Personal Finance & Democracy

     A couple things really boggle my mind: 1) for whatever reason (being bad at basic math, lack of planning, an outsized desire to keep up with the Joneses, who honestly knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), Americans are terrible at personal finance. This leads to my second point: we propagate a culture of not discussing money because people don't want to discuss something they are not good at or they are embarrassed at how little they know/understand - in other words, ACTIVELY promoting ignorance. Unfortunately, this ignorance of finance is also linked (in my opinion) to a general ignorance of government and democracy.
     You know the saying - knowledge is power. & as pressing as income inequality is, I think that actually just stems from another, more impactful circumstance of American life - knowledge inequality. You know who is financially illiterate? The average Joe. According to the St. Louis Fed, 57% of respondents couldn't answer 3 basic q's. If you check out that link and think those 3 questions don't accurately gauge financial literacy, then here are some more disturbing stats - 43% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency, 38% of US households have CC debt to the tune of $16,000 at 16.75 APR (a terrible rate), and 56% of American adults have little or no retirement savings (33% have nothing saved + 23% have <$10,000 saved).
     You know who is financially literate (& just so happens to benefit from the general population's ignorance)? People who set interest rates, CEO's, landlords, the whole financial sector (obviously), among others - basically, anyone who runs anything has to be financially literate. Don't get me wrong - I'm not so paranoid as to think that there's a conspiracy of elite plotting how to keep the general populace in the dark. I think the sad truth is that we've buried our heads so far in the sand that there doesn't need to be.
     This circumstance - a minority of people who know how money works in the short & long-term compared to a majority who do not - creates other outcomes. A poor understanding of money leads to a poor understanding of government - from implementation (because policies require $$$ to enact, but people have no money sense) to elections (because more $$$ leads to higher chances of election, even though people think they are voting on ideas [while they are actually voting based on ads + exposure/propaganda]). Finally, a poor understanding of government leads to support of poor policies, officials, and institutions.
     With all that being said - what's there to do? Well, ignorance is combated with education. Here is a great start. You could also search "personal finance." If you're opposed to learning by reading - go the social route! Talk to your parents, your friends, your coworkers - anybody, really*. At this age, there's no good excuse not to learn about how money works. Your housing, your diet, your health, transportation, and everything in between - they all revolve around money. & for crap's sake - you need to abandon the notion that talking about money is a bad thing. Don't forget - knowledge is power. & don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

*Full disclosure: I am a (pretty?) open book when it comes to money talks. Salary, budget, savings, retirement - you name it, I'll talk about it. I'm sure if you reach out to those you are close with, they'll display a similar willingness to discuss.

On America's Lack of a Team Mindset

     Americans love team sports (and sports in general). We consume them year-round in many forms, across many venues, and across so many demographics. Young or old, minority or not, the great majority of us take in sports in some form or other. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL - is there even a calendar day in the year you can't catch at least one of the major sports (I honestly don't know)? Yet, for all our love of team sports, why do so many of us have such a poor concept of what it's like to be part of a team?
     If you play, observe, or are familiar with team sports in a general capacity (one group of people tries beating another group of people in a contest), you're familiar with the idea that a team is only as good as its weakest player. If you're a basketball person, it might look like attacking the same, slow-footed player on the other team. If you're a football fan, it's spamming plays to continuously target one particularly (relatively) bad opponent that you know you can catch in a bad position. Games, series, and most certainly championships (Patriots attacking Goff in 2019) have been won/lost (Cavs decimating Curry in 2017) by attacking particular players. Those are just 2 famous examples, but I had to bring them up because I feel like a lot of people don't understand the concept, or they understand the concept in the context of sports but don't go on to extend that understanding to society/politics.
     So what's the tie to society? Well there are many, really. Here are the first 3 things that come to mind, and they are relevant to everybody:

• Education
• Health
• Wealth

     As it pertains to education: a country is only as educated as its least educated member. Say what you want about college, but it offers the opportunity for you to learn just about anything you are interested in. This isn't to divide those who attended college and those who did not. I am just saying that the opportunity to learn is a great thing. & although plenty of my learning came from reading, a fair amount took place through discussion. Lastly, even aside from the formal education, there are the opportunities to meaningfully interact with people from a much wider range of backgrounds that is just harder to get outside of that space.
     As it pertains to health: a country is only as healthy as its least healthy member. There's just too many ways to consider this one. Nutritional health. Mental health. Physical health. There's so many ways we're lacking. It's depressing to speak on it too much, so I'll just drop one tidbit: in the country with the largest economy in the world, about 13% of households experienced food insecurity in 2015 (according to the USDA). This impacted millions of children, so... yeah. We can't even reliably feed our kids. If that doesn't say anything to you about the state of our country, I don't know what to tell you.
     As it pertains to wealth: a country is only as wealthy as its poorest members. This one is just laughably obvious to me. There are those who would have you believe that, since there are so many billionaires in our borders, that somehow benefits the rest of the country. Do y'all think that living in the same country as billionaires is of any comfort to those without water, medical access, or a roof over their heads? Lack of education and propaganda got people so good that they feel privileged just to grace the same soil as the super wealthy. Let me spell it out for you: just because Jeffrey Epstein is so rich and connected that he can abuse kids and get off with nary a slap on the wrist, that puts ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY in your pockets to help you pursuit happiness or fulfill your potential.
     & if you think that anybody who is in dire straits "deserves it" - I can't deny that some certainly do. But I will remind you that bad things happen to good people - and if you're so devoid of empathy, compassion, and/or understanding that you don't see fit to pick up those who have only fallen due to poor luck, I sincerely hope that you'll eventually come to a better understanding of the world.

How to: Engage With a Racist/Misogynist/Homophobe

     Something I've noticed with the polarizing effect of the Presidency and politics is a prevalence of people disconnecting from others when there are disagreements. Things like "If you think x is okay, I don't wanna be friends" - you know what I'm referring to. Instances of this that I've seen on my feed or heard about in person have gone like this:

• "I don't have the energy to educate you about insert topic here, bye Felicia"
• "Since the election, people have really shown their true colors and made it easy to unfriend/unfollow"
• "We found out Bob doesn't like lesbians, so we don't hang out with him anymore."

     I don't really get that, though. If you react in any of those ways, you recognize that there is something you want to change. Whether it's because of your tiredness or frustration, you just give up. So you've turned any possibility of change to 0%. 

     Not only that, but I think there's a serious lack of perspective when you want to quit. You gotta remember - first impressions and long-held beliefs are tough nuts to crack, and nearly impossible if you engage in some form of argument. I'm pretty certain hostility and confrontation causes us to hold even tighter onto our beliefs. So what's the appropriate way to engage?

     Sounds boring, but I think the answer is pretty simple. Eat, drink, shoot the breeze. Be open and understanding. Listen to another perspective. Over time, they'll come around - but not without nudging. Quitting on someone, though*? That's definitely not the way - you've either robbed someone of your perspective or successfully gave that person reason to dismiss your position.

     If you think it is an unwarranted burden** that you must be the one to explain, or coax, or whatever - I hate to say it, but you could be complicit in the perpetuation of whatever issue it is you want to support. In the words of Dr. King, only love can drive out hate. Not shouting down ignorant folks, or pushing them away. Love.

If you don't think this is a very good idea, I think this (short) article would be a great read for you: Guy befriends and converts 200+ Klansmen

*Don't get me wrong - I know there are plenty of folks who are absolutely intractable. You can sort out the people to invest your time in, I'm sure.

**Also, burdensome as it may feel, we are always representative of the groups we are a part of. You might not like it, but it's a fact that you have contributed, in ways big and small, to thousands of others' ideas of what it's like to be you, whether you're gay/straight, yellow/white/black/brown, etc. etc. So wear it proudly and represent your groups well. 

The Wall

     With the government shutdown about to hit the 3-week mark & with no end in sight (combined with the fact that I haven't written in awhile), I thought I'd write some about it. I think most folks get the gist of it, but I'll go over the main points anyways:

• While campaigning for the presidency, one of Donald Trump's main selling points was to build a wall along the country's southern border. (Speaking of main selling points, whatever happened to "Lock her up"?) Anyways, not only would this wall prevent all sorts of bad characters from making their way in, but Mexico would pay for it! Not 10%, or 20%, or even 50%. They would pay for all of it.
• Almost 2 years from his inauguration, the wall hasn't been built (and Hillary hasn't been locked up either, now that I think about it ... hmmm.) and Mexico won't pay for it. Since Mexico won't pay for the wall, but we need to have a wall, then we will pay for the wall. Every single dollar of the $5,700,000,000 that he is requesting. & if you're the type to believe in government inefficiency/cronyism, then you just know that price tag does not match what could eventually be spent on it (God forbid).

     While most of the country sits around wondering when the government will get it together and resume business (without paying for said wall), there are still plenty (as in millions) of Americans who clamor for the wall. In fact, there are over 3 million signatures collected here "LETTING POLITICIANS KNOW YOU WANT THE WALL." So, y'know, there's that. Oh, & about 335,000 people willing to shell out, on average, $60 (collectively, they've raised $20,000,000. Just $5,680,000000 to go!) to fund the wall. What I don't understand about these people (and everyone else who is supportive of taxpayer money going to the wall) is why they aren't upset that the President pulled one over on them? Like if someone offered to take me out to dinner and then left me with the check, I'd be pretty annoyed. Assuming a casual dinner for 2 amounts to $50, then you'd just have to scale up by 114,000,000 to match what President Trump is doing to the American people for his wall! 

     I know there are other perspectives to approach this from. Ethical, political, humanitarian, racial, whatever. But on a personal level, doesn't it bother you that the person you voted for and trust is taking you for a ride? Or maybe you're just not the type to, I don't know, have the self-respect to hold someone else accountable? Ah well, we just gotta deal for... 2 more years, maybe 6 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 

Is There a Need for Universal Healthcare?

     I can't remember when, but I saw a post on IG saying something along the lines of "I believe in your right to insurance, but I don't believe it's your right to make me pay for it." I don't agree with this principle in concept or practice, and here's why: as a group, doctors already make an oath to - essentially - heal those that need it. So regardless of anybody else's opinion, they've essentially committed themselves to a line of action - if someone needs it, they'll fix it (this is pretty much what the emergency department is for - urgent care that requires treatment). Furthermore, they cannot turn folks away whether they are rich, homeless, or anything in between. This creates a situation where "consumers" receive a service regardless of their ability to pay (I put "consumers" in quotes because I think it's a really callous way of viewing people), creating some debt. How's this debt covered?
     Well, either the staff provide the service without charge (which they usually don't, nor would I expect them to) or everyone else gets a little bit added to the top of their bill to take care of it. Situation remedied, right? Completely. If you can't tell, though, that means we are all (already) collectively paying for that service (emergency services). As the saying goes, though, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let's take it literally (just for the sake of the blog, there's literally no economic or medical data I am citing for this) and say that $1 in preventive care is worth $16 (16 oz. to a pound) in later, emergency costs. For 137 million emergency department visits in 2015, that cost ends up being quite hefty. Let's say the average visit costs $1,000 for scans and other treatment for some simple math - this ends up being $137,000,000,000, or 137 BILLION dollars. According to the CDC, 14% of emergency department visits (in 2012) were by people with no insurance. If the percent from 2012 applied to the number and cost of visits in 2015, then 19.18 billion dollars (14% of 137 billion dollars)  worth of care is administered to those without insurance - which is a figure that must be bore by some other entity. Lastly, if we take this figure and take 1/16th of it as the hypothetical figure for preventive care, the cost would end up being 1.2 billion dollars. So, the health care system (and by extension, all its customers) could save some ~18 billion dollars by focusing treatment on preventive care rather than emergency services. Now, is my number off? Yes, most certainly. I (admittedly) oversimplified the issue and am missing a host of considerations.
     HOWEVER, the point still stands, and hopefully you understand these ideas better:

• Everyone ends up paying for everyone else's health because hospitals cannot refuse to administer emergency services. Hopefully, you're made of the moral substance that says this is the right thing to do. If you're not, then this really isn't for you, but you don't get to go around pretending like you care about anyone else. You don't, because denying anyone emergency services is cruel and about as far from caring as you can get.
• It is more expensive to treat health when it gets to the point of being an emergency (scans, surgeries, etc. etc.) than it is to enact preventive measures (medicine, lifestyle changes, etc. etc.).
• If we are all going to pay for it when people end up being in poor health, then we might as well be cheap about it by ensuring universal access to healthcare that is preventive so as to ensure as many health problems as possible are dealt with as early as possible (before they snowball into major health issues).
• It might be counter-intuitive, but by being willing to look out for everyone else, you also serve yourself by reducing your financial burden.

My 2018 Ballot

I just submitted my ballot earlier today. I wanted to share my vote because I think it's important to have an opinion and stand by it. The teachers union has a set of recommendations that they share, so for those votes, I just put a (U) by them for Union. Otherwise, I'll have a sentence or 2 on my thinking.

Gov: Gavin Newsom (U)

Lt. Gov: Ed Hernandez (U)

Sec. of State: Alex Padilla (U)

Controller: Betty Yee (U)

Treasurer: Fiona Ma (U)

Attorney General: Xavier Becerra (U)

Insurance Commish: Ricardo Lara (U)

State Board of Equalization: Malia Cohen (U)

US Senator: Kevin De Leon - His website just sells him really well on the things I believe in and the direction I want the country to go

US House of Reps: Ro Khanna - Same goes for Ro

State Senator: Bob Wieckowski (U)

State Assembly: Kansen Chu - Is there anyone in 95132 not voting for Kansen Chu...? This vote was seriously just a name recognition one.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond (U)

ESUHSD School Board: Kristin Rivers, Frank Biehl, Manuel Herrera (U)

Berryessa USD School Board: Long Nguyen - He just had "Retired Engineer" going for him. I think public schools need a diverse set of board members and not just all former school teachers or similar. Sometimes you just need a fresh eye.

County Sherriff: John Hirokawa. Laurie Smith's been in for 20 years and seriously has no ringing endorsements. If someone worked a job for 20 years and their best quality is mediocrity, that's not saying much.

Prop 1-4: Yes; I'm just all about spending on things I like. The federal gov. already spends a ton of my taxes on things I don't believe in, I might as well authorize spending for things I can get behind.

Prop 5: No; I am for spending taxes, and to spend taxes we need taxes. All the wealth is tied up by old people, soooo I'm not tryna cut them any slack.

6: No; people who buy gas are using the roads. They are wearing down the roads. Those roads need repairing. Gas taxes repair those. Makes sense.

7: Yes; from what I've come to understand, shifting that hour back and forth causes unnecessary accidents/other bad things without even saving energy. So what the heck.

8: Yes; caps profits on dialysis centers and forces higher standards. It kills me that people seek to obscenely profit from others' maladies. It's just absolutely disgusting.

10: No; rent control doesn't help renters. Only building more housing does.

11: No; just gives breaks to corporations and not employees. Sucks.

12: Yes; just some PETA type stuff. Honestly not that invested in this measure.

Measure

A: Yes; taxes.

S: Yes; modifies procedures for city construction contracts. I think it opens up bidding?

T: Yes; funds emergency and disaster responses, infrastructure, and roads.

U: Yes; city council and mayor don't get to approve their own salaries. Duh??

V: Yes; funds housing. I'm young, poor, and need housing. Yes.

Why We Need to Look Past Labels (Republican vs. Democrat) pt. 1

     Religion and politics are similar in that, for extremists, they are extremely divisive (think "Islam is a religion of VIOLENCE!!" or "Christians are all HYPOCRITES!!"). Note: I don't believe either of those things, but I've seen the idea bandied about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. For the rest of the population, though, there's the nice, wiiiide range of space between the extremes that we can occupy. In religious folks, this could look like people who try to live by example, make their regular appearances at the church/mosque/synagogue, and/or are welcoming of newcomers to the religion without pushing it on them. How does this apply to politics? Unfortunately, I think more people than ever are painting others with a political paint brush that's just too general (and, oftentimes, inaccurate).
     Welp, this one gets heated really quickly. Just to point out a few:

• Democrats:
•  are okay with killing babies
• want to shelter rapists
• plan to make the country Communist/Socialist 
• Republicans:
• are racist/hate Mexicans
• believe that guns are more important than kids
• don't believe in women's rights
• Russian COLLUSION!! (I like this one the most because [somehow] it's used against both Hillary and Trump, lol)

     Again, though, those are just the extremes. Not only that, but people confuse their own views with their perceived views of others. What am I talking about? Let's take 2 examples, one from each side, to be fair:

• On abortion: Democrats want to kill babies. I think people (conservatives) fail to understand that an abortion isn't something anybody is happy to do. Granted, I'm speaking without the benefit of experience, but I'm just trying to use my brain as best as I can. & something tells me that the majority (if not the entirety) of women that are compelled to abort a pregnancy do so for a variety of reasons*:
• financial hardship
• not being ready to raise a baby
• not being in a stable relationship
• following their parents' or partner's desires

      You don't see "likes to kill babies" or "hates life" on there, do you...? This doesn't even take into account the different definitions (medical/scientific vs. religious) for what constitutes a baby, and that's on purpose. It doesn't matter what your definition of a baby is - if a woman isn't going or is unable to raise a baby "right" (y'know, with all the basic needs for a healthy baby), then why force her to? What if she's another Casey Anthony? (For full disclosure, Casey Anthony was found not guilty) Would you want someone to hold off on abortion just to actually commit a gruesome murder because they hate their kid? What if a hypothetical mom subjected their child to a lifetime of abuse? The easy way to consider it is: if you wouldn't want to be the kid in that position (born to a mother that doesn't want you), why would you want someone else to be?

I know there are women who are happy that they decided not to abort, but that's not the point - not all women will end up that way, and there are also women who are unhappy that they didn't abort. So what's the deal if we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution? Welp, we leave the choice open. There are those who will choose to abort and those who will not. There are those who might regret it and those who might not, but that's just life, isn't it? Let's move on to the next example.

• On building the wall: Republicans must hate Mexicans. Again, I think people (liberals) fail to understand the concerns that some Americans bring to the table. (Granted, they are concerned about what amounts to a non**-issue***) Just humor me, though. Imagine if we took a population of 200,000 people and dropped them off anywhere in the world. Let's continue to imagine that these 200,000 are all in perfect nuclear family units of 4, and will require accommodations (whether apartments, condos, or houses) as such. Well, you'd need 50,000 units of housing for that. Where's that going to come from? Who will pay for this housing, and how? How about schools? Healthcare services? If half of the population is kids and we assigned a 30:1 ratio for educators, we'd need 3333 educators. With a 1,000:1 ratio for doctors, we would need 200 doctors (not to mention nurses, support staff, etc. etc.). Where are those going to come from, and on whose dime? 

     While I personally do not consider this an issue since the majority of Mexican immigrants are already here (and contributing), that doesn't mean people's concerns aren't real. Granted, in this case they seem to be invalid, but that still required some digging on my part (and I guarantee that most folks on either side of the "issue" haven't done even 2 minutes of Googling, let alone 5-10) to find out. 

     PHEW. With all that out the way, what am I trying to get at? Whatever your political stances are, try not to buy into the strawmen that abound in this political landscape. When you do, you fall into the thought trap of thinking that all Republicans are racist/moronic/misogynistic or that all Democrats are baby killers/rapist sympathizers/Socialists. & whether you think Russians gave Hillary $400 million (false) or that they influenced on behalf of Trump (true), the truth is that these divisive tactics by Russians are sowing division to the point where Americans can't engage in politics with the people that they need to the most - each other. So keep your head on straight, talk it out with the people you know, but do not overgeneralize. Otherwise, you've failed your country (and by extension, yourself)!

*International study on abortion

*US study on abortion

**"As of 2014, 78% [of illegal Mexican immigrants] had lived in the US for 10 years or more"

***Inflows of Mexican immigrants have already gone through a dramatic decline since the early 2000's.