Upgrading an impossibly old system to Windows 8

PCWorld

Our own Loyd Case attempts to upgrade circa 2004 Windows XP machine to Windows 8.

A must-read for anyone thinking about installing Win8 on an old machine.

[WOW!! TAKE ME THERE]

Health Benefits of Pistachios

Although from Western Asia originally, pistachios have been eaten for thousands of years throughout the Mediterranean. Nuts in general are a great source of protein and healthy fats, but did you know that pistachios have numerous additional benefits? Scientists have found these little tough nuts to be useful in preventing cancer, lowering lipids in the prevention of heart disease, and preventing diabetes, all while delivering a good source of antioxidants. And these aren’t the only health benefits of pistachios.


Outlining the Health Benefits of Pistachios

A study published by the American Association for Cancer Research indicates that people who ate about 2 ounces of pistachios a day for four weeks saw higher blood levels of gamma-tocopherol, a type of vitamin E. Gamma-tocopherol is known to protect against various cancers, including lung cancer. A powerful fat-soluble antioxidant, the vitamin E in pistachios is also essential for beautiful skin, protection from UV radiation damage, and strengthening cell membranes.



Another study found that eating pistachios lowered lipids and lipoproteins, a risk factor for heart disease. The researchers report that “Inclusion of pistachios in a healthy diet beneficially affects cardiovascular disease risk factors in a dose-dependent manner, which may reflect effects on Stearoyl CoA Desaturase (SCD). “ Penny Kris-Etherton, professor of nutrition and primary investigator of the study also says: ”our study has shown that pistachios, eaten with a heart healthy diet, may decrease a person’s CVD risk profile.”

According to research published in the Journal of Nutrition, a diet rich in pistachios (1.5 to 3 ounces per day) was linked to increased beta-carotene and gamma-tocopherol in the blood.

There is evidence that pistachios, rich in phosphorus, may have positive effects on the prevention of Type 2 diabetes, aiding in glucose tolerance. Vitamin B6 in pistachios can increase blood health by boosting the amount of oxygen carried in the blood stream, boost the immune system, and help support a healthy nervous system. The antioxidants found in pistachios can also prevent a harmful process called glycation, which makes proteins unusable. This process ultimately helps diabetes to damages tissues, as sugars end up bonding inappropriately.

Other research shows that a diet rich in pistachios (1.5 to 3 ounces per day) was linked to increased beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, lutein, and gamma-tocopherol in the blood. The carotenoids found in pistachios offer overall protection from free radicals, and also help to decrease the risk of age-related macular degeneration – a primary cause of vision problems and developed blindness. Alpha carotene-rich foods have also been shown to prevent cancer and heart disease.

How to Increase Pistachio Consumption

So, how can you increase your pistachio consumption and reap the health benefits of pistachios? Easily. These little nuts make a great snack. Here are some ideas:
Throw pistachios on a salad
Serve them with fruit
Munch on them during a movie
Chop and cook them with brown rice and herbs
Add them to a natural, homemade trail mix
Use them in place of pine nuts in a pesto
Crush them, make a paste with garlic and olive oil, and serve on top of baked salmon as a pistachio butter

It’s not difficult to get a few ounces of pistachios into your daily diet; the nuts are versatile and so tasty. And with the multiple health benefits of pistachios, they should be at the top of your go-to health food list!

Benefit Summary – Pistachios are great for:
Heart health
Eye health
Skin health
Diabetes control
Cancer prevention
Immune system
Slowing aging process

Source: Natural Society

Moving to a better neighborhood will make you healthier and happier

The Wall Street Journal
Moving to a better neighborhood will make you healthier and happier:

http://on.wsj.com/SIeQE7

A new study tracked thousands of low-income families moving from impoverished areas to mixed-income neighborhoods. It found significantly lower rates of diabetes, obesity, and anxiety.

Photo: Since relocating to the suburbs, Sabrina Oliver began studying to be a substance-abuse counselor at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland.
Credit: Jonathan Hanson for The Wall Street Journal.

THIEVING TECHNIQUES

The Wall Street Journal





The Wall Street Journal

World-wide, tourists are victimized by criminals at much higher rates than local residents. How to protect yourself against pickpockets:http://on.wsj.com/SENMWk

Creating diversions is a common tactic. A thief may squirt something on victims, drop coins in front of them or show them a map and ask for directions. Another tactic is for a fake police officer to demand to see your wallet, which is then swiped.

Have you ever had your wallet or purse stolen? What are your tips for protecting yourself?

7 Ways LinkedIn Can Drive More Traffic to Your Website

Entrepreneur Magazine
What's your preferred way to use LinkedIn? As a networking tool, an outreach platform, or something else?

7 Ways LinkedIn Can Drive More Traffic to Your Website www.entrepreneur.com
LinkedIn isn't just for networking. Here's how it can drive more traffic to your website than Facebook and Twitter.Get the latest blog articles on...

How to Build an Ethical Business Culture

Entrepreneur Magazine
The best way to foster a positive, ethical office culture is to ______.

How to Build an Ethical Business Culturewww.entrepreneur.com
Three steps to make sure your employees' behavior is above board.Get the latest blog articles on business ideas and trends from Entrepreneur.com. Daily...

For super-fast traders, there's a way to jump ahead in line

The Wall Street Journal
For super-fast traders, there's a way to jump ahead in line:
http://on.wsj.com/PTTpTQ

High-frequency traders sometimes use a special type of order to step in front of ordinary investors to buy and sell stocks. The maneuvers are executed in a fraction of a second, fueling concerns about whether the fastest traders gain unfair advantages.

Graphic: Mike Sudal/The Wall Street Journal

Patience is a virtue when it comes to hiring

Patience is a virtue when it comes to hiring

09.17.2012



When Craig Michels landed a long-sought job on June 18 as a project manager for a Wisconsin construction company, he credited his determination and patient attitude, two things he says are imperative when trying to find a job, the Post-Crescent reports.

"This was the job I was looking for, it was the right kind of job compared to my previous position, which really just wasn’t satisfying and not what I really wanted," the 32-year-old said.

Michels added that he remained employed while looking for a job, fully aware of the stagnant economy, but felt things were looking up enough that finding a new, a better job was possible. However, he took his time to search out the ideal position, which to him would be an active, outdoor job. By thoroughly reviewing his options, he was able to find a job in which he oversees construction projects from beginning to end, according to the news source.

This approach to hiring has also been taken by employers, who are finding in recent months that virtues similar to Michels' help yield strong results. Although unemployment in Wisconsin has fallen as the overall economy improves, employers in the northeastern part of the state say the region is still brimming with laid-off mid level employees and new college graduates.

"There still are people out there looking, who are looking for work to just to work, not because the position is something they really want," said Kelly Mallaman, human resources manager for Menasha-based Faith Technologies, an electrical services contractor.

Mallaman added that she often receives dozens of resumes for one open position, with job candidates ranging from experienced and overqualified to those who have not had the appropriate training for the job. However, Mallaman says, sifting meticulously through the resumes is ultimately worth finding the perfect hire.

"The goal for us is to have the top candidates selected to bring in for interviews," she said.

According to the news provider, finding the right fit is an increasingly important task for companies. Even finding workers for entry level positions can be a serious challenge, said Julie Van Vonderen, vice president of operations at Prospera Credit Union.

Van Vonveren said that when her company has an opening for a $10-dollar-an-hour teller position, she often receives an overwhelming number of applicants in response.

"I may get 200 resumes for that job and you may run across an out-of-work CEO who’s just looking for anything," she said.

However, Van Vonderen said now she turns to temporary staffing agencies to help her with such hiring - a move many businesses are making to fill their entry-level or low-skilled positions.

"When I use a staffing firm [for a teller position], I can provide them with the rate of pay, how many hours the job is per week and tell them I need someone with cash-handling experience," Van Vonderen said. "It’s their job to then sort through the dozens of applicants and find the top [few] that they think are a good fit for my opening."

The demand for temporary staffing services is evident in the growth of the industry in 2012 alone. According to the American Staffing Association, to date, temporary and contract staffing has grown 23.5 percent since the beginning of 2012. The ASA Staffing Index for August came in at 92, making it 0.9 percent higher than July's report.

This number is expected to rise in the coming months, as staffing employment typically peaks between mid-November and mid-December every year.

The Cross in Our Bodies

The Cross in Our Bodies









This is a pretty neat story and an interesting thing that few of us know. It's brief, so please read (from a doctor).

A couple of days ago I was running (I use that term loosely) on my treadmill, watching a DVD sermon by Louie Giglio... And I was BLOWN AWAY! I want to share what I learned. I fear not being able to convey it as well as I want but I will share anyway.

He (Louie) was talking about how inconceivably BIG our God is... How He spoke the universe into being... How He breathes stars out of His mouth that are huge raging balls of fire, etc. etc. Then he went on to speak of how this star-breathing, universe-creating God knitted our human bodies together with amazing detail and wonder. At this point I am LOVING it (fascinating from a medical standpoint, you know). And I was remembering how I was constantly amazed during med school as I learned more and more about God's handiwork. I remember so many times thinking, 'How can anyone deny that a Creator did all of this?'

Louie went on to talk about how we can trust that the God who created all this, also has the power to hold it all together when things seem to be falling apart...how our loving Creator is also our sustainer.

Then I lost my breath, and it wasn't because I was running my treadmill!!!

It was because he started talking about laminin. I knew about laminin.

Here is how Wikipedia describes them: 'Laminins are a family of proteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding of basement membranes in almost every animal tissue'

You see.... Laminins are what holds us together... LITERALLY. They are cell-adhesion molecules. They are what holds one cell of our bodies to the next cell. Without them, we would literally fall apart. I knew this already, but what I didn't know is what they looked like.

But now I do. And I have thought about it a thousand times since... Here is what the structure of laminin looks like... AND THIS IS NOT a christian portrayal of it.... If you look up laminin in any scientific/medical piece of literature, this is what you will see.



Now tell me that our God is not the coolest!!! The glue that holds us together is in the shape of the cross. Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind. 'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities. All things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things HOLD TOGETHER.' Colossians 1:15-17

Thousands of years before the world knew anything about laminin, Paul penned those words. And now we see that from a very LITERAL standpoint,we are held together...one cell to another....by the cross.

You would never in a quadrillion years convince me that is anything other than the mark of a Creator who knew exactly what laminin 'glue' would look like long before Adam breathed his first breath!

Signs point to interstellar space for Voyager 1 probe

Signs point to interstellar space for Voyager 1 probe
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: September 16, 2012


More than 35 years after launching from Earth and now at the frontier of the solar system, NASA's Voyager 1 probe may be tasting interstellar space for the first time, according to scientists analyzing fresh data from the distant explorer.



Artist's concept of the Voyager spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech


Launched in September 1977 to fly past Jupiter and Saturn, Voyager 1 is now cruising 11.3 billion miles away and opening its distance by 300 million miles each year.



It takes 17 hours for a radio signal to travel between Earth and Voyager 1. Its twin explorer - Voyager 2 - is lagging slightly behind at a distance of 9.2 million miles from Earth.

The nuclear-powered probe's computers have about 68 kilobytes of memory. An 8-gigabyte iPod Nano holds more than 100,000 times as much data.

But particle-sniffing sensors aboard Voyager 1 are returning intriguing data showing the spacecraft is in the precipice of leaving the solar system.

Researchers may be seeing the first signs that Voyager 1 is nearing - or may have already crossed - the heliopause, an enigmatic boundary between the sun's sphere of influence and the void beyond.

The sun's million-mile-per-hour solar wind blows a teardrop-shaped bubble around the solar system, pushing against a stream of galactic particles coming from ancient stellar explosions.

The heliosphere is compressed by the galactic wind in one direction, while it stretches behind the solar system like a comet's tail.

The heliosphere blocks most dangerous cosmic radiation from reaching Earth.

"Inside the heliopause, the wind is from the sun, and outside the wind is from the explosion of supernovae," said Ed Stone, project scientist for the Voyager program at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "It's a distinctly different part of the universe, and these two spacecraft will be the first to enter interstellar space."

Voyager 1 crossed into the heliosheath in 2004, entering a region where the pressure from galactic particles begin to slow the speed of the solar wind.

Since then, scientists have played a waiting game. No one knows for sure what environment Voyager 1 will encounter when it makes its grand exit.

"We could be actually in interstellar space right now, as far as we know," said Alan Cummings, a senior scientist at the California Institute of Technology, in remarks last month.

But it will take time before scientists can safely conclude Voyager 1 has crossed into the interstellar medium, a domain more dominated by particles from elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy than from the sun.

At the very least, recent data show Voyager 1 has entered a new region, according to Ed Stone, Voyager's project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

In May, Voyager 1's particle counter began scooping up more high-energy cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system.

"Suddenly, in one month, they increased as much as they had in a year," Stone said. "Obviously, something had changed."

Another, even sharper, rise in high-energy cosmic rays was measured in late August, just as Voyager 1's telescopes detected a dramatic drop in low-energy particles coming from inside the heliosphere.



Diagram of the heliosphere, with the locations of the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft at left. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech


The signature closely mirrors what officials expected to see as Voyager 1 neared the heliopause, and the evidence in recent data account for two of three important tests Voyager scientists will use to determine whether the spacecraft has crossed over.



The other indicator is a change in the direction of the magnetic field around Voyager 1, and that is the most difficult to ascertain, according to Stone, who has been with the project since its launch.

According to Stone, confirming the change in magnetic field could take weeks or months of observations.

"There is some kind of connection between where Voyager is and the outside, which lets that are inside out and lets the particles that our outside in," Stone said. "The question is how much further is it to the heliopause? We don't know whether these are special filaments connecting to the outside or whether we're dancing along a new region which is connected to the outside."

Researchers believe the heliopause boundary is extraordinarily turbulent, and its location can fluctuate in location and time. Charged particles travel along magnetic field lines, which can undergo dynamic bursts known as reconnection, much like the process responsible for auroras on Earth.

"This is very new data, and we haven't really digested it all yet," Cummings said. "It could be that the magnetic field line that Voyager is on is making intermittent connections with the heliopause, or this boundary we're trying to get to."

Off-and-on magnetic connections with the heliopause could allow particles from inside the heliosphere to escape and draw in cosmic ways from interstellar space.

"If there's one thing we've learned from Voyager, it's no matter how clever we think we are about the signatures, there's almost surely to be something we haven't figured out when we get there, and that's going to be the most interesting thing of all," Stone said.

US Credit Rating Cut by Egan-Jones ... Again

US Credit Rating Cut by Egan-Jones ... Again
Published: Friday, 14 Sep 2012 | 3:43 PM ET
By: CNBC.com With Reuters

Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.




Getty Images

The Fed on Thursday said it would pump $40 billion into the U.S. economy each month until it saw a sustained upturn in the weak jobs market. (Read more: Fed's 'QE Infinity' — Four Things That Could Go Wrong)

In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s realgross domestic product, but reduces the value of the dollar.

In turn, this increases the cost of commodities, which will pressure the profitability of businesses and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power, the firm said.

In April, Egan-Jones cuts the U.S. credit rating to "AA" from "AA+" with a negative watch, citing a lack of progress in cutting the mounting federal debt.

Moody's Investors Service [MCO 43.82 0.07 (+0.16%) ] currently rates the United States Aaa, Fitch rates the country AAA, and Standard & Poor's rates the country AA-plus. All three of those ratings have a negative outlook.

ELECTORAL MAP

ELECTORAL MAP

Retirement or College Funding: Which Comes First?

Retirement or College Funding: Which Comes First?
from daveramsey.com on 12 Sep 2012

Email




If you’re working your way out of debt, one of the most difficult questions you might face is how to prioritize college savings and retirement.

If you’re like most parents, you’ll phrase the question this way: What is more important—my own security at retirement or my child’s education and future? It’s easy to think about it that way because it’s an emotional issue.

Lately, a lot of parents have decided that college savings should come first. The economy has seen better days, and desperate, misguided parents have dipped into their 401(k)s to pay for their child’s college tuition.

According to a Sallie Mae and Gallup study, 7.4% of parents took out a loan from their 401(k)s in 2010. That’s more than double the amount in 2009. It’s an alarming trend—one based on fear and desperation. And, after taxes on the loan and an early withdrawal penalty, it’s a trend that will get quite expensive and stressful.

It’s never a good idea to pull money out of your retirement fund before the time comes. But the more difficult question is this: Should you delay saving for retirement to pay for your child’s tuition?

No. Dave prioritizes retirement over college savings because you need retirement money to live, eat, and pay for shelter—the basics. You’re not working, so that money is your only source of income.

Saving for college is extremely important, but it’s a luxury. Your child will have other ways to pay—scholarships, grants, part-time jobs. They can select a more affordable school. Pay for your child’s college if you can, but remember that it’s not as important as retirement.

Retirement is a necessity. If you don’t have retirement money saved up, then you’re working until you die or living on Alpo. Get to a place financially where you can start putting 15% of your income toward retirement first, then begin working on an ESA or 529for your kid’s college.

Don’t guilt-trip yourself into doing something you’ll regret in a few years, like taking money out of your retirement. Your child will be okay—with or without your help. This isn’t child abuse. It’s wise parenting.

Remember: College is a luxury. Living, eating, and having shelter during retirement is a necessity.

We all face challenges in both our parenting and our money. Financial Peace Universityoffers practical answers to many of the questions you have, including saving for retirement and college. Find the class starting nearest you!

3D Printing: The Game Changer

3D Printing: The Game Changer



As told by Hugh Evans
VP at T. Rowe Price Associates


Hugh Evans is a vice president at T. Rowe Price Associates. He is the lead portfolio manager of the Distribution Management Service, and serves on the Investment Advisory Committee of the Small-Cap Value Fund and Small-Cap Stock Fund. Mr. Evans received a BA with distinction from the University of Virginia, where he was a Jefferson Scholar, and an MBA from Stanford University, where he was an Arjay Miller Scholar.


I have a pretty unique perch at T. Rowe Price, as the person who's got one foot in the public markets and one foot in the private equity markets. I scan the venture capital world to make sure that we're on top of these private companies that the venture capitalists are creating, and get to know them two, three, four, five years before their IPO (Initial Public Offering).

It's a very useful knowledge pipeline for us, to watch developments through the eyes of the venture capitalist, and I've seen a lot of the most exciting things coming out of private equity.

From my vantage point, 3D Printing is right up there as one of the most exciting innovations I've seen in the 20 years I've been around here. I think it's going to change the way goods are manufactured across many industries.

THE BACKSTORY

In order to wrap your head around this, file away what your mind tells you about printing or pictures. A normal printer squirts ink onto paper, but a 3D Printer layers atoms on top of each other to create (or print) actual objects.

I can explain this in more detail by taking us through the history of the 3D-Printing industry. What we now call 3D Printing was called rapid prototyping for many years. An engineer would design an object as a CAD (computerized aided design) file, and then send that file to a machine to produce the real thing. (See our accompanying article, How 3D Printing Works.)

But for years, the plastics and the metals that were used were just not robust enough to create a prototype that you could be proud of. They resembled paraffin waxes. They could create the parts, but those parts tended to be flimsy. Because the end product didn't have structural integrity, the technology was really just for engineers who were creating a product in CAD and needed to see what it looked like in real life.

The revolution took place when companies like 3D Systems started designing radically new materials. (See the article Substance Before Form for more.)

They came up with nanocomposites, different blends of plastics, and different blends of powdered metals. They were then able to create a part that, if you held it in your hand, you'd think it was steel. You can throw it down on the ground against cement, and it looks and acts just like steel.

It's impressive how the industry has graduated from flimsy, waxy plastics to very, very robust materials that can literally be used as a machine part, rather than just a prototype of a part.

The industry graduated from just being about rapid prototyping—i.e., this is going to be something that's only an R & D function—to becoming a manufacturing strategy. We can make parts through this method, and the parts can go on the car, and the parts can go on the plane. They can also go in the human body, in the case of dental or medical applications.

THE FUTURE IS NOW

And so the invention of these new materials has allowed this industry to go from being bottled up in the lab to what many people call DDM—Direct Digital Manufacturing—and others call "additive manufacturing."

These new materials allow this 3D printing to be adopted by aerospace, automotive. Jaguar is using the technology for rapid product development. So is the Bell Helicopter division of Textron. (For more on 3D Printing's use in the automotive industry, see Is 3D Printing Road Ready?.)

It's amazing. I was at an event recently where these guys from Barcelona had a game console with a camera attached, and had sort of rejiggered it. For fun, they'd take a picture of you with it, and then print it on a 3D printer. The things some of these people are doing—it's just amazing.



MEDICAL APPLICATIONS

It's pretty intuitive to apply this technology to the automotive and aerospace industries, and jewelry has always been a big market. But one of the most exciting areas is actually dental fabrication.

You might already have a crown that was built by a 3D printer. Five years ago, that crown would have been made by hand—hand-sanded and hand-created. This technology is taking over that task. Now you go to the dentist, and you don't bite into the clay anymore to make a mold of your mouth. Your dentist just wands your mouth with the 3M wand and makes a digital file of your mouth. It happens instantly, and then the dentist teleports that CAD file and has the implant at his office the next day.

One company I'm excited about is using 3D printing to make prostheses. It's a venture-backed company in San Francisco called Bespoke Innovations. There are a large number of amputees in America and around the world—I believe something like two million people have some sort of prosthetic limb or device.

The prosthetics industry had always been one-size-fits-all, but now they are taking Army vets and other people who need prostheses, taking a lot of measurements of their body movements and angles, and building custom limbs. Not every leg extension is the same. Some have different weight-bearing characteristics, different angles, a different way the feet move. Bespoke Innovations takes all this ergonomic information, imports it, and creates a CAD file, from which they can literally print out the limb that is used by the customer. (See our article Printing a Medical Revolution for more.)

That, to me, points the way to what's so exciting about the field. It's the epitome of mass customization: a product that is relatively similar for most people, but customized to fit you and your specific needs.

THE PROMISE OF INSTANT CAD FILES

The other thing that's accelerating the industry is the development of laser scanners. A company called FARO Technologies produces a handheld laser that you can point at an object, and the laser will create a CAD/CAM file of what you're pointing at in real time.

The data from the laser reading is imported into a CAD/CAM file, and so you can instantly create a CAD/CAM file with this laser technology. Even the labor intensity of creating a CAD file is reduced as you can create instant CAD files through this device.

So now you can picture yourself walking down the street, point, click, get a CAD file, and click again, and it's printed out an hour later. You saw a flower, you pointed and clicked, and now you've printed a replication of that flower, and it's on your desk.

A concern with these wands is how they fit into our notion of intellectual property, and how patent law is enforced in a world where people are empowered to replicate real-world objects on their own. It's a conversation that we've had around digital copyrights for years, but we should expect to see it cross over into the analog world as well.

That will be a concern, especially as the capabilities of this technology continue to develop. But even now, you can go on YouTube and search for keywords like "3D printing and dental," or other related keywords, and you will find so many clips in which you can actually see the process.

3D PRINTING AT HOME

Six years ago the cheapest machine out there was $30,000, but most were $100,000. Today you can get a capable 3D printer for around $1,299, which launched at the Consumer Electronics Show this year.

At that price, the marketplace opens up to individuals like us. It could be as soon as three years from now that people will have a 3D printer at home to make toys, napkin holders, curtain rings, and whatever is needed.

That's why 3D printing is so interesting. It's not just tied up in the engineering world anymore. It's impacting a large number of industries, and becoming more relevant to consumers. I'm seeing that even high schools now have 3D printers.
I just ran into a high school teacher the other day who teaches software classes, and he was telling me, "Oh, I just bought my first 3D printer."

It's exciting to see this technology begin to reach its full potential. A few years ago it was a little ahead of its time, but not anymore. It's here today.

Download a Prospectus

Why wages aren't rising

Why wages aren't rising

By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney September 11, 2012: 7:12 AM ET





The economy has been adding jobs, but high unemployment is keeping wages low.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- When the government report on job creation came out last week, economists were quick to note a worrying point: average hourly wages in August dropped by a penny.

Though one cent may not sound like much, the drop underscores a broader trend: Amid sluggish growth and stubbornly high unemployment, wages just aren't rising very quickly.

Are you better off?

One reason is that persistent unemployment is keeping workers from getting salary increases.

"If your employer knows you don't have a lot of options, there's no incentive to give you a raise," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "It shifts bargaining power away from workers and toward employers."

Related: Obama's economy, a snapshot

Over the last year the average hourly wage for jobs in the private sector has gone from $23.12 an hour to $23.52 an hour, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That represents a gain of 1.7%, slightly higher than inflation over roughly the same time period.

But stripping out managerial and professional jobs, wages rose just 1.2% -- below the rate of inflation. According to Shierholz, 82% of the private work force is in non-managerial jobs.

"People think high unemployment only affects people without jobs," said Shierholz. "But it also prevents people from getting raises."

Related: Check the unemployment rate in your state

Another reason for sluggish wage growth is that much of the recent job growth has been in low wage industries.

High unemployment also pushes people to take jobs they otherwise wouldn't. This is especially true as economic growth remains weak and unemployment benefits run out.

Many of the jobs created since the recession officially ended in 2009 have been in lower wage industries like retail or food service work.

Nearly 40% of the private sector jobs added since early 2010 have been in retail, leisure and hospitality, temporary staffing and home health care, according to a recent report from Wells Fargo, even though these industries account for only 29% of all jobs.

The average hourly wage in those four industries is just $15 an hour, the bank said.

In August, 28,000 new jobs were added in food services and drinking places. And those industries have grown by 298,000 jobs over the past 12 months.


Without wage growth, consumers are loath to spend more, and the economy is unlikely to find its footing any time soon.

"The lack of real income growth is a major factor in preventing the economy from achieving the escape velocity needed to break free form the 2% trajectory maintained over the last couple of years," Wells Fargo Senior Economist Mark Vitner wrote in the report.


First Published: September 11, 2012: 5:25 AM ET

RUSH’S GEDDY LEE SAYS TOURING IS MORE STRESSFUL THAN EVER

RUSH’S GEDDY LEE SAYS TOURING IS MORE STRESSFUL THAN EVER
by: Chad Childers 5 hours ago


Ethan Miller, Getty Images

You might think that after four-plus decades in the music industry that touring would be old hat for a band likeRush, but singer Geddy Lee says that hitting the road these days is more stressful than ever.

The vocalist tells Grammy.com, “I find it more stressful than when I was younger. I think the physical part of it takes its toll on me, and the other guys I know for sure. Staying healthy becomes a more difficult challenge, and as the tour winds on, nerves fray in a different way than they used to.”

On a skill level, Lee says that he has more confidence in his singing and bass playing than he did when he was younger and therefore it makes it easier for him to capture an audience’s attention, but, he adds, “There is kind of a physical price you pay as the tour winds on. Whereas when I was younger, I could be in almost any condition, get out there and bang it off. I’m grateful for the audiences that we have, wherever we go, but it’s a difficult thing for me to do right now.”

One “nice problem” to have though as a veteran band is deciding on set lists. Lee says it’s hard to pick what goes in and becomes tougher every year, but he adds, “It’s a good problem to have because it’s the result of a long career.” The singer adds, “You don’t want to disappoint people by leaving their favorite song out. At the same time, you try to [play] a [new] old song. Trying to keep the balance is tricky.”

Lee, with his Rush bandmates, just returned to the road on Friday night to support their latest album, ‘Clockwork Angels.’ In other Rush news, the band took home the Album of the Year for ‘Clockwork Angels’ at the inauguralProgressive Music Awards last week.

The Great Jobs Mystery: Why Are So Many Men Dropping Out of the Workforce?

The Great Jobs Mystery: Why Are So Many Men Dropping Out of the Workforce?

The August jobs report set two records that we need to talk about. Both involve the labor participation rate -- the share of the working-age population that has a job or is looking for a job. First, men's participation rate fell to its lowest point on record (since 1948). Second, the overall participation rate fell to its lowest point since 1981.

So, three years into a recovery, we are at a modern historical low for working-age adults who are actually working, or trying to find work. It's horrible new. It means we make less stuff, have less wealth, and pay fewer taxes. It's bad for growth, bad for deficits, bad for the stock market. (Weirdly, it also makes the unemployment rate seem artificially low.)

But why is this happening? There are two reasons. The first is that America is getting older, and more workers are entering that age where they are less likely to be employed. Imagine the enormous Boomer generation moving along this graph below, from left to right, as they age into their 60s and 70s. You can see how the labor participation rate would fall automatically, good economy or bad.


That's exactly what demographers have expected: A gradual decline in the participation rate as the Boomers retired and smaller generations beneath them struggled to replenish the working population. The dotted lines in the graph below are projected declines from before the Great Recession. The red line is what's actually happened. The hill has been steeper than we foresaw.




So, one interpretation of the Great Recession is that it has accelerated our labor participation fall-off by five to ten years. Older workers, who have faced the worst long-term unemployment crisis(they're more expensive; harder to train; and possibly subject to ageism) might be retiring early. As we've reported, the recession has also coincided with a sharp increase in applications for disability benefits and it's clear that, in addition to the one million older Americans who have been looking for work unsuccessfully for more than six months, hundreds of thousands have dropped out and retired early.

And that brings up the second reason why more people aren't participating in the work force: They don't think there's any work for them.

There has been a long debate over whether the recession is pulling down participation stronger than demographics. A February 2012 study found that the aging workforce accounted for 75% of the decline. But in the last few months, the Great Recession's impact might have strengthened. The share of people not in the labor force who say they do want a job has turned sharply up since March, hitting a post-recession high. Here's that graph:



To review: The combination of an aging workforce (which we cannot control) and a weak economy (which we can control) has tugged down the participation rate, which in turn has tugged down the unemployment rate -- and threatens to make us poorer in the long term. So when you hear somebody quoting that "unemployment has hit a three-year low" make sure they also report that "participation rates hit a 31-year low."

***

Oh, and what about the guys? Men's participation hit an all-time low in August. This is a record, but it's not a surprise. Male participation has been in outright decline since the 1950s, as the share of working-age women who are actually working has practically doubled since the late 1940s. Here's that picture, with men in BLUE, women in RED, and total participation in GREEN.


Most of this decline has come from older men's participation dropping dramatically since the 1950s. It's same factors we talked about above are in play. The the male population is getting older, making them less likely to work, and the economy is discouraging many from seeking a job, anyway.

But there are two more forces pulling down men's participation. In fact, they two of the most important economic trends of the last 50 years: The rise of women and the growth of the safety net. Dual-earner households have allowed men to either choose to not work or to retire early. That's part of the decline. But, perhaps even more importantly, the increase in Social Security payments, plus Medicare and Medicaid, have allowed older men to stop working and rely on government insurance programs to protect them from the risk of elderly poverty and medical catastrophe.

Original article [here]

Lexmark Exits the Inkjet Market: Are Printers Doomed?

Lexmark Exits the Inkjet Market: Are Printers Doomed?

When a major maker of inkjet printers says it's going to stop selling them, what does this mean for the future of the category, and for you? - Melissa Riofrio, PCWorld

Is It Smarter to Buy or Lease?

Is It Smarter to Buy or Lease?

The up-front costs are much lower when you lease, 

but there is a big advantage to buying as well.

Best choice when heading to dealership
More Ways to Save
Where to Never Buy Paper Towels
Only Items to Wash in Hot Water
How You're Running Up the Electric Bill

Where the Jobs Really Are

AP
Where the Jobs Really Are

These companies are offering thousands of positions today --
and you could be exactly what they're looking for.

Top companies hiring this week

American Workers Need More Vacation?
Odd Fact in 'Best Companies to Work For'
10 Jobs That Will Remain in High Demand

Dear American Companies: Here's How to Fix the Economy

Dear American Companies: Here's How to Fix the Economy
By Business Insider
Posted 3:30PM 08/30/12Posted under: Economy, Ford Motor Co
8231024216178135724

By Henry Blodget

In 1914, a business executive named Henry Ford did a startling thing: He announced that he was going to more than double the wages he was paying his employees, from $2.34 to $5 a day -- the equivalent of $120 a day in today's money.

The country was as shocked by this then as it would be today.

A powerful company voluntarily sharing some of its profits with its rank-and-file workers and paying them more than it absolutely had to? Had Henry Ford gone mad? Didn't he understand that the only goal of a business was to make money?

Didn't he realize that, as a successful business executive, he was entitled to make as much money as he could possibly make--the financial health of his employees being nobody's business but their own? Didn't he understand that smart executives pay their employees no more than "market rates" because the executive's job is to "create shareholder value," everyone in our economy gets what they deserve, and the financial well-being of employees is not something that business owners or bosses or shareholders should be concerned with?

Yes, Henry Ford understood all that.

The story you hear frequently about why Henry Ford made this decision was that he wanted to allow his workers to be able to afford to buy his cars. The wage increase certainly made the cars (and many other products) more affordable for Ford employees, but the historical consensus is that Ford actually made this decision for a different reason: To reduce employee turnover--and, in so doing, reduce recruiting and replacement cost.

Regardless, it worked.

Thousands of people immediately lined up to get jobs at Ford (F). Employee turnover plummeted, and recruiting and training costs dropped. The new wages allowed Ford employees to live middle-class lives, instead of being poor. And it presumably made Ford, Ford's senior executives, and Ford's shareholders even more proud of what they had created.

In short, instead of viewing "shareholders" and "customers" as the only two corporate constituencies that matter, Ford introduced the idea that great companies should also serve a third constituency: Employees.

And because one company's employees are another company's customers, Ford's decision helped spread the country's wealth to more citizens and expand the purchasing power of the country as a whole. And, in so doing, it helped the overall economy.

Specifically, Ford's unprecedented move also helped usher in an age in which the middle class became the driving force in the American economy, turbo-charging the nation's economic growth right up through the early 1980s, when relative middle class wages began to decline.

Henry Ford's story is highly relevant today.

Why? Because we are facing a very similar economic problem as the country did in the early 20th century. A glut of labor was allowing companies to pay a pittance for a day's work, leaving most of their dedicated employees destitute. Business owners and executives (the equivalent of today's 1%) did fine, but most rank-and-file workers did not. And this lack of spending power in the middle class crimped overall economic growth.

If we want to fix today's ailing U.S. economy, we need many of our large corporations to do what Henry Ford voluntarily did: Share more of their vast wealth with their rank-and-file employees.

If the companies don't eventually see the benefit of doing this and do it voluntarily, the government (an extension of the people) will likely the mandate that they do it--either through taxation or by radically increasing the national minimum wage.

And given that government solutions are often terrible solutions, it would be best for everyone if we persuaded corporations to do this voluntarily. So what follows is an initial effort to do that.

See the real problem with the economy, and how to fix it.

Read more from Business Insider:
Warren Buffett's 18 Best Quotes
Gina Rinehart Tells People to Drink Less, Work More
The Truth About Who's Responsible for Our Massive Budget Deficit

18 Brilliant Quotes From The Greatest Investor Of All Time

Here Are 18 Brilliant Quotes From The Greatest Investor Of All Time
Sam Ro | Aug. 30, 2012, 6:01 AM | 486,770 | 17





Theo Wargo / Getty ImagesThe Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett turns 82 years young today.

He may be one of the wealthiest people in the world. But he's also known as the billionaire next door. He comes off as humble and sometimes uses self-deprecating humor. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he's lived in Omaha, Nebraska for most of his life.

Buffett also uses extremely easy-to-understand language when referring to business and investments.

Many of his most thoughtful quotes are found in his annual letters to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, which are must reads. But some of his gems come from random interviews, speeches, and op-ed pieces.

We compiled a few of the best quotes from the Oracle of Omaha. If we've missed any of your favorites, let us know in the comments.
Here are some of Buffett's best lines >

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-quotes-2012-8?op=1#ixzz25ZRQoRv4

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit
Henry Blodget | Aug. 29, 2012, 9:29 PM | 35,357 | 94

Say the words "budget deficit," and Republicans and Democrats begin screaming at each other about who's to blame.

Republicans howl that the deficit is President Obama's fault, because he has exploded government spending and failed to fix the economy.

Democrats roar that President Obama inherited a catastrophic economic mess, that this mess will take time to clean up, and that our massive deficit is therefore President Bush's fault.

So, who's right?

Let's start by looking at the deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama. Then we'll figure out what has caused them. Finally, we'll assign some blame.

First, the chart below shows the progress of the annual deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama.

President Bush, you will recall, inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he took the budget into deficit. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year. Then, the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion again.

In early 2009, President Obama took over, amid the worst recession since the Great Depression. Obama signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion. In 2010 and 2011, the economy and tax collections improved modestly, and the deficit shrank to $1.3 trillion annualized.




Business Insider, St. Louis Fed



So, what actually caused these deficits?

The chart below provides a look at federal receipts (taxes) and spending during the same period. (The deficit is the difference between them).

Republicans howl that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his short tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has. So it is unfair to lay the explosion in spending at the feet of President Obama: Both presidents are responsible.

The increase in government spending, meanwhile, is actually NOT the only factor that has caused the deficit. The other factor--equally if not more important--is the fall-off in government revenue (tax receipts).

This second and larger factor can be blamed on two things: First, the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and, second, the weak economy, which reduced the incomes and capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based.

In the chart below, you can see what happened to both federal receipts (red line) and spending (blue line) over the past decade.

President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued apace. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.

By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the housing boom and strong economic growth (much of which now looks like a debt-fueled mirage), federal revenues began to grow rapidly. By 2007, in fact, the gap had almost closed.

But then the bottom fell out. The housing bubble burst, the financial crisis hit, and the economy plunged into recession. And then President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70 years and left Obama to clean up the mess.

This recession clobbered federal revenues (tax receipts--red line), which have only just regained their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add about $600 billion to federal spending (blue line). The combination of these two factors ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to ~$1.3 trillion now.




Business Insider, St. Louis Fed



So, who's responsible for the massive deficit?

This is a tougher question.

We know WHAT is responsible: The combination of tax cuts, weak government revenues (tax receipts), and a vast increase in government spending.

But figuring out WHO to blame is a more subjective exercise.

If you believe that the growth during the "Bush Boom" was a debt-fueled mirage--a theory that is certainly supported by the evidence--then you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of President Bush. His combination of reduced taxes and increased spending took the US from a surplus to a deficit, and even the economic boom from a massive housing bubble and enormous borrowing couldn't close the gap.

Even if you think the "Bush Boom" was real, moreover, the recession and financial crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when President Obama took office. So it's very hard to escape the conclusion that President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current mess.

On the other hand, President Obama's stimulus certainly hasn't had as big an impact on the economy (and, therefore, government revenues) as he and his advisors thought it would. Given the extent of the mess Obama inherited, it's possible that nothing would have fixed the economy by now. But even huge Obama supporters are justifiably frustrated with his over-promising, as well as with many of the decisions he has made.

So it seems fair to lay some of the responsibility for our current deficit at President Obama's feet as well.

But, of course, if we're doling out blame, we need to bring two other parties into the conversation.

First, Congress, which approved all of the decisions above.

Second, us--the American citizenry--the folks who voted Presidents Bush and Obama and Congress into office.

We cheered as President Bush and Congress ignited the housing bubble. We cheered as they cut taxes and increased spending (it's just so marvelous to have it all). We cheered as President Obama and Congress approved the stimulus and extended the Bush tax cuts. And we're cheering now as Republicans promise us that--if only we just cut taxes and spending--our problems will be solved. (Never mind the examples of Greece and the UK, which demonstrate clearly that enacting "austerity" in the midst of a fragile recovery doesn't work).

In short, we've all become accustomed to our free lunch, and we never tire of electing politicians that promise it to us.

So if we want to know who's really to blame, we should take a peek in the mirror.

Now Read: The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion Of Government Spending

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7#ixzz25ZQoVEFm

Business Help

Workforces in the Female Future

4 Secrets to Pitching Your Product

The 5 Worst Customer Service Mistakes

Lessons From a Professional Organizer

Free Productivity Tools to Fit Your Personality

How to Keep Your Employees Happy

In World First, Scientists Surgically Implant a Working Bionic Eye In a Blind Patient

In World First, Scientists Surgically Implant a Working Bionic Eye In a Blind Patient
By Colin LecherPosted 08.31.2012 at 2:40 pm4 Comments


Bionic Eye Bionic Vision Australia

We've been waiting on the prospect of a bionic eye for a while now; being able to surgically give sight to the sightless would be a medical breakthrough, and we're right on the cusp. Exhibit A: In a world first, scientists have successfully implanted a prototype bionic eye that has helped a woman see shapes.

Researchers from the government-funded consortium Bionic Vision Australia made the announcement in a statement yesterday; in it the implantee said she "didn't know what to expect, but all of a sudden, I could see a little flash--it was amazing." The team is hoping they can start to "build" shapes based on what she sees, eventually creating a bionic eye that works like its organic counterpart.

The prototype device is set up in a lab. Electrodes in the implant stimulate nerve cells, and in the controlled environment scientists can get feedback from the user on the "flashes of light." That could help them adjust until the "flashes of light" reflect the actual environment enough to be helpful. It's not full vision, but it's an early step toward it.

The next stage, the scientists say, is incorporating an external camera into a device, and creating versions with more electrodes. With 98, a person could be able to see large objects; with 1,024, they could recognize faces and large print.

[Bionics Institute]

Previous Article: Tonight, See the Last "Blue Moon" Till 2015


Next Article: The Most Amazing Images Of The Week, August 27-31, 2012

Organic food no healthier than non-organic: study

Organic food no healthier than non-organic: study

By Genevra Pittman | Reuters – 4 hours ago


View Photo

An organically grown Heirloom tomato is seen in the produce section at the Whole …


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to a new review of the evidence.

But organic options may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System found.

"People choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived health benefits," said Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led the new study.

"Our patients, our families ask about, ‘Well, are there health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional content or human health outcomes?'"

To try to answer that question, she and her colleagues reviewed over 200 studies that compared either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or, more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.

Those included organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry, eggs and milk.

Many of the studies didn't specify their standards for what constituted "organic" food - which can cost as much as twice what conventional food costs - the researchers wrote Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to United States Department of Agriculture standards, organic farms have to avoid the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. Organic livestock must also have access to pastures during grazing season.

Many conventional farms in the U.S., in contrast, use pesticides to ward off bugs and raise animals in crowded indoor conditions with antibiotics in their feed to promote growth and ward off disease. The Food and Drug Administration has been examining that type of antibiotic use and its contribution to drug-resistant disease in humans.

SAME VITAMINS

Smith-Spangler and her colleagues found there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal products produced organically and conventionally - and the only nutrient difference was slightly more phosphorus in the organic products.

Organic milk and chicken may also contain more omega-3 fatty acids, they found - but that was based on only a few studies.

There were more significant differences by growing practice in the amount of pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food.

More than one-third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared to seven percent of organic produce samples. And organic chicken and pork was 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally-produced meat.

Smith-Spangler told Reuters Health it was uncommon for either organic or conventional foods to exceed the allowable limits for pesticides, so it's unclear whether a difference in residues would have an effect on health.

But Chensheng Lu, who studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, said that while the jury is still out on those effects, people should consider pesticide exposure in their grocery-shopping decisions.

"If I was a smart consumer, I would choose food that has no pesticides," Lu, who wasn't involved in the new study, told Reuters Health. "I think that's the best way to protect your health."

He said more research is necessary to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between organic and conventional foods, and that it's "premature" to conclude organic meat and produce isn't any healthier than non-organic versions.

"Right now I think it's all based on anecdotal evidence," Lu said.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/PShmuj Annals of Internal Medicine, online September 3, 2012.