Feeling Sleepy?

Most areas of discipline become a conflict between simple and easy.  To lose weight is simple – eat less and exercise more.  Is it easy? – Certainly not.  To avoid being ambushed by unexpected bills and to ultimately retire comfortably and securely is simple – don’t spend more than you earn.  That too is not easy for most people.  That’s why the initial challenge of discipline is so often compounded by those smooth sales pitches about some magic formula, pill or secret the banks, credit card companies or Wall Street don’t want you to know.  These scams prey on people who understand the simple answer but decide it’s too difficult to carry out.

The dimension of discipline is often associated with diet, finances, smoking, drinking and gambling.  But there are so many other simple things that we find excuses for or just skip rather than just doing:  applying sunscreen, buckling seatbelts, flossing, etc.  Another often-overlooked area is getting enough sleep.  Here again the answer is simple for both adults and children – have a regular bedtime and stick to it.

The news media reminds us that once again Americans struggle.  This NBC story (among others) reports:  “More than a third of Americans say they're not getting enough sleep, putting themselves at risk of obesity, heart disease and other issues.”  This particular warning comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  “CDC experts looked at health surveys covering more than 400,000 Americans.”  That is a very large sample size, which is good; but the data comes from self-reporting, which is not as reliable as observation, and it may be exaggerated in either direction. 

Nonetheless, here is another problem area related to discipline.  The researchers give the answer:  “Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need."  And how many other proposed solutions to health problems begin with the words “lifestyle changes”?  This is the discipline link.

A separate study from the University of California at Irvine just a day or two earlier linked lack of sleep with the use of social media.  The sample was much smaller and limited (76 students), and they were not trying to blame Facebook for the problem.  They just point out how easy it can be, when someone is very tired, to find refuge in such an undemanding, lightweight distraction.  Furthermore, the light shining in your eyes is more stimulating than relaxing.

But the CDC's main concern is about the big-picture problems.  “Sleep deprivation has ripple effects through an economy, leading to greater incidence of workplace accidents and car crashes. If experts…can better understand how sleep deprivation affects people, better products and better technology can be utilized to alleviate it.” 

Yes, there are those societal consequences, plus lower productivity.  Yet here again we have experts turning to technology to fix a problem that is simple (but not easy) for us to solve ourselves.  The magic technology will take care of it and we don’t have to do the hard work.  Is going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; removing the electronics from the bedroom really hard work?

Say Cheese

Here is another example of how the news media tries to stir us up and how the lawyers play on that emotional peak to their own benefit.  Last week a second set of headlines appeared, building on the original headlines from the middle of February, which were the result of a three-year-old investigation. 

Let me explain.  In November 2012 FDA investigated complaints about Castle Cheese, a family-owned business in Pennsylvania.  They found that the company was adding excess cellulose to their grated cheese as a cheap filler to keep costs down.  Cellulose is a safe additive, and an acceptable level is 2 to 4 percent.  Their findings led to a wider investigation.  “Essential Everyday 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese, from Jewel-Osco, was 8.8 percent cellulose, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s Great Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese registered 7.8 percent, according to test results. Whole Foods 365 brand didn’t list cellulose as an ingredient on the label, but still tested at 0.3 percent. Kraft had 3.8 percent.”

In the middle of last month the news resurfaced as Castle Cheese Company admitted wrongdoing and Universal Cheese & Drying, Inc. and International Packing LLC also pled guilty to “conspiring to introduce misbranded cheese.” Each corporation faces a $500,000 fine, and one Castle executive faces a large fine plus jail time.  "The Department of Justice prosecutes people and companies who introduce adulterated or misbranded food into interstate commerce.”

It’s good that they were caught.  Consumers should be able to believe that what’s on the label is what’s in the package.  It’s a common enough problem with dietary supplements, but you should expect more from the dairy industry.  Most grated cheese packages do list cellulose as an ingredient to reduce clumping, but look at how the first sentence of this article reads:  “If you’re like most of us, you were devastated to learn that packaged parmesan cheese — beloved and generously sprinkled by many — is probably at least eight to 10 percent wood pulp and other fillers.”  Devastated? – Get a grip!  It’s only cheese – and not beloved cheese!  Notice also how they reword cellulose as wood pulp to get an extra emotional response.  It makes it look like you are eating the leftovers from a sawmill.  However, this other website points out that parts of trees, including “wood, bark, roots, leaves, flowers, fruits or seeds,” are used in many traditional and modern medicines.

Apparently some were devastated, devastated enough to call lawyers or respond to calls from them.  Two short weeks later the Chicago Tribune reported that lawsuits were flying in.  On February 26, an Illinois woman filed a class action lawsuit against Kraft Heinz claiming violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Suits against that company had already been filed in federal courts in three other states.

When filing class action lawsuits, you can’t forget Wal-Mart! Another plaintiff “claims he was induced to purchase Great Value's ‘100% Grated Parmesan Cheese’ at a premium price because he believed it was, indeed, 100 percent cheese.”  Wal-Mart is accused of deceptive business practices because the cheese allegedly contains 7 to 10 percent cellulose.  The attorney in this case says that it “isn't about consumers getting sick…people are still buying the product based on the label, and families are being put off. Imagine giving that to your kid with their pasta..." 

Imagine that!  It’s not even about people (or children) getting sick.  We are supposed to be shocked by the idea of all the suffering that results from being induced to buy substandard cheese, especially if we are jurors.  (I remember when children used to eat the paste in art class or put bits of paper in their mouths to make spitballs.  And isn’t paper made from wood pulp?)  All that doesn’t matter.  If you have no perspective, you immediately react to these things, as you are urged to do by the media and the lawyers, and find it outrageous calling for some compensation to the poor consumers, the victims of this deception – and, of course, compensation to their attorneys.

If you have no economic understanding you don’t get how the companies primarily involved have already been punished and how further action merely shuffles around money adding absolutely no value to the economy.  It’s a waste of time and resources, and likely increases our costs as these defendants and their insurance companies pass costs along to their customers.  Then we wonder why the economy and jobs are not booming.  America's lack of perspective and economic understanding may be contributors.

By the way, Castle also made Market Pantry cheese sold at Target also at 3,400 stores controlled by Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., based in Kansas City, and both those companies have “deep pockets.”  So stand by for more legal action (more distribution and more waste).

Don't Ask Your Doctor II

Back in November 2012 I wrote a piece called “Don’t Ask Your Doctor.”  The primary message was that problems with discipline lead people to seek out easy answers, in this case, the pills instead of the lifestyle change.  That behavior makes them particularly susceptible to the advertising of drug companies featuring the healthy-looking actors portraying cured patients enjoying good times with their families and friends as the required warnings and side effects stream along the bottom of the screen.  It’s typical advertising playing upon our insecurities and fears.

I concluded with another important reason not to ask your doctor.  “When we ask our doctors, we put them on the spot.  The drug may not be the best choice.  At this point the doctor can give us the lecture about how we should take better care of ourselves, or else take the easy way out for them by writing a prescription.  They must choose between disappointing or angering a patient or just giving in.  The drug companies count on this pressure, betting that some proportion of doctors will choose to avoid the often-fruitless argument.”  When the doctors cave the drug companies win. 

Last November, three years after I wrote that, the AMA called for a ban on direct advertising to consumers for yet another reason.  A spokesman for the group said, “Today’s vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices."  Only two countries do not ban direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, the United States and New Zealand. “Advertising dollars spent by drug makers have increased by 30 percent in the last two years to $4.5 billion,” and economic understanding tells us that all these costs must be baked into the final price of the drugs.

Last week the New York Times expanded on the issue pointing out that these ads generally emphasize high-cost drugs and “big-ticket treatments like joint replacements and cancer care.”  It is not just the drug companies, but the entire healthcare industry driving up costs with slick advertising.  “The health care industry [overall] spent $14 billion on advertising in 2014, according to Kantar Media, a jump of nearly 20 percent since 2011.”  This trend raises concerns within the medical profession that the practice will increase prices of all treatment by encouraging patients to seek out more expensive and possibly inappropriate treatments.

So there are at least four good reasons not to ask your doctor and to let him or her help you make the best possible decision without outside interference.  I know it would be hard to mute or ignore an ad that seemed to be addressing a cure for some condition making me miserable, but the alternative (as we wait for a legal ban) is to watch the prices of all treatments, and drugs in particular, continue to escalate.

Outrageous CEO Pay

One of the biggest issues being debated on and off the campaign trail is the growing gap between the rich and the poor along with the shrinking of the Middle Class.  A main target of many of the protests and disparaging remarks is the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker in the company.  It is one of the statistics invariably mentioned when discussing the disturbing growth of income inequality.

CEO pay is a popular topic among candidates because almost everyone agrees that CEOs are paid outrageous amounts.  “According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1978 to 2013, CEO pay at American firms rose a stunning 937 percent, compared with a mere 10.2 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period, all adjusted for inflation. In 2013, the average CEO pay at the top 350 U.S. companies was $15.2 million.” Every other week we see headlines like these:  “JP Morgan CEO gets 35% pay raise to $27M amid cutbacks” and “Viacom CEO Pay Rose 22 Percent in Year Stock Tumbled.”

Ordinary citizens have trouble even grasping the size of these pay packages, so a convenient way to talk about it is to use this ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the average worker in the company.  One source gives this ratio as “20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, growing to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013.  (In most news reports and political speeches the drop since 2000 is not mentioned, nonetheless it still has grown by a factor of 15 times for no apparent reason.)  Other sources have the ratio as high as 475-to-1.

There seems to be nothing to be done short of government intervention, but perhaps there is another solution!  Americans can wait around until the big companies’ lobbyists and our representatives decide what action, if any to take, or they can take some action on their own, immediately – voting with their dollars.

Take business away from some of the top offenders until they get the message.  But is anyone willing to do it?

From another source I got a list and arbitrarily set a ratio of 150:1 as the cutoff.  Of the top 100 companies in US, the worst offenders are:  AFLAC (157), Altria (175), Boeing (198), CVS (422), Deere(150), Goodyear Tire (322), Honeywell (211), Twenty-First Century Fox (268) and Walt Disney (273).

The big question is:  Are enough people really upset enough about high CEO pay to do something about it, or is it something they just like to complain about?  Would we find another insurance company (even if we think the duck is amusing), take our prescriptions to a different pharmacy (even if we admire them for banning tobacco products), buy a different brand tire or – and here’s a big one – stay home from movies like The Revenant and Star Wars, or tell the kids no trip to Disney World and no Frozen or Star Wars memorabilia until the CEO takes a paycut?  I think not.

Just as we don’t mentally group our favorite sports heroes, movies stars, television personalities and music entertainers in with the hated one-percent, I think we would give many of these CEOs a pass and continue to patronize their companies.

Note:  Some of the biggest offending companies listed elsewhere include Discovery Communications, Chipotle, Walmart, Target, Macy’s and Starbucks.  It’s just a matter of who is doing the calculations, but these are a few more to consider.

I'm Not Joking

No, I wasn’t joking back in February 2013 when I wrote, “Will airlines charge based on the total weight of the luggage and passenger?

The subject was whether or not overweight people will begin to feel the same kind of pressure from government and businesses as smokers now do.  Secondhand smoke has been declared a danger, especially to children and otherwise can be very irritating to nonsmokers.  Smoking also adds to medical costs, so it is considered in the public interest that the act of smoking be both isolated and discouraged by restrictions and higher prices.  But obesity has social costs of its own.

Have you ever seen or heard a heath publication or advice to prevent or cure a disease that did not include eating less and exercising more or maintaining a healthy weight?  Not taking care of these basics leads to many diseases and increased healthcare costs.  With economic understanding it is easy to establish that healthcare costs accumulated by one segment of society affect the costs of everyone as the total cost is spread over the entire population to make healthcare affordable to all.

So just yesterday on CBS This Morning this news came:  “Airplane maker Airbus has filed a patent for a new kind of adjustable seat that could…change the seating to make room for larger passengers.”  This would most likely come with a fee, and as they say later in the story, “could usher in a day when the airlines could truly price by your size.”

So there it is, three years after the initial warning here.  Along those lines, the general warning remains the same:  when we don’t improve our behavior, economic and governmental forces tend to take over the job for us through penalties, restrictions and by other methods.  Behavior does have consequences.