CANADA 

Privacy must continue to be considered in the Competition Act, Privacy Commissioner says

Daniel Therrien says data and privacy will play an essential role in future discussions on Canada’s competition policy.

© Provided by MobileSyrup 

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner made the comments in a submission to Senator Howard Wetston’s consultation on what the Competition Act will mean in a world that continues to digitize. The Act focuses on competition and anti-competitive practices in various industries across Canada.

Therrien says the relationship between privacy, competition, and consumer protection continues to grow with the digital transformation of Canada’s economy.

He says it’s not hard to imagine how organizations could engage in anti-competitive behaviour when it comes to privacy, given it’s a “non-price factor,” meaning it’s something that will alter the demand for a specific service but only to a certain extent.

“If a reduction in the number of competitors in a market is likely to lead to increased prices, the inverse can be true with respect to privacy protection as an element of product quality,” he says. There’s less incentive to enhance privacy with fewer competitors, leaving customers with limited options.

For example, if a company were to track and monetize customers’ online habits in a market with limited competition, customers would have little choice. They could accept the tracking of their information or stop using the service, a hard sell given it may not be practical, Therrien notes.

He further says there needs to be continued support for collaboration across different regulatory branches. Therrien points to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore as an example. The regulatory body has stated that data protection will be an essential factor.

“I would encourage you to consider, where appropriate, amendments to the Competition Act that would enable, or strengthen, cooperation with all regulators who share responsibility for overseeing digital markets,” Therrien says in closing.

The privacy commissioner’s office also serves as a co-chair for the Global Privacy Assembly’s Digital Citizen and Consumer Working Group, which examines the intersection of privacy and competition.

Source: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

NO

Should we kill every mosquito on Earth?
Joe Phelan 

LIVE SCIENCE

Throughout human history, wars, battles and conflicts are thought to have resulted in the deaths of around 1 billion people. But that’s nothing compared with the number of humans killed by mosquitoes. The journal Nature suggests that nearly half of all humans who have lived during the past 50,000 years owe their death to this deadly insect and its capacity to transmit one particular disease: malaria.

© Provided by Live Science Feet of male hiker inside tent with mosquitoes waiting on mesh doorway, Staloluokta, Padjelantaleden trail, Lappland, Sweden_ Cavan Images via Getty Images

Mosquitoes are central to the spread of malaria — which is caused by a parasite that killed around 627,000 people in 2020 alone — as well as viruses such as Zika, West Nile and dengue. The Anopheles gambiae mosquito, which is common in rural parts of Africa, is often dubbed the "most dangerous animal species on Earth," according to a 2020 study published in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So, given that mosquitoes are so deadly, should we just kill all of them? And if we were to take such a drastic measure, what would the consequences be?

Related: Why do mosquitoes buzz in our ears?

Before you grab that can of bug spray, know this: While some mosquitoes are dangerous to us, not all are. Even those that are sometimes harmful tend not to feed on humans, preferring honeydew, plant sap and nectar, according to Mosquito Joe, a mosquito control company.

There are around 3,500 mosquito species, but "only around 100 will potentially bite and spread disease to humans," Steven Sinkins, a professor in microbiology and tropical medicine at the Centre for Virus Research at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, told Live Science in an email.

For instance, Culiseta mosquitoes often bite humans, but are not known to carry any debilitating diseases, while Toxorhynchites, which are common the world over and tend to live in forests, prefer nectar sugars to blood, according to Entomology Today.

Therefore, it probably wouldn't be necessary to get rid of every mosquito species. Instead, we could target the more problematic ones, such as Aedes aegypti, which carry diseases such as yellow fever and Zika. A. aegypti is now ubiquitous, but it wasn't always this way. The species first spread out of Africa during the slave trade between the 15th and 19th centuries, through trade with Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries, and via troop movements during World War II, according to the World Mosquito Program, a nonprofit based in Australia.

Other mosquitoes that are dangerous to humans include certain types of Anopheles and Culex, as these carry a host of diseases, including malaria, dengue, West Nile fever, yellow fever, Zika, chikungunya and lymphatic filariasis, according to Understanding Animal Research. The latter condition is often known as elephantiasis, which can cause painful swelling in the lymph system, especially in the legs, arms or genitalia.
Die, mosquitoes, die

If humans decide to selectively eliminate disease-carrying mosquitoes, there are a few options. One such targeted solution involves "releasing mosquitoes carrying Wolbachia bacteria," which, according to Sinkins, is a strategy already being used to control dengue. This involves breeding mosquitoes so that they carry Wolbachia, which is not dangerous to humans, and then placing them into disease-prone areas.

In mosquitoes such as Aedes aegypti that carry Wolbachia, the bacteria makes it difficult for viruses to reproduce, according to the World Mosquito Program. As a result, it's less likely that mosquitoes carrying Wolbachia will spread harmful viruses to people they bite for a blood meal.

This type of strategy could eventually "block the transmission of diseases," which could effectively make mosquitoes harmless, Sinkins said. Another method involves releasing genetically modified mosquitoes whose offspring do not survive, Live Science previously reported.

Related: What if all of Earth's insects keeled over?

But, what if it weren't possible to target problematic species? Sinkins admitted that though focusing on select species "could" eventually become a viable and cost-effective solution, "a lot of research is still needed to determine how feasible this will be." Sinkins also noted that the approach would have to be tailored by continent, as "different mosquito species spread malaria in Africa, Asia and South America."

So, what if we instead chose the scorched-Earth approach, and killed them all? What would the consequences be? The simple answer is, we're not sure.

"We don't yet know what the knock-on impact on the ecosystem would be. Evidence is scarce," said Thomas Churcher, an epidemiologist, entomologist and mathematical modeler at Imperial College London who is working to understand the best way to kill mosquitoes.

However, given mosquitoes are a primary food source for numerous animals, including bats, birds, frogs, fish and dragonflies, it’s likely there would be at least some ecological impacts, at least in the short term. Dragonflies, for example, are often known as mosquito hawks, owing to their ability to eat as many as 100 mosquitoes in a single day. It’s likely they, as well as a host of other critters, would, at the very least, have to change their diets somewhat.

However, despite this lack of consequential clarity, Sinkins and Churcher agree that if it became possible to kill off every mosquito capable of transmitting malaria and other diseases, even if it also meant wiping out all mosquitoes that aren’t dangerous to humans, they would support the idea.

Sinkins is confident that eradicating disease-transmitting mosquitoes would "prevent hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths every year," and would ultimately wipe out malaria entirely. Churcher agreed that, if such an opportunity were to present itself, it would "without doubt" be the right decision to kill all mosquitoes.

It is nice to dream about a world without mosquitoes — a phenomenon that Hawaii experienced until 1826, when a foreign ship introduced the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus to the archipelago, according to the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. But for places where mosquitoes live and thrive — which is everywhere in the world aside from Antarctica and Iceland — their absence could cause a rift in the ecosystem — though to what extent, it’s difficult to say.

"Many mosquito species are important components of ecological food webs and do not pose any threat to humans," said Churcher. "They are an impressively successful group."

However, if you are absolutely determined to live in a world without mosquitoes, your best bet is probably relocating to Iceland – just remember to keep your eyes peeled for polar bears when you get there.

Originally published on Live Science.

MLB and MLBPA remain a great distance apart on deal for new CBA

There remains a great distance between MLB players and owners despite reports saying that both sides are close to an agreement, according to Sportsnet’s Ben Nicholson-Smith.

© Provided by Sportsnet manfred

A source on the MLBPA’s side of the negotiation said that any suggestion that a deal is within striking distance is “beyond absurd” as players want to see significant movement on the competitive bargaining tax (luxury tax). Players remain disappointed that MLB has only budged just $1 million on CBT from $214 to $215 million.

While the sides moved toward each other on some topics, they remained far apart on the biggest economic issues: luxury tax thresholds and rates, the minimum salary and the new pre-arbitration bonus pool.

Players were angered by the state of negotiations at the end of Saturday’s session and would not commit to extending talks. After internal discussions, they agreed to meet for a seventh staight day Sunday.

MLB says if there is not an agreement by the end of Monday, it would start cancelling regular-season games because there will not be enough training time to play a full schedule. Players have not said whether they agree to that as a deadline and could make due with a shorter spring training.

Once Monday passes, the length of the schedule would become yet another issue in the dispute, along with possible lost pay and service time.

The union has told MLB if games are missed and salaries are lost, clubs should not expect players to agree to management proposals to expand the postseason and allow advertisements on uniforms and helmets.

Teams agreed for the first time to credit a full year of major league service to players who finish first or second in Rookie of the Year voting in each league by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, as long as they are among the top 100 prospects and did not spend the full season on the big league roster. This would address the union’s contention that teams are delaying debuts of budding stars such as Kris Bryant to delay their free agency.

The sides also agreed that the proposed lottery in the annual amateur draft would be for the first six selections. While the union thought it was on the verge of an agreement on that topic Friday, teams angered the union by linking that to players agreeing to expand the postseason from 10 teams to 14, rather the 12 the union prefers.

The players moved toward MLB on salary arbitration, cutting from 75% to 35% for those who would be eligible from the group with at least two seasons of service but less than three. Management says it will not move from 22%, the cutoff since 2013.

Clubs stayed at a $214 million tax threshold, up from $210 million last season, and increased their 2023 proposal by $1 million to $215 million. They left 2024 at $216 million with $2 million hikes in each of the final two seasons.

Teams cut the tax rate for exceeding the threshold from 50% to 45%, lowered the rate for exceeding by $20 million from 75% to 62% and the proposal for exceeding by $40 million from 100% to 95%.

MLB characterized its tax proposal as intentionally lousy, in response to a union tax proposal teams felt was equally lousy.

Players object to the rates as increases from the current figures of 20% for the first threshold, 32% for the second and 62.5% for the third. Clubs say they in turn are eliminating higher rates for recidivist teams that exceed the initial threshold in consecutive years.

The union would raise the threshold to $245 million this year and increase it to $273 million by 2026. It would keep rates of the expired agreement and eliminate non-financial penalties.

While the sides have agreed to the pre-arbitration bonus pool from central revenue, the union wants $115 million distributed to 150 players and management wants $20 million to be split among 30.

The union withdrew its proposal to cut revenue sharing by $30 million annually but kept its plan to give small-market teams an incentive to grow locally generated revenue. The union would have the incentive money designated from central revenue, which it estimates would cost any club no more than $1 million in a year in revenue sharing.

The union also kept its proposal to limit optional assignments to five annually. Teams had tied that to a provision regulating the number of minor league contracts but then withdrew the proposal.

Teams inserted a new obstacle to a deal, proposing on-field rules changes could be made with 45 days’ notice by a committee comprised of six management officials, two union representatives and one umpire. Currently, management can only change rules with union consent or unilaterally with one year notice.

The MLB proposal would likely pave the way for a pitch clock.

Owners still are proposing an international draft, which the union opposes.

The six days of negotiations on central economics this week matched the total from the start of the lockout through Feb. 19.

Mets pitcher Max Scherzer and shortstop Francisco Lindor, Yankees pitcher Gerrit Cole and free agent reliever Andrew Miller were among the players at the talks. Baseball’s ninth work stoppage, it first since 1995, was in its 87th day.

-With files from the Associated Press.

MLB calls talks 'productive' while MLBPA says sides are still 'very far apart' entering deadline day

Bob Nightengale, 

USA TODAY 

JUPITER, Fla. — Major League Baseball and the players union spent Sunday exchanging various hypotheticals without a single formal proposal, and it just might have been their most productive day in their week-long negotiations at Roger Dean Stadium.

But, just like everything else they’ve been unable to agree upon, the two sides did not share the same optimism about what occurred during Sunday's sessions on the 88th day of the lockout. MLB called it a “productive meeting" while union officials said the sides are still “very far apart’’ on significant issues.

© Kamil Krzaczynski, USA TODAY Sports MLB and the MLBA did not exchange a single formal proposal Sunday, the day before the league's deadline for getting a deal done to avoid the cancellation of games.

In fact, they have yet to agree on a single major economic issue.

Still, there’s a glimmer of hope that talks are moving in the right direction, and the two sides are scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. ET Monday in hopes of reaching a deal to preserve the start of the regular season.

While MLB insisted that a deal must be completed by Monday evening to assure that the regular season starts on March 31, the two sides believe that if significant progress is made, their talks could extend into Tuesday or even later in the week without needing to delay or shorten the 162-game season.

MLB and the players union engaged in four negotiating sessions in small groups, with no owners and only three players on hand Sunday at Roger Dean Stadium. They also spoke several times by phone. MLB deputy commissioner Dan Halem and chief union negotiator Bruce Meyer had several one-on-one exchanges.

They addressed everything from the luxury tax, to the minimum salary, to the bonus pool, to expanded playoffs. They didn’t agree on any of the remaining economic issues, but it’s possible that everything could be linked with trade-offs, reaching a compromise on everything at once.

The biggest issue remains the luxury tax, with the two sides last exchanging proposals that left them a total of $204 million apart. The union is seeking a luxury tax of $245 million in 2022, $250 million in 2023, $257 million in 2024, $264 million in 2025 and $273 million in 2026. MLB’s last formal proposal was $214 million in 2022, $215 million in 2023, $216 million in 2024, $218 million in 2025 and $222 million in 2026. It also included stiffer tax penalties than the last collective bargaining agreement, charging 45% for crossing the first tax tier, 62% on the second tier, and 95% for the third tier.

They also are $135,000 apart in the minimum salaries in 2022, with MLB offering $640,000 while the union is at $775,000.

Bob Nightengale's Notebook: MLB's lockout is doing more permanent damage every single day

First COVID, now a lockout: MLB labor dispute latest blow for spring training businesses

MLB continues to seek a 14-team playoff format while the union wants to keep it to 12 teams. The number of potential playoff games would remain the same, however, considering the team with the best record in each league would receive a first-round bye in the 14-team format. If they agree on the number of playoff teams, there will be a lottery for the first six picks in the amateur draft to stop teams from intentionally losing to secure top draft picks.

MLB has offered to provide a bonus pool of $20 million for pre-arbitration players while the union is seeking $115 million.

The union was hoping to expand the salary arbitration class to 35% of those players who have at least two years of service and not three, but MLB adamantly opposes any change, keeping it at 22%.

So, plenty of major issues still remain.

Time is running out before regular season games will be canceled.

But, for at least one more day in Jupiter, Florida, they have at least promised to meet again.

Has enough progress been made to reach an agreement by Monday night, or at least by mid-week?

We’re about to find out.

DMT DREAMING

'I Did Ayahuasca With My Parents And It Deepened Our Relationship'

Adele Lafrance, as told to Kristin Canning

My first ayahuasca ceremony was life-changing. I had no history with psychedelics before attending a retreat in the jungle in March 2014. I’m an eating disorder therapist and researcher, and I’d heard about the tea’s use as an addiction treatment. Since eating disorders and substance abuse have some similarities, I wanted to learn more about how it could potentially help my patients.

© everything bagel - Getty Images Psychologist Adele Lafrance, PhD, on what it was like to share a psychedelic plant-medicine experience with her mom and dad, and how it brought them all closer.

During my first ceremony, I personally examined a lot of the pain I was holding on to from my childhood, particularly the way my parents handled some of our family’s challenges. By the end of the ceremony, though, I felt a level of understanding toward my parents that was so deep, forgiveness wasn’t necessary. It was beautiful.

I knew I wanted to share this healing experience with my mom and dad, but I never truly thought they would join me on that path, much less in an actual ceremony.

We were raised to believe these substances were dangerous, and frankly, my parents were a little uncomfortable with my new interest. When I first suggested they try it, they declined. But when my dad was struggling with back pain, I offered up the idea one more time, knowing that ayahuasca could potentially aid in pain management. He decided to go for it, and my mom went along, not wanting to miss out.

As we sat in a traditional Amazonian house called a maloca, getting ready to drink together for the first time, I felt nervous. I was worried that if I was having a rough time and purging (the vomiting that some people experience after taking ayahuasca), my parents would be distracted or distressed. I also worried about their physical safety. Overwhelmed by it all, I cried as I took my first drink of the tea that night and braced myself, really hoping it would be positive for everyone. And it was.

The next day, we sat in a circle and shared our experiences.

My parents both said that they could recognize my breath from across the space, and that they felt deep love for and from me as they listened to me gently inhale and exhale. It was the first time we had talked about love between us in such a vulnerable way. I will never forget that day. Since that retreat, my parents have gone back to ceremony as part of their routine medical care.
When my mom was diagnosed with cancer for a third time, the ayahuasca visions helped her see how best to approach her treatment.

Ceremony offered her guidance on how to prepare mentally, physically, and spiritually, which gave me such solace. When I later talked to her about my fears surrounding her cancer, she simply said, “Even when I’m gone, my love will be in the air that you breathe and you’ll know how to find me: through ceremony.”

Ayahuasca has given our family a very unique shared language. It planted the seeds for deeper emotional intimacy; there’s a sweetness between us now. I’m continually amazed by how psychedelics can support healthier connections between people, and most important, between family members. I’m now involved in research studies that aim to incorporate family members in psychedelic treatments. And I’m so thankful I’ve been able to share this medicine with those I care about the most.

Ceremony-curious? Look for ayahuasca retreats and centers that advertise a clear and comprehensive screening procedure for facilitators, as well as for potential participants. Also, search for ones that provide or direct you to support for preparation pre-retreat and therapeutic integration post-event. Check for facilitators that have medical, psychiatric, and/or psychotherapeutic training/credentials, too, for a safe and optimal experience.

Alberta's $70-million boost in film and television tax credits welcomed by industry

Lauren Boothby 

EDMONTON JOURNAL

Local industry groups are welcoming Alberta’s expanded film and television tax credit program, saying the $70 million allotted in this year’s budget will help support the growing sector and attract big productions

.

© Provided by Edmonton Journal HBO's The Last of Us being shot in Edmonton last October.

Investment now and into the next few years is part of Alberta’s plans to diversify the economy and help it recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Productions already approved for this year are expected to create up to 12,500 jobs, according to the government.

Tom Viinikka, CEO of Edmonton Screen Industries Office , said it’s an exciting time for the local television and film industries and this credit will provide the room it needs to grow.

“This tax credit makes us competitive with other regions and makes it possible for these productions, especially these really big productions, to come to Alberta,” he said.


“(These) come with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for a single production, and it provides a ton of jobs and opportunities for people to develop their craft and their talent.”

With big productions like The Last of Us, Viinikka said 2021 was Alberta’s best year, bringing in more money than ever before. He hopes more productions see what the province has to offer, like the variety of seasons and locations — from the prairies to Edmonton’s river valley and big cities.

“We’re a really film-friendly region. It’s inexpensive to shoot, it’s easy to film here with great crew and great assets and infrastructure,” he said.

Advocacy group Keep Alberta Rolling, responding to the budget on social media, also said it will help grow the industry and benefit the province.

“The future is bright,” the group said on Twitter. “This represents increased jobs and investment in the sector and more opportunities to showcase our beautiful province.”

Viinikka hopes the government brings in tax credits for the video game industry as well. Alberta is competitive and has a lot of talent to offer, he said.

“We’re working with the government and trying to … demonstrate the opportunity that’s there,” he said. “We have some of the most well-known video game development companies in the world in Edmonton, and we have a really great foundation to build on.”
More job opportunities

Speaking to reporters last Thursday, Finance Minister Travis Toews said drawing investment from this industry and other sectors will bring more stable revenue and provide different types of employment.

“We’re focused on ensuring that Albertans have more job opportunities, perhaps more career opportunities and occupations that maybe didn’t exist five years ago, as we take a look at the tech sector, maybe even the film and television sector in this province,” he said.

According to the business plan for the ministry of jobs, economy and innovation, every $1 the province invested in tax credits for the industry brought in $4 of investment last year. Alberta hopes for the next three years to see more value for each dollar spent to $4.20.

lboothby@postmedia.com

Mastodons: Nova Scotia was home to hairy, elephant-like creatures 80,000 years ago

HALIFAX — The remains of a massive, woolly beast that once trod on the land that would become Nova Scotia will go on display this weekend at the Museum of Natural History in Halifax.

 Provided by The Canadian Press

Curator of geology Tim Fedak says the bones, teeth and a tusk from an elephant-like mastodon were found in 1991 in a gypsum quarry north of Halifax, near Milford.

"They were cleaning out this muddy layer and the excavator operator happened to notice ... what looked link chunks of tusk and teeth," said Fedak. "Then they called the museum."

Gypsum is among the minerals left behind after an ancient ocean evaporates. As it is susceptible to erosion from water, gypsum deposits can be laced with tunnels, caves and sinkholes.

"Our mastodon was probably coming along and having a drink and fell into the sinkhole," said Fedak. As glaciers returned to the area, the mastodon's body was covered by oxygen-starved muck. "It was protected by this muddy archive."

The paleontologists who exhumed the remains worked for eight months to unearth a trove of fossils, including ancient turtles, frogs, plants and even some mastodon dung.

"We're coming to understand that these sinkhole deposits are really a unique opportunity to get a glimpse of ancient ecosystems," Fedak said, adding that analysis of the dung revealed the mastodon had died in the autumn.

Using a technique known as electron-spin resonance, researchers determined the remains were 80,000 years old, which means the giant creature died before the last of the ice age glaciers covered the province with ice up to two kilometres thick.

The Age of the Mastodon exhibit opening Saturday will also feature a full, mounted skeleton, which is a composite of previous finds from other parts of the world.

Mastodons were slightly smaller than elephants, measuring about three metres at the shoulder, and their range extended from Alaska and Yukon to central Mexico, and from the Pacific to Atlantic coasts.

One of the largest of the ice age mammals, mastodons were partial to Nova Scotia's spruce woodlands and marshes.

The exhibit in Halifax will remain on display until January of 2023, and it will then be taken on a tour of the province.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 25, 2022.

The Canadian Press

Balancing hopes, dreams and a low-paying college major

Humanities majors are more than a punchline. Not everyone can or wants to be a STEM major, and the world would be a poorer place if they were.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

To have great things to read, music that inspires, perspectives that challenge us — to have a sense of reward and meaning in life — we must have students who pursue college degrees that don’t lead directly to a big paycheck.

That turns the pursuit of intellectual curiosity and artistic appreciation into a balancing act: the likelihood you’ll make a good living versus the debt you incur along the way.

“I encourage students to find this balance between what they like and what pays,” says Nicole Smith, research professor and chief economist at the Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce. “I’m not discounting how beneficial these positions are to our society as a whole, but if you can’t pay back your student loan, you’ll be in a serious state,” Smith says.

Liberal arts grads face longer odds compared with science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees, but a well-chosen humanities major doesn’t have to be a vow of poverty.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO RECOUP WHAT YOU PAID?

To assess the value of earning a specific degree at a specific institution, consider the concept of price-to-earnings premium, spearheaded by Michael Itzkowitz, senior fellow of higher education at Third Way, a center-left think tank.

It measures what you pay out of pocket, including loans, against the amount you’ll earn each year above the earnings of a typical high school graduate. The results show how quickly you can get a return on investment in your college major.

The majority of liberal arts degrees lead to a “pretty good ROI,” says Itzkowitz, but the specific program you graduate with and the type of degree you earn will affect individual outcomes.

The bachelor’s degree programs that allow graduates to recoup their costs within five years or less include what you’d expect: Registered nursing, electrical engineering and dental assistants all make the list.

Among the programs with no economic ROI at all: drama, fine arts and anthropology.

Itzkowitz says the majority of college programs enable students to recoup costs within 10 years or less. “College is still worth it the vast majority of the time,” he says.

Unfortunately, his research also found nearly one-quarter of all college programs of study show graduates failing to recoup their costs in the 20 years after graduation.

There are several tools that can help you compare data on costs, earnings and debt:

— The College Scorecard, a data tool from the U.S. Department of Education.

— An interactive map of price-to-earnings premiums from Third Way.

— The Buyer Beware tool from the Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce.

Of course, education and major aren’t the only predictors of income. Your wages will also be affected by where you live, your gender and race, whether you work in the public or private sector, and your experience level.

SHOULD YOU GET A GRADUATE DEGREE?

Your humanities degree could go much further if you get an advanced degree — generally, the more education you have, the greater your earnings, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

But you should continue to weigh cost versus benefit since it’s also easier to rack up debt. A graduate degree may increase your earning potential, or it may just increase your debt.

For example, if you majored in liberal arts for your bachelor’s degree you can expect a median annual wage of $50,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But if you get a graduate degree in law, taking on more debt, you could earn a median of $126,930. A master’s of fine arts, on the other hand, is unlikely to yield higher earnings: The annual median wage is $42,000.

Your other options could include a minor in a field with higher earnings, an internship to get on-the-job experience or finding less-expensive graduate programs if your intended field requires it.

If you’re taking on additional student debt, remember that the federal government offers payment plans that tie the size of your payment to your income. Most private loans don’t.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS IF YOUR EARNINGS ARE LOW?

If you’re already working in a low-paying field and you have student loan debt, look at how you can lower payments or discharge your debt.

If you’re having trouble making payments, consider enrolling in an income-driven repayment plan, which ties payments to your monthly income. Your payment amounts will increase as your earnings do, too.

Those working in public sector fields should learn the ins and outs of public service loan forgiveness, a red-tape-laden process of getting your loans discharged after 10 years of payments on a qualifying payment plan while working full time in a qualifying field.

___________________________

This article was provided to The Associated Press by the personal finance website NerdWallet. Anna Helhoski is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: anna@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @AnnaHelhoski.

RELATED LINKS:

NerdWallet: Calculate: Are Student Loans Worth It Based on Your Major https://bit.ly/nerdwallet-student-loans-is-college-worth-it

Third Way: Interactive Map of the Price-to-Earnings Premium for All Students https://www.thirdway.org/graphic/interactive-map-of-the-price-to-earnings-premium-for-all-students

Department of Education: College Scorecard https://collegescorecard.ed.gov

Anna Helhoski Of Nerdwallet, The Associated Press

New database ranks 4,500 US colleges

and universities by return on investment

Ihsaan Fanusie

Sun., February 27, 2022,

A new database released by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) ranks 4,500 colleges and universities based on their return on investment (ROI).

“At 1,233 postsecondary institutions (30% of all colleges), more than half of students 10 years after enrollment earn less than a high school graduate,” the Center wrote in its accompanying report. “CEW’s previous research suggests that these low earnings may be related to low college graduation rates and disparities in earnings by gender and by race and ethnicity.”

The ranking assessed schools on a variety of factors, including tuition and costs, average student debt, graduation rates, and net earnings after enrollment. Institutions were ranked based on return on investment at the 10-year, 15-year, 20-year, 30-year, and 40-year periods.

Some surprises on the list included the prestigious Harvard University, which ranked 133rd in the nation for 10-year net present value and 45th for 40-year net present value.

“Twenty-five of the 30 institutions with the best short-term net economic gains primarily grant certificates or associate’s degrees,” the Center noted. “Because these programs require fewer credits to complete, they generally leave students with less debt and allow them to enter the workforce sooner. In the long run, however, the returns of these programs fall behind those of bachelor’s degree granting institutions because students’ long-term earnings are lower.”

Four-year institutions that boast low graduation rates lost points on the ranking as students often leave with loans but without a degree to help increase earnings.

“College typically pays off, but the return on investment varies by credential, program of study, and institution,” CEW Director Dr. Anthony P. Carnevale said. “It’s important to inform people about the risk of taking out loans but not graduating, which could leave them without the increased earnings that would help them repay those loans.”

The top schools for return on investment in the long-term period were University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy in St. Louis ($2.68 million), Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences ($2.61 million), Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences ($2.51 million), California Institute of Technology ($2.49 million), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($2.49 million).

Although private colleges dominated the top of the list, the data actually showed that public schools have better long-term ROI on average.

“So the distinction there is that if you gathered all the data from all the people who went to public [institutions], they actually have a slightly higher ROI, after 40 years and all the people put together who went to [private institutions],” CEW Director of Editorial and Education Policy Martin Van Der Werf told Yahoo Finance in an interview. “But on an individual basis, you see privates at the top of the list.”

Public vs private schools

Part of the reason that public schools generally perform better than private institutions is because tuition is generally more affordable. Students at private colleges and universities are more likely to take out loans to cover the cost of tuition and other fees. According to data from National Center for Education Statistics, about 65% of students at public universities took out some kind of loans, compared to about 74% of undergraduates at private nonprofit colleges.

“We know from the data that there's also a number of private institutions where graduates don't have great financial returns,” Van Der Werf added. “Mostly, these are places like Art Institutes, and music conservatories. They have students who have a real passion for those disciplines. But those tend not to be disciplines that really pay off financially. They pay off, I think, in other ways, but they don't pay off highly financially. And so those colleges and some others, tend to drag down to the overall numbers for private colleges.”

Masked to protect against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) graduate student Jakob Burnham studies on a blanket in front of Georgetown University's White-Gravenor Hall on a warm and sunny day in Washington, U.S., March 9, 2021. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

College tuition costs continue to rise

Nationally, college tuition has continued a decades-long rise throughout the pandemic. Higher tuition prices have also coincided with lower overall college enrollment rates since 2020.

The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that “total postsecondary enrollment declined by 2.7 percent or 476,100 students in fall 2021, for a total two-year decline of 5.1 percent or 937,500 students since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Undergraduate enrollment alone declined by 3.1 percent (465,300 students) in 2021.

Bigger universities have already announced hikes in tuition costs, effective this upcoming fall. The University of Virginia recently approved tuition hikes of 4.7% for the 2022-23 academic year and 3.7% for the 2023-24 academic year. Penn State similarly announced last year that they would raise the cost of tuition and fees by 2.5% for incoming in-state undergraduates. This represents the school’s first tuition increase since 2017.

It’s not exactly surprising that the cost of college is going up — the latest figures reflect broad price increases across nearly every sector of the economy. What might be more interesting is that, because of extraordinarily high total inflation rates in 2021, college tuition has actually risen more slowly than overall inflation in the past year. In fact, last year was the first year in decades that average college tuition costs declined when adjusted for inflation.

The lower rate hardly registers as a win for consumers struggling with across-the-board price increases that have wiped out wage gains. In recent months, consumers have been willing to pay higher prices, especially for food, but corporations warn this trend will not persist past the near future.

Ihsaan Fanusie is a writer at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter @IFanusie.

Show me the money: Employees not only want better pay, they want status

Scott Schieman,

 Professor of Sociology and Canada Research Chair, University of Toronto 


There has been endless chatter about the Great [insert pandemic-related work trend here]. Resignation. Renegotiation. Reshuffle.

Regardless of the descriptor used, employees in the United States are purportedly re-evaluating the role of work in their lives. While some of this is related to deeper existential questions — like “What am I doing with my life?” or “Is this really how I want to be spending most of my waking hours?” — there might be a much simpler and more practical explanation for the take-this-job-and-reinvent-it wave.

A classic quote from the 1996 film Jerry Maguire captures it well. Sports agent Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) has been fired and as he embarks to become an independent agent he desperately tries to retain one of his clients, football star Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.).

Tidwell shouts his demands: “Show me the money!” He adds: “I have a family to support, Jerry!”

Earning enough to make ends meet

Given what Americans say about their earnings, you’d think many would be bellowing like Tidwell. From Jan. 19 to Feb. 2, 2022, my research assistant and I partnered with Angus Reid Global to field a national survey of 2,000 working Americans. We asked: Do you feel that the income from your job alone is enough to meet your family’s usual monthly expenses and bills?

An astonishing 54.8 percent said “no.”

Considering the ominous news about inflation lately, we figured that this unfavourable perception has spiked from previous years. But looking back through two decades of U.S. data from the General Social Survey (GSS) — a highly reputable national survey of Americans — we were surprised by how prevalent and stable the “no” responses have been.

In 2018, the last time the GSS asked this question, 50.8 percent of American workers reported that the income from their job was not enough to make ends meet. And the percentage was even higher in previous years: 52.9 in 2014; 53.4 in 2006 and 55.9 in 2002. The highest on record — 58.2 per cent — occurred in 2010 at the tail end of the Great Recession.

How fair is what you earn?

But “show me the money” isn’t only about having enough for life’s necessities. It’s also about the sense of fairness — what scholars refer to as distributive justice. In our survey, we asked: How fair is what you earn on your job in comparison to others doing the same type of work you do?

While 37.9 per cent feel they are paid appropriately, 52.7 per cent feel they are paid less than they deserve. On this indicator, the shift is substantial. Between 2002 and 2018, 40.6 per cent on average have described their pay as being somewhat less or much less than they deserve, with 2010 again being the outlier at 46.2 percent.

We need to earn enough to live, and the amount should be just. But there’s another element of pay that reflects something deeper. A fundamental human motive: status. Justifying his “show me the money” plea, Tidwell roars: “I’m a role model, Jerry,” adding “it’s a very personal … very important thing.”

Status matters. Not only in the eyes of others, but in our own self-evaluations too. Sociologists refer to this as subjective social status. To measure it, we told respondents to think of a ladder. At the top (10) are the people who are the best off. At the bottom (1) are the people who are the worst off. And, we asked: “Where would you put yourself at the present time?”

On average, American workers report a 6 on the status ladder. But those who report insufficient earnings and feel severely underpaid score significantly lower (4.9), compared to those who have sufficient earnings and feel their pay is appropriate (6.6). That difference holds regardless of education, occupation, income and job authority.
Can money buy happiness?

Some say money can’t buy happiness, but it goes a long way to providing status. And status often translates into happiness.

In our survey, Americans who don’t earn enough to make ends meet and feel underpaid are less happy and hopeful about the future. Life, for them, is less enjoyable. Inadequate earnings and feeling underpaid also erode happiness more strongly than the objective indicators of low socio-economic standing do. And one’s position on the status ladder eclipses all other socio-economic indicators in predicting happiness.

Our sample doesn’t include any professional football stars. But it does contain a broad cross-section of American workers — doggie daycare assistants, accountants, truck drivers, software engineers, sous chefs, electricians, candle-makers and on and on. All have a few things in common: They want to earn enough money to make ends meet, they want to be paid fairly for the work they do and they all share the fundamental human motive for status.

As dated as Jerry Maguire feels, “show me the money” still resonates. Maybe it always will. Given how consistent these indicators of income dissatisfaction have been for the past few decades, perhaps the Great Re-evaluation of work should focus first and foremost on compensation. Channel your inner Rod Tidwell!

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

Income inequality and COVID-19: We are in the same storm, but not in the same boat

The right to disconnect: Why legislation doesn’t address the real problems with work

Scott Schieman receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Xin Ming Matthew Zhou, an undergraduate research assistant in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto, co-authored this article

Businesses are still struggling to attract workers, but it isn't because employers and job seekers have mismatched goals

insider@insider.com (Madison Hoff) 

 Provided by Business Insider RichLegg/Getty Images

Some businesses are finding it tough to find the workers they need.

A new analysis from Indeed sees whether occupational mismatch is the reason behind this struggle.

The labor shortage isn't being driven by workers and employers wanting different things.

Millions of Americans have quit their jobs and moved on to new positions. In the tight labor market and about two years since the start of the pandemic, some employers are still struggling to find talent.

Americans month after month are joining the Great Resignation. Workers might not be leaving the labor force completely, but they are searching for better jobs. Some have even thought about leaving simply because of conversations and news about this phenomenon.

But despite record-high quits, there are millions of job openings waiting to be filled each month. Employers are struggling to attract and keep employees around as Americans leave for other jobs where they could make more money, be less stressed, have more flexibility, or not be part of a toxic office.

As employees leave their jobs, businesses are saying they have few or no qualified candidates. While companies are competing to find talent, some businesses are having trouble getting applicants to even show up for interviews. One common explanation is that workers aren't looking for the types of jobs employers have on offer and potential employees lack the skills for the positions that are open.

But a new study from Indeed Hiring Lab suggests that the mismatch between potential employers and employees is overblown.

"I hear a lot of people say, 'oh, well, job seekers just don't want the kinds of jobs that are on offer. They want other kinds of jobs.' I hear that anecdote quite a lot," Tara Sinclair, a senior fellow at the Indeed Hiring Lab and author of the report, told Insider. "And I really feel like this report says that although there are persistent problems in terms of matching what job seekers want and what employers want, that's not explaining what's happening right now."

The report analyzes this idea of occupational mismatch. "So this isn't about how many job seekers are available for a particular job," Sinclair said. "It's rather, is the mix correct — do we have the same shares of job seekers and the same shares of jobs?"

The struggle of finding workers during the pandemic isn't due to a spike in mismatches between the kinds of jobs people are looking to apply to and the kinds of positions employers have advertised as they seek out new workers.

Mismatches between employees and employers actually had a smaller response to the pandemic than other wildly-swinging labor-market indicators, Sinclair said.

"Any sense that mismatch has gotten worse lately, I think is a perception that's deviating from what we're seeing in the data," she said.

Indeed's mismatch metric, Sinclair said, compares the "distribution of job seekers that are out there and what they're looking for with the types of job opportunities that are out there." The new research highlights that occupational mismatch hasn't become a bigger problem during the pandemic.

The following chart using Indeed data shared with Insider shows just what occupational mismatch has looked like — even before the pandemic:

Sinclair wrote in the report that "workers and employers got more in sync in 2021." As seen in the chart, Indeed's measure of occupational mismatch was 20.6% in January 2022. This means, Sinclair said, we would need to reallocate about a fifth of job-seekers' clicks "to balance the market so that the job seekers' interests and employers' interests aligned."

She said pay could be one reason that "mismatch isn't worse than it is" and has been declining, as businesses have boosted wages to attract and keep workers during the tight labor market.

Sinclair, who's also an economics professor at the George Washington University, told Insider that these results are "quite different than the common narrative" of employers not being able to find the right types of workers and job seekers not being able to find the right types of positions.

"A lot of people have said that there's been increasing mismatch, particularly in the last couple of years," Sinclair said. "And that's actually not what we've seen. In fact, as the labor market has tightened, generally, we've actually seen mismatch decline somewhat."

"It might still be perceived as more of a problem because the labor market is tighter and it's just harder for employers to hire in general, but from the perspective of the contribution of job seekers' interests shifting dramatically, we're not seeing that," she added.

EXPLAINER: Does Putin’s alert change risk of nuclear war?
By ROBERT BURNS

 Russian ICBM missile launchers move during the Victory Day military parade marking 71 years after the victory in WWII in Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2016. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s implied threat to turn the Ukraine crisis into a nuclear war presents President Joe Biden and U.S. allies with choices rarely contemplated in the atomic age. One choice is whether to raise the alert level of U.S. nuclear forces in response. Putin put Russian nuclear forces in what he called a “special regime of combat duty."

 (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin’s implied threat to turn the Ukraine war into a broader nuclear conflict presents President Joe Biden with choices rarely contemplated in the atomic age, including whether to raise the alert level of U.S. nuclear forces.

This turn of events is all the more remarkable for the fact that less than a year ago, Putin and Biden issued a statement at their Geneva summit that seemed more in keeping with the idea that the threat of nuclear war was a Cold War relic. “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” they agreed.

Putin on Sunday told his top defense and military officials to put nuclear forces in a “special regime of combat duty,” but it was not immediately clear how that might have changed the status of Russian nuclear forces, if at all. Russia, like the United States, keeps its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, on a high state of readiness at all times, and it is believed that Russian submarine-based nuclear missiles, like America’s, are similarly postured.

Putin indicated he was responding to economic sanctions imposed by the United States and other Western nations in recent days for his invasion of Ukraine, as well as “aggressive statements regarding our country,” which he did not further explain.

The Biden administration was assessing Putin’s move, which it said unnecessarily escalates an already dangerous conflict. In fact, Putin’s words amount to the kind of threat rarely heard even during the Cold War period, when vastly larger nuclear arsenals of the United States and the former Soviet Union threatened the world with nuclear Armageddon.

HOW DOES THIS CHANGE THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR?

U.S. officials, while disturbed by Putin’s words, indicated they did not know what he intends. But it is so rare for an American or Russian leader to issue an implied nuclear threat, particularly in the current context of the war in Ukraine, that the risk of it going nuclear cannot be dismissed. In Russia, like in the United States, the president has sole authority to order a nuclear strike.

The United States and Russia have the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world, by far. They include weapons that can be delivered by aircraft, submarine and land-based ballistic missiles. The only time in history that nuclear weapons have been used in combat was when the United States twice bombed Japan in August 1945, and at that point the U.S. had a global monopoly on nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union successfully tested its first bomb in 1949.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Putin’s order to put his nuclear forces on higher alert was regrettable but not a complete surprise given his previous implied threats against any nation that tried to stop him in Ukraine.

“Inserting nuclear weapons into the Ukraine war equation at this point is extremely dangerous, and the United States, President Biden, and NATO must act with extreme restraint” and not respond in kind, Kimball said. “This is a very dangerous moment in this crisis, and we need to urge our leaders to walk back from the nuclear brink.”

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO PUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON ALERT?

According to U.S. nuclear doctrine, the weapons’ alert level is central to their role in deterring attack. The idea is that being prepared to respond on short notice makes an enemy less likely to attack in the first place and risk retaliation that would do incalculable damage.

A counterargument is that having ICBMs, which the Pentagon calls the most responsive portion of its nuclear arsenal, on high alert during a crisis compresses a president’s decision-making room and leaves open the possibility of ordering them launched in response to a false alarm. The 400 deployed U.S. ICBMs are armed at all times.

Some arms control experts have argued for taking ICBMs off high alert by separating the missiles from their nuclear warheads. But in a crisis, perhaps like the one implied by Putin’s alert order Sunday, a decision to re-arm the missiles would be taken as an escalatory move that could make the crisis even worse.

During the Cold War, U.S. and Russian weapons were not only more numerous but also in a higher state of readiness. President George H.W. Bush in 1991 took the historic step of ordering U.S. nuclear-capable strategic bombers off alert as part of a broader move to reverse the nuclear arms race. The bombers have remained off alert ever since.

HOW HAS THE UNITED STATES RESPONDED TO PUTIN SO FAR?

There is no evidence that the Biden administration has reciprocated in any sense to Putin’s announcement that he was ordering his nuclear forces in a “special regime of combat duty” — perhaps in part because it was unclear what that means in practical terms.

Nor was there word from Washington of evidence that Putin had taken worrying steps such as loading nuclear weapons on all or a portion of Russia’s nuclear-capable air fleet or sending additional ballistic missile submarines to sea.

In addition to his strategic nuclear force, Putin has at least a couple thousand so-called nonstrategic nuclear weapons, such as shorter-range ballistic and cruise missiles. They are called nonstrategic because they cannot reach U.S. territory. But that is little comfort for the countries in Europe that are within range of those weapons. The United States has about 200 nonstrategic weapons in Europe; they are bombs that would be delivered by Europe-based aircraft.

For years, some U.S. officials have worried that Putin, if faced with the prospect of losing a war in Europe, might resort to the use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, thinking it would quickly bring the conflict to an end on his terms.

Major floods swamp Australia’s east coast, claiming 8 lives

the worst since 2011 when the city was inundated by what was described as a once-in-a-century event.


PHOTOS  1 of 21

People use small boats to travel through flood water in Lismore, Australia, Monday, Feb. 28, 2022. Heavy rain is bringing record flooding to some east coast areas and claimed seven lives while the flooding in Brisbane, a population of 2.6 million, and its surrounds is the worst since 2011 when the city was inundated by what was described as a once-in-a-century event. 

(Jason O'Brien/AAP Image via AP)


BRISBANE, Australia (AP) — Parts of Australia’s third-most populous city Brisbane were under water Monday after heavy rain brought record flooding to some east coast areas and killed eight people.

The flooding in Brisbane and its surrounds is the worst since 2011 when the city of 2.6 million people was inundated by what was described as a once-in-a-century event.

The latest fatality was a man in his 50s who drowned on Monday after driving his car into floodwater before dawn at Gold Coast city, south of Brisbane, Queensland state police said.

The bodies of the man and his dog were retrieved hours later from a submerged car which had been washed from the road, a police statement said.

Queensland emergency services warned life-threatening flash flooding was occurring in parts of Gold Coast.

Emergency crews made more than 130 swift-water rescues in 24 hours, officials said.

All eight flood deaths have been in Queensland state, of which Brisbane is the capital. A search continues for a solo sailor, aged in his 70s, who fell overboard from his vessel in the Brisbane River near the city center on Saturday.

Police were also searching for a man missing from Goodna, west of Brisbane and another Esk, northwest of Brisbane.

South of the Queensland border, police on Monday were searching for man after officers heard him calling for help on Sunday in floodwaters in the New South Wales town of Lismore.

Police warned downtown Brisbane businesses along the river waterfront to evacuate after a pontoon carrying a crane broke from its moorings upstream and began riding the floodwaters toward them.

Multiple emergency flood alerts were in place for Brisbane suburbs, where 2,145 homes and 2,356 businesses were submerged on Monday. Another 10,827 properties were partially flooded above the floorboards.

The Brisbane River peaked on Monday at 3.85 meters (12 foot, 3 inches), officials said.

That was 61 centimeters (2 feet) below the 4.46 meter (14 foot, 3 inch) flood level reached in 2011, officials said.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the rainfall over Brisbane had been extraordinary since November when authorities were considering water use restrictions due to a shortage.

“It is still a significant event, and I think everyone would agree no one has seen this amount of rain in such a short period of time,” in the southeastern area, Palaszczuk said.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner said the floods are “very different” to 2011 because the rain pummeled the region for five days. In 2011, the rain had stopped days before the Brisbane River peaked and authorities had warned for several days of flooding downstream.

Queensland Transport Minister Mark Bailey said major roads had been cut. Train and ferry services across Brisbane have been halted, he said.

“We’re going to have localized flooding in a lot of areas for a couple of days yet,” Bailey said.

Lismore was bracing for its worst flooding on record.

Downtown Lismore was inundated on Monday after days of unrelenting rain and 15,000 people had been evacuated, officials said.