee syndrome," although it sounds like something that would have been used in middle school, is actually a term that refers to when, as this article states, "women who achieved success in male-dominated environments
at times...oppose the rise of other women." The word that stands out to me here is "oppose," meaning to attempt to prevent something. In a world where men seem to have the upper hand in many fields of business, it seems that women in positions of power should want to help to make women more prevalent in the workplace, rather than wanting to prevent it. I have seen examples of this in many movies, including Devil Wears Prada (as pictured), but was unaware of how common it was in the real world, as well. A 2007 survey of 1,000 American workers, released by the San Francisco-based Employment Law Alliance, reported that of 45% of those who said they were bullied at the office, 40% were bullied by women. Another survey of 1,000 women workers, taken in 2011, found that 95% said to have been undermined by another woman during their career.
    The main reason that I think this happens is because, especially in a male-dominated work place, women are afraid of losing their jobs due to the fact that they may be one of the only women in a position of power. In some ways, this reminds me of Mr. Bolos' presentation in which we discussed why we still have inequality. One of the reasons was efforts of the powerful, which has to do with the fact that powerful people have the means to sway things in their direction. Women in positions of power have the means to undermine other women, and as awful as it may sound, they will use this to make sure that other women do not gain the same amount of power as they have. In my opinion, us girls have to stick together, but unfortunately, there are some queen bees out there who apparently don't agree with that motto. What do you think the reason for "Queen Bee Syndrome" is?