Wildfires have never been uncommon in California, but they are occurring more frequently. Over the past two decades, the frequency and intensity of wildfires have doubled, causing more destruction. Since 2000, a yearly average of 70,025 wildfires have destroyed 7 million acres, more than double the average burned in the 1990s. Additionally, nine out of ten of North America’s hottest years were in the 2000s, with the other in 1998. LA, especially, has had plenty of fires before. On average, they experience two wildfires a decade.

Many on the left have pointed to climate change as a key factor in the starting of these fires. The right has directed criticism towards the mayor of LA, Karen Bass. Both narratives have some truth to them, but they are missing what is at the center of what is responsible for this catastrophe.

Many ignore that LA’s dense forests and brush surrounding the city are the key catalyst for fires to start in an area with bone-dry winds and a particularly parched winter season. Unlike many would like to believe, the LA area is a grassland, not a desert, surrounded by dense brush and forests in a dry atmosphere. The Santa Monica mountains, which direct those warm Santa Anna winds directly to LA because of the topography, fuel the fires. Add in human settlements, and it creates the perfect equation for a disaster like this to happen.

As LA continued to be built over the years, a lack of space in urban centers caused developers to move projects into areas with more wildlife. Most available data suggests that approximately 18-20% of Los Angeles County is covered by tree canopy, leaving those areas particularly vulnerable to wildfires and other natural disasters. Unlike other major cities, like Boston, which is centered in a suburb and gradually grew to reach the forests and wildlife, LA is built in the middle of an entirely different ecosystem. According to Boston University, the greater LA county area is surrounded by chaparral, a type of shrubland that relies on periodic burning for reproduction. The occasional fires clear out old plants and animals to start anew.

In the past, officials took steps to prevent the severity of these fires by conducting controlled burns to clear areas with dead brush that can easily be caught on fire and cutting down trees in areas with high residential populations. More recently, California and LA’s policies have changed. Many areas, including LA, stopped conducting controlled burns and logging because of environmental concerns.

While the criticism directed at government officials often disregards the importance of wildlife management, politicians neglected other contributing factors, which only worsened the situation.

First, a mass water shortage during the fires severely restricted the fire department’s ability to fight the blaze. The Santa Inez Reservoir, which used to hold 117 million gallons of water, was closed in February of last year for construction for repairs. The reservoir had saved the Pacific Palisades from many blazes in the past and failed the area when they needed it the most. As a result, two lawsuits have been filed, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has launched an investigation. Quickly after, hydrants ran dry, and although they are not the most useful for fighting large-scale burns, they can help firefighters protect individual neighborhoods, many of which were destroyed because of the fire. More than 10 years after Californians passed Proposition 1, which directed a $2.4 billion bond to build new water storage areas, only 1 of the proposed projects has begun construction.

Current California governor Gavin Newsom promised to do more prescribed burns during his administration to actively prevent these fires. However, the data shows that he overstated the amount he accomplished by 690%. While he said he’d been able to cover 90,000 acres, the state’s data shows it was only 11,000.

Furthermore, LA’s mayor, Karen Bass, also severely cut funding for the department. Since 2010, there have been double the amount of calls, yet 68 fewer people work at the fire department than 15 years ago. She also cut $17.6 million of the department’s funding, 2% of their budget.

In conclusion, while it is important to hold officials accountable for their handling of this situation, it is more apparent that the fires that often destroy LA are unavoidable due to the environment that the city is built upon. While it is easy to say that perhaps the whole area should have never been developed in the first place, what we need to do is look to solutions that protect LA wildlife while still making it safe for people to live there. Controlled burns, mentioned previously, are one way to do this, but it is clear that there needs to be more solutions to this growing, and increasingly expensive, problem.

A lot has happened since Trump was last in office, but one thing is clear in 2024: the Republican Party is back and arguably has more momentum than it’s had in years. With Trump’s growing influence over Gen Z, it raises questions about just how liberal this generation truly is and how he gained popularity with the youth of America today. Maybe it’s because countless members of Gen Z felt the Democrats had become disconnected from their concerns. As Bernie Sanders said on X the day after the election, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.”

Trump’s shared values and collaborations with popular podcasters and celebrities like Logan Paul and Theo Von drew many young men (and women) to look at Trump differently this election. What was an 11-point lead in the 2020 election for Biden among young men became a 2-point lead for Trump against Harris. According to exit polls, a 35-point lead for Biden among young women became a smaller 24-point lead for Kamala. Trump also received endorsements from notable figures such as Joe Rogan, whose audience is 81% male and 56% is between the ages of 18-34 year old.

With 59% of Americans approving of Trump’s handling of the Presidential transition, according to CBS News, it seems, to many, that Trump has won not just the election but a belief among the majority of Americans that it’s headed in a better direction than the last 4 years. Four years ago, many Trump supports felt the need to hide their support according to a 2020 Granite State Poll. I remember the times when speaking out for Trump felt like a death sentence for social relationships. I could have never imagined that only a few years after Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem that we’d see NFL players doing Trump dance on live TV after scoring a touchdown. But that’s precisely what happened.

The signs were all there. If you’ve opened up TikTok over the past two years, you would’ve seen the rise of the conservative and traditional values growing in popularity on the app. The mob wife aesthetic, the old-money trend, and the “trad wife,” all became popular trends and romanticizing the idea of being a stay-at-home mom and pushing back against so-called modern feminism became more socially acceptable. TikTok has a significant impact on trends for many members of Gen Z, and played a role in young women learning about and embracing more conservative values.

To understand how this happened, we first need to look at social media’s impact on this election and how it differed from the past two, specifically on the rise of independent media’s influence on young voters.

In 2016, Trump relief heavily on mainstream media’s obsession with him resulted in an unprecedented amount of earned media that amplified his visibility. In 2020 it was a lot harder for him to break through the noise because of the mainstream media’s negative portrayal of him. In 2024, Trump's took a new approach to reach voters by embracing podcasts to reach younger audiences that weren’t paying attention to mainstream news. He appeared with numerous podcasters, such as Aiden Ross, Theo Von, and Joe Rogan. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, Trump lacked the strong youth support that both Clinton and Biden had, and he desperately needed to gain that support to win. His son, Barron, a member of Gen Z, suggested he campaign in places where young people were, such as podcasts and online channels. Although most podcasters didn’t encourage their listeners to vote for Trump, the long-form conversations about everything from politics to pop culture allowed the listeners to see him in a different light than what they had thought about him before.

Kamala also embraced podcasts to reach younger audiences, and earned endorsements from celebrities like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and Oprah Winfrey. However, the strong anti-elitism and anti-establishment sentiment that has soared over recent years worked against Kamala. Influencers have no idea what it’s like to work a 9-5, or to barely be able to make ends meet, so what gives them any right to tell the average American who to vote for? While Trump earned expected endorsements from mainstream right-wing figures, the support of independent podcasters and celebrities gave the impression he was more in touch with what everyday Americans care about. Trump’s populist values also made him more relatable to working and middle-class Americans rebelling against the status quo and establishment politics. Although the mainstream media and A-listers tried to paint Trump as a right-wing extremist, independent Americans saw something different than previous elections, and Trump’s approach this election helped many see Trump in a new light.

The decline of mainstream media and the rise of independent news, particularly on social media, had already exposed young people to more independent viewpoints. For many, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are viewed as propaganda outlets used by the establishment politicians to drive their agendas. Particularly after the pandemic, a drastic fall in trust ensued. When the media was telling them one thing, but what they saw with their own eyes told them something different, it led them to question who they used to blindly trust. For example, after Trump’s attempted assassination at one of his rallies, CNN’s headline read, “Secret Service rushes Trump off stage after he falls at rally,” completely ignoring the fact that multiple bullets were shot at him. And of course the “very fine people on both sides” scandal, where mainstream media outlets intentionally misrepresented Trump to make it seem like he was commending violent white supremacists, and ignored the fact that he said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.” It should come as no surprise that only 31% of Americans trust the media and their ability to report the news fully, fairly, and accurately. This led many to place a higher level of trust in podcasts and independent news channels, and it played a big role in why so many young Americans formed a different opinion about Trump in 2024.

As a result of these podcasts, young men and women began to see Trump as cool and trendy. Many young people often rebel against the values they are taught, including the left-wing ideals that are discussed in classrooms across America. For years, young people could not get away from topics around gender and race ideology, but public opinion suggests many are growing tired of it. For example, only 26% of Americans believe athletes should compete on teams matching their claimed identity rather than their birth sex, and 74% strongly or somewhat oppose teaching white students they are inherently privileged while students of color are oppressed. These numbers suggest Americans aren’t aligned with what they’re hearing in the classroom and from mainstream media and celebrities. Add in Trump’s defiant reaction to the attempted assassination, it’s no wonder that he’s being viewed as an anti-establishment figure among a growing number of younger Americans.

During Trump’s first presidency the media consistently portrayed him in a negative light, and claims of him being a sexist, racist, and homophobe were never-ending. However, when people lose trust in the media, they are less likely to believe and question those claims. Suppose you listen to Trump’s policies and put aside what the media feels about him. In that case, the majority of Americans tend to agree with what he’s saying. 58% of Americans believe that the US should deport illegal immigrants back to their original countries, 71% support school choice, and only 37% believe abortion should be legal in the second trimester and 22% in the third. To be clear, Trump has never proposed a total abortion ban federally and believes it is a state issue, but also has made it clear that he doesn’t think it should be legal later into a pregnancy. And it’s not like these are issues only Republicans support. In 2008, during her Democratic Primary campaign against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton stated her strong support for deporting illegal immigrants who committed crimes, 'no questions asked,' and said that even law-abiding illegal immigrants should pay a fine and move to the back of the line to apply to stay in the country. Just a few years later, this policy is now labeled as far-right by many Democrats. Clearly, the average American does not align with this change in perspective.

The policies that Trump talked about in his campaign resonated with many Americans, particularly young people struggling behind high costs and interest rates that leave them feeling further behind than their parents were at the same age. During Biden’s first 45 months, inflation was up 20.1% compared to Trump’s 7.1%. From December 2016 to 2020, the average cost of a gallon of gas dropped from $2.37 to $2.28, while prices soared under Biden to $5 as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war where he implemented a policy prohibiting buying from the third biggest producer of oil. With life getting more expensive during Biden’s term, many Americans wanted to see change. Kamala Harris represented the status quo to many voters, and Trump came across as a return to the more affordable life that existed during his first term.

The divisiveness of Trump isn’t going away anytime soon, but Trumps support is arguably more diverse than any Republican in modern history, and many young Americans are more optimistic about the future because he won the election. Trump may have lost supporters among seniors, but he gained support among other age groups that better represent the future of America. We may continue to hear claims that democracy is going to end under Trump, but we’ve already lived through four years of a Trump presidency. We should feel pretty confident that our future isn’t as bleak as many on the left want us to believe.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump turn to social media to present their campaigns in ways that often feel more like entertainment than serious political discussion. A key example of this is Kamala Harris’s 'brat' campaign, which has taken TikTok by storm, raising questions about the evolving role of social media in politics today. One particular video where she is clipped saying “you think you just fell out of a coconut tree” has been used by the left to portray her as a girl boss and a fun and relatable candidate; while it has been used by the right to cast her as a fool and not as a serious politician.

This trend is somewhat new, as the rise of social media has led to political campaigns turning their focus to other platforms to get their messages out. More and more Americans are tuning out CNN, Fox News, and other mainstream news outlets. According to Pew Research, the average number of televisions that watched ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox for their nightly news was down from 4 million in 2016, to just over 2 million in 2022.

The mainstream news is trying to combat the loss of viewership. For example, CNN attempted to get into the streaming game with CNN+, and it became an embarrassing failure; shutting down just one month after its launch. In the first two weeks after CNN+ launched, 150,000 subscribers paid for CNN+. Yet, fewer than 10,000 people watched it daily, but CNBC has since reported that it has been lower, closer to 4,000. This catastrophic failure highlights three things; consumers’ unwillingness to pay for news, a widespread lack of trust in mainstream media, and a desire for short-form instead of long-form content because of the entertainment appeal.

Let’s start with the fact that people don’t see the need to pay for news when many independent sites, YouTube channels, and podcasts, which all became increasingly popular during the pandemic, are mostly free and give people free news for often the same or better quality. The internet has created an expectation that content is free. Music is free with ads, TV shows are often free with ads, and while some journalism sites have adapted their subscription programs to appeal more to consumers, it’s not enough to keep up. Unfortunately, many people nowadays just don’t place that high of a priority on keeping up with current events. Independent news sites make most of their revenue on advertising and don’t need subscriptions to make profits, while advertising isn’t enough for big companies, which is why many major newspapers have had to lay off many employees in recent years.

Additionally, a severe distrust for mainstream news outlets is at fault; as of 2022, Gallup reported that only 34% of Americans agree that mainstream media outlets report the news "fully, accurately and fairly,” and as a result, many are tuning into social media to get their news. So, it’s no surprise that candidates have followed suit and pushed their agendas digitally.

Lastly, many have grown tired of reading articles about the news and are looking for new, more entertaining ways of consuming news. Many have turned to social media for the short-term appeal so they don’t have to spend time and energy reading. The main issue is people may not be aware they're only getting a small and often misleading representation of an issue or news event. It's no surprise that division among Americans is growing when many of us are misinformed or under informed about important issues.

Additionally, it’s detracting from substantive political discourse. Both Kamala and Trump are guilty of sidestepping discussions on specific policies and instead promoting emotionally charged content that captures viewers’ attention. Instead of helping voters become more informed, this approach leaves them less knowledgeable about actual issues and contributes to a decline in the quality of political debate.

Americans today are far more easily swayed by emotional claims rather than listening to both candidates' policies, and politicians are taking advantage of this to help themselves win elections. Young people, specifically Gen Z, don’t consume news like older generations; only 4% read daily prints, and 50% or more use social media as their primary source of news. Additionally, among 18-24 year olds, only 16% say they are interested in current events, highlighting the declining interest. Both Kamala and Trump are highly motivated to win votes in this age group, and having their support could mean the difference between winning and losing in this very tight election.

The point of this article isn’t to favor one political candidate over the other but instead to motivate all of us to be more informed voters. The Republican and Democratic parties both understand that our attention spans are short, and issues that evoke an emotional response have a high correlation with how we vote. The Stanford Graduate School of Business says, “Something like 90 to 95% of our decisions and behaviors are constantly being shaped non-consciously by the emotional brain system.” This staggering number highlights the importance of becoming aware of the fact that everything you consume has a purpose, whether to inform, persuade, or entertain, and learning to cast doubt on everything we hear helps to understand what that purpose is.

Instead of basing your vote in the presidential election on what you see in your TikTok feed, it's crucial that more Americans research and delve into each candidate’s policies to make informed choices. Read news from multiple different sources to get a balanced perspective on issues, and although it’s cliche to say, don’t trust everything you see on the internet, especially when it comes to politics. Although mainstream media outlets have good intentions, they can also be heavily biased, so make sure to learn from independent sources too. Read about the candidate's policies, instead of just making assumptions about what they want. Be informed, and at the end of the day, make the right decision for you, because the voters are the ones at the end of the day who decide the election.

Raising the minimum wage is often revered as a great economic policy that will help millions living paycheck to paycheck. Its goal is to offer support to those who need it the most and to help more people rise above the poverty line. I believe with any policy there needs to be a deep investigation on the benefits and drawbacks to come to an informed conclusion on whether or not the policy is worth implementing. In this post, I aim to look at both sides of this argument and offer my opinion as to why I do not believe the minimum wage will help those in the working class.

Possible Negative Outcomes

Firstly, evidence has shown that raising the minimum wage may backfire and decrease worker hours and wages. Take, for example, a recent study about minimum wage increases. Qiuping Yu, Shawn Mankad, and Masha Shunko found in their research, “When a Higher Minimum Wage Leads to Lower Compensation," that every $1 increase in the minimum wage between 2015 and 2018 led to employers decreasing the average hours each employee works by 20.8%. For a store in California, these changes meant employees worked an average of five fewer hours per week. In the end, California’s minimum wage hikes hurt employees’ total take home pay, where minimum wage workers total compensation decreased by 13.6%.

Possible Positive Impacts

On the other hand, proponents argue that a minimum wage increase will lead to reduced poverty levels and a better economy. According to WorkRise, a $15-an-hour minimum wage leads to a yearly earning increase of $5,000 and a total net gain of $3,700. Their study also cited that the poverty rate would decrease by about 2.1% and 6.9 Americans would leave poverty. George Akerlof from Georgetown University, a leading economist also says another positive aspect is that employee morale and work ethic increase, leading to more productivity. Some economists also linked it to better physical and mental health among workers. Lastly, a study by David Cooper and Doug Hall estimated that if there was a $2.55 increase in the minimum wage, it would lead to $40 billion in wages added to employees’ pockets, and drive significant GDP growth, boosting the entire economy.

Automation and Outsourcing

However, it is important to note the impact that automation could have if a minimum wage increase were to happen. Oxford University researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne observed that higher labor costs accelerate the shift to machines instead of humans to cut costs and increase profits in the age of robots and AI.

A wage hike could also lead to an increase in outsourcing to other countries, like China, which costs 25-40% less for labor than in the U.S. A survey of 400 US Chief Financial Officers found that 70% of CFOs would “increase contracting, outsourcing, or moving actual production outside the United States” if the minimum wage were hiked to $10 per hour. This is because businesses are forced to pay wages they cannot afford and so owners will look for alternatives to reduce expenses. That could include outsourcing the work to states or countries with lower labor costs or investing in automation.

According to a First Research industry profile, 10% of grocery store’s expenses are wages. Forbes also says grocery stores have one of the smallest profit margins across different industries. A minimum wage hike would shrink the already small profit margins, forcing businesses to consider raising food prices and reducing labor costs. For example, stores could reduce staff by increasing the reliance on automated self-checkout and have fewer staff to keep shelves stocked and clean. As research and innovation increase access to robots and AI, businesses will be incentivized to automate more of their business operations. From factories to restaurants and many other industries, it is becoming easier than ever for businesses to opt out of dealing with forced wage increases by their increased reliance on automation.

There are other reasons for automation and outsourcing too, such as technological advancement and globalization. I think it is important to note that wage costs are not the sole reason for businesses looking for cheaper ways to produce products, although they can play a big role in decision-making regarding where companies choose to produce. A nuanced approach regards all of these aspects as a part of this multifaceted issue and considers them when coming up with solutions.

Poverty and Inflation

As stated earlier, many proponents of a minimum wage hike say it helps people rise above poverty by giving them economic freedom. On the contrary to this argument, many economists have expressed concerns that it could further restrict people’s ability to thrive. George Reisman, a Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, states, “The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them.” Thus, raising the minimum wage would increase poverty among minimum wage workers.”

A minimum wage hike has also been found to contribute to inflation. In Brian Davis’s article "How Does the Minimum Wage Affect Rents?" from 2000 to 2009, three months after the wage increase, housing prices increased. NBC News backed this up, finding a correlation between wage increases and rising housing prices.

Prices and Net Income

Similar to housing, NBC News also found that a cup of coffee went up 10%-20% in Oakland, California, after they hiked the wage by 36%. Chicago prices rose 6.7% after they changed it to $10. James Sherk, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation found that a single mother working full time with the federal minimum of $7.25 would be $260 a month worse off if they hiked the wage to $10.10. “While her market income rises by $494, she loses $71 in EITC [earned income tax credit] refunds, pays $37 more in payroll taxes and $45 more in state income taxes. She also loses $88 in food stamp benefits and $528 in child-care subsidies.”

Entry Level Jobs & The Employment Ladder

Raising the minimum wage will have a substantial impact on people in the early stages of their work experience. Teenagers, young adults, and those just starting their careers may struggle to find employment because employers may be hesitant to hire entry-level workers at higher wages if their skills don't yet justify the cost. This could lead to a decrease in job opportunities for these groups, impacting their career development and skill acquisition. Those with less education will have difficulty with this as they haven’t learned the skills to be successful yet.

Essentially, this entirely removes a whole group of people who want to join the workforce. Don Boudreaux, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, explains, “The minimum wage cuts off the first rung of the employment ladder, and it’s that first lowest paying rung that provides the skills and experience workers need to reach the next rung and to continue climbing their way to a better life.” Increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of entry-level jobs that are on the way to the top of the job ladder.

How Businesses Adapt: Business Viability

Under increased labor costs, businesses may find it hard to remain open. When free to negotiate wages, the employee and employer are free to find a common ground of what their work is worth. For example, a lazy employee should be paid less than someone who gives their all every time they come to work. However, with a minimum wage, both employees have to be paid the same because it would be illegal for the lazy worker to be paid less than what they are worth to that company. With that in mind, the business may be incentivized to let go of that first employee because they no longer see them as necessary for their company.

This change is also hard on businesses. With higher wage costs and thin profit margins, some companies have to absorb the additional costs by increasing prices, decreasing the number of workers they employ, and decreasing worker hours. Some businesses still can’t afford to keep their doors open, and many will close as a result of the wage hike.

For example, in cities like Seattle and NYC, The American Enterprise Institute’s Mark Perry announced that Seattle “already… has seen a number of restaurant closings and job losses related to the government-mandated wage hike.” Harvard Business School found that for every $1 increase in the minimum wage, the company was 14% more likely to close.

A Broader Economic Perspective

While all of these arguments are important, it is essential to acknowledge them within a much bigger context. The relationship between wages, prices, and poverty is complex and influenced by various factors, including market dynamics, fiscal policies, and global economic trends. Additionally, the impact on inflation should be considered alongside other inflationary pressures and monetary policies. The minimum wage has been critically acclaimed as a way to help poverty and inflation. This dynamic is complex and has many aspects, and an informed debate involves knowledge of these aspects to learn.

What’s the solution, then?

So, that brings us back to the question, if the right answer isn’t to raise the minimum wage, what is? In my opinion, we don’t need a minimum wage at all, and here’s why:

In a capitalist, market-driven approach, employers would be free to set wages based on the perceived value of the employee. If Company A offers the worker $5 an hour but Company B offers the worker $6 an hour, the worker would choose Company B because they perceive their work to be worth that amount of money. Today, that worker would have trouble finding a job because both wages are below the nationally mandated $7.25.

To argue that if we abolish a minimum wage, employers will immediately lower their prices is to completely ignore that 97-99% of the country already makes above minimum wage. The $7.25 is just a hinderment and block to the free market and capitalism. Wages should always be based on the value they provide for their company, and if a worker is forced to be paid more than they are worth, it leads to unemployment.

The Living Wage Counterargument

When many people argue that the minimum wage is an impediment to the free market and that there should instead be no wage requirement, many people bring up that people deserve to make a living wage and that the mandate is only making sure people aren’t being scammed and paid a low amount that is not enough for them to live comfortably. There are multiple things that I think are flawed with this argument, although I believe everyone should be paid an amount they can live off of. For starters, to say that is to ignore that 97-99% of businesses already pay above the minimum wage. Additionally, in the U.S., we have the right to quit our job at any time and find other work that is better for us based on wages and lifestyle choices. If the business you work for is not paying you enough, you can easily find work. There are about 9 million job openings in the U.S. as of December 2023. All of this suggests that there truly is not a reason for a minimum wage and that is just an obstacle to the free market.

Conclusion

Based on the comprehensive analysis I have presented, I think it should be clear that while the policy of a minimum wage is well-intentioned to help those who need it, it often does not achieve those objectives. The evidence I have presented shows that it can lead to job losses, inflation, automation, and more issues. Outside of eliminating the minimum wage, there may be other solutions that should be considered and investigated, just like I’m researching this solution. We should always strive to help others, but in a way that benefits everyone and doesn’t come with many major drawbacks.

The high dropout rate from colleges highlights a crucial aspect of student challenges: the varied levels of vision and understanding they possess about their future upon entering college. Students typically fall into one of three categories: those with a clear vision for their future, those with an uncertain or evolving vision, and those with no specific vision at all. Additionally, even students with a clear vision often lack a comprehensive understanding of the path ahead. This includes key factors like the feasibility of securing a job in their chosen field, the potential earnings, and the cost-benefit analysis of pursuing a particular degree. Without this vital information, students may find themselves pursuing a path that is misaligned with the realities of their chosen field, leading to disengagement and a higher likelihood of not completing their degree. This scenario underscores the need for more effective career guidance and planning tools within the education system, especially for those embarking on a college journey.

The rising costs of college education further compound the issue. NCES data shows a dramatic increase in college tuition from $10,231 in 1980 to $28,775 in 2019, adjusted for inflation. This escalating financial burden, coupled with the competitive nature of university admissions, raises questions about the desirability of this traditional path.

Reflecting a broader shift in the job market, some sectors, especially in technology, are redefining their educational requirements. Companies like Google are increasingly valuing skills and experience over traditional college degrees, and recently dropped its degree requirement for many positions. This trend is a testament to the evolving nature of career preparation. Indeed.com reports a range of high-paying tech jobs that no longer mandate a college degree, including roles in cybersecurity, software development, and network administration. This shift signifies a break from the traditional belief that prestigious and well-paying tech careers are solely accessible to those with a four-year college degree.

An alternative to this scenario is vocational training and trade schools. Often underrated, these paths offer lucrative and fulfilling careers without the debilitating debt associated with four-year colleges. These programs are shorter, with some lasting only a few months, and are considerably more affordable. Edvisors notes that while a university degree might cost around $127,000, a trade school degree averages $33,000, potentially saving students $94,000.

Historically, trade classes played a pivotal role in high school curriculums during the 1950s and '60s. These classes were not just about learning a skill; they were integral to preparing students for immediate entry into the workforce upon graduation. They offered practical, hands-on training in various fields like carpentry, automotive repair, and electrical work. This approach was highly valued in an era when not everyone pursued or had access to higher education, and skilled trades were in high demand.

However, the educational landscape began to shift in the 1980s. There was a growing emphasis on liberal arts education and the pursuit of four-year college degrees. This change was driven by several factors, including a societal push towards white-collar jobs, which were often perceived as more prestigious and financially rewarding. As a result, high schools started to focus more on preparing students for college rather than direct entry into the workforce.

This shift had significant consequences. Trade classes began to be seen as less essential, often relegated to being elective courses rather than core parts of the curriculum. The perception of these classes also changed; they were increasingly viewed as fallback options for students not deemed 'college material.' This stigmatization led to a decline in their popularity and availability, which in turn contributed to the current shortage of skilled tradespeople and the undervaluation of trade careers in the broader job market.

Today, as we face a critical skills gap in many trades, it is imperative to break this stigma associated with the role of vocational training in our education system. Vocational careers are not just plentiful but also essential. The 2023 Career Advancement in Manufacturing Report by Xometry and The Women in Manufacturing Association highlights an 82% labor shortage in manufacturing companies. The Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts a 15% growth rate in HVAC/R jobs through 2026, double the national average for all careers. These are not just abundant jobs; they are urgently needed.

It starts with not only reintroducing these classes into high school curriculums but also changing the narrative around them to reflect their true worth and potential as pathways to successful and fulfilling careers. College undoubtedly holds value for certain professions. However, it is important to recognize that it is not the only, nor always the most suitable, path to a successful career. A broader educational perspective, one that includes vocational training as a respected alternative, is vital.

In conclusion, to address the employment crisis and build a diverse workforce, secondary schools should reintegrate trade classes into their core curriculum. By dismantling the stigma around vocational education and highlighting its practical benefits, we can open pathways to careers that align more closely with individual skills, interests, and career objectives. This approach could lead to a future where fewer people are burdened by student debt, and more find careers that are a better fit for them.

To start off, what exactly is school choice? This program allows parents to take all or a portion of the public school funds allocated to their child and apply that money to an alternative to their neighborhood school. That could be public, private, charter, or even homeschool. This program has many benefits, as I will discuss.

The first reason that I would like to point out as to why we should add school choice is because it drastically increases students’ test scores. According to EdChoice, 85% of studies nationwide agree that school choice positively affects students, schools, or state budgets. Another study done by researchers at the University of Arkansas found, in the most comprehensive study done to date, that school choice students saw their reading scores increase by 27% and their math scores by 15%, respectively.

You might ask, how does school choice make students’ test scores better? Similar to other industries, competition has been shown to produce better results, and this concept is carried into education. In 25 of 27 studies and the latest peer-reviewed meta-analysis, the results show when students have the choice to attend private school, the competition between public and private schools leads to better public school outcomes. To put it simply, because private schools started performing better, the nearby public schools were forced to improve their results to keep their students.

Lennie Jarratt, Project Manager for School Reform at the Heartland Institute, stated, “Free markets offer a much better way to hold educational institutions accountable for their failures. Under this model, inadequate schools lose money or are forced to close after consistently failing to perform… Why should we reward terrible schools with an indefinite stream of tax dollars?”

Secondly, school choice allows intelligent and talented children who come from lower-class areas to attend better schools that would usually be off-limits because of their parent’s incomes and where they live. The schools these students often come from have fewer teachers, fewer resources, and fewer opportunities for their kids to succeed. The DC Voucher program is an excellent example of this, as a lot of the students within the program come from lower-income neighborhoods. The voucher program led to an increased graduation rate of 21% overall and 28% for female voucher students. Most of the parents inside the voucher program also stated that they felt that the school their kids went to was better than their public school option. Another example, EdChoice, an education non-profit, commented saying, “The empirical evidence shows that choice improves academic outcomes for participants and public schools.”

Along with the fact that 72% of Americans WANT school choice according to a 2022 Real Clear Politics Poll, it should be evident that we should implement this ingenious solution to help our failing school system.

Another benefit of school choice programs is that it leads to an increase in student diversity. According to the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, a study of Louisiana’s voucher program found that their school choice program declined racial segregation. It is a great accomplishment in a state with 34 school districts under federal desegregation orders.

If all of this isn’t enough to convince you, here’s another point, we’re already doing school choice programs in higher and lower education, and it’s working. The government already financially supports college students in the form of Pell Grants, the GI bill for veterans, in Head Start for preschoolers, and the parents and students decide where to attend, not the government. So if it’s already working everywhere else, why should K-12 be the outlier?

If school choice really does help the students, why isn’t it mainstream across America? Those who disagree with me would say because it draws money away from the schools. However, this claim is misleading, because money isn’t the problem to begin with. The system is the issue. Private schools, oftentimes with far more resources than public schools spend less money per student than the majority of government-run schools. In fact, Washington D.C. is spending $20,000+ per student, whereas the average tuition for private school is $12,000. We don’t need more money, we need school choice.

The sentiment that education dollars belong to the school misses the entire point of what the dollars are designed to support. In fact, the money should belong to and follow the students to the education destination of their choice. When the government grants a student loan to go to college, the student chooses the college they want to go to. Choosing a certain university over another doesn’t steal money from another, it allows the student to have direct control over their educational needs and goals.

In conclusion, we need to implement school choice nationwide to help our students and our school system start to move in a positive direction. Not only will it increase test scores, but it will also help all schools through the process of competition. No one says all of this better than Milton Freedman, Noble Prize recipient. He says that school choice would result in a “great widening in the educational opportunities open to our children.”

Almost since its inception, nuclear power has been controversial. At the center of the debate are conversations about its safety and the risks to our health and environment. At the heart of the anti-nuclear movement, we hear about radioactive waste, a byproduct of nuclear energy production that creates risk to our planet for hundreds of thousands of years. We also hear about fears of nuclear meltdowns caused by failed reactors, leaking radioactive waste into the environment, leading to horrific death and sickness. For those in favor, we hear a different story. A story of a cost-effective, carbon-free, and virtually limitless supply of energy that is the key to our clean energy future.

Today’s post is about why decades of misleading facts have led to an irrational fear of the most safe and reliable clean energy future that we should be investing in.

What should we do about all the nuclear waste?

First, let’s dive into nuclear waste. The U.S. generates about 2000 pounds of nuclear waste every year. Much of the debate about this waste has been how to properly store it and the fear of waste leaking into the earth and water table. But what if I told you the 240,000 year estimate for nuclear waste to decay doesn’t take into consideration recycling technology that was invented over 60 years ago?

In 1962, Argonne National Laboratories built a nuclear reactor that could create electricity out of nuclear waste. And not by a small amount either. 96% of the nuclear waste can be recycled, and that recycling process can be repeated over and over again. The waste that remains no longer takes hundreds of thousands of years to decay. It’s only a couple hundred. And in the U.S., we already have enough nuclear waste to power the entire country for the next 100 years.

However, this recycling process requires a special type of nuclear reactor, and they’re almost nowhere to be found. And it’s all because of the Cold War. In 1977, then-President Jimmy Carter announced new policies to limit the risk of nuclear war. The recycling process requires the separation of materials in nuclear waste. One of these materials is plutonium, a material seen as high risk to furthering nuclear proliferation. As a result, Carter’s administration ended the development of nuclear reactors that could handle recycled nuclear waste. “A viable and economical nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling,” said Carter’s administration. But the Cold War is over, so why haven’t we invested in reactors that can handle the waste? It mostly comes down to money and a negative attitude about nuclear’s future as a clean energy source. The average life of the 92 nuclear power plants currently operating in the U.S. is about 40 years, and with only one new plant built since the 1990s, there hasn’t been enough investment in new nuclear plants to make a switch possible. The good news is places like Argonne National Laboratories continue to move the science of nuclear energy forward. The bad news is that unless the national narrative changes about expanding the use nuclear energy, this clean energy future will have a hard time escaping the lab.

If we can’t recycle it, what do we do about the nuclear waste already produced and will be produced in the future? If you’re envisioning barrels full of oozing, glowing green liquid, you’re stuck in a cartoon world. In fact, spent nuclear fuel looks nothing like this, and can and is being stored safely. According to the World Nuclear Association, “the waste is stored in engineered casks… in stable vitrified form.” The casks are placed deep in the ground and are designed to prevent any movement of radioactivity for thousands of years. Even in the event of natural disasters like earthquakes, the underground storage will keep the radioactivity below ground. No leaking involved. If you’re worried about the amount of nuclear waste, all of the waste ever produced in the United States can fit on one football field stacked less than 70 feet high.

But you think Nuclear Plants aren’t safe?

Next, let’s dig into safety. The safety argument primarily comes from a point of view that a disaster at a nuclear power plant far outweighs the risk from other sources. And the examples that are used are Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011). As of May 2022 there are 439 nuclear reactors in operating in around 30 countries, and over 700 decommissioned. With that many nuclear reactors, you might be wondering why these are the only three disasters we can point to. We’ll get back to that in a bit.

Opponents argue that the negative risks from nuclear energy are too high. The risk of death and to our health is too great. Power sources like solar and wind offer a far safer future, so they say. However, this just isn’t the case. Worldwide, 1.4 million people die in car accidents. 4.2 million people die annually from air pollution. The number of deaths directly linked to nuclear power accidents? Under 200. Not annually, but throughout the entire history of the nuclear power industry.

Maybe I’m not giving enough weight to the safety argument, so let’s get back to the three primary examples for nuclear’s safety risks. After that, we’ll compare the risks of nuclear power to other sources.

First, the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania. Death count… Zero. Detectable health consequences… None according to most studies. The amount of radiation released at Three Mile was no more than people receive getting a chest x-ray. After the event, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission addressed Congress about the meltdown, admitting “We goofed. There was no danger of any hydrogen explosion.”

Next, Chernobyl. After 30 years, the official death toll recognized by the international community is 31, with the UN saying it could be as high as 50. Tragic, yes. For an event that occurred due to a poorly designed experiment and inadequately trained personnel in the failing Soviet Union (according to the World Nuclear Association and International Atomic Energy Agency), it seems foolish that we hold up this example. The scientific advancements made in nuclear energy since this disaster should give us reason to believe a 37 year old example is not representative of how nuclear reactors would be built and operated today.

Lastly, Fukushima. Natural disasters are outside of our control, and we must take into consideration the possibility for earthquakes, tsunamis, and more, when building nuclear reactors. Even though radiation did leak due to the Fukushima event, no people died because of it. The affected water gets treated to remove most radioactive material before it is released. After the water is released, Japan states the dilution level will be at a level that is 1/40th of the government’s standard for releasing water into the environment. Needless to say, the concerns about the long-term negative impacts Fukushima appear overstated.

Construction for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Began in 1967, and the technology used to build it would never be used in a modern generation reactor. A Harvard Study also found that “newer generations of nuclear reactors, particularly what are called pebble-bed reactors, are designed so that the nuclear chain reaction cannot run away and cause a meltdown-even in the event of complete failure of the reactor’s machinery, with the advent of modern reactors such as the pebble-bed reactor and careful selection of plant sites, nuclear accidents like the one in Fukushima are actually not possible.” With all of the modern changes in technology, especially to nuclear power plants, in the future, there will be very low risk of nuclear meltdowns, even lower than the slim margin today.

Before we move on to comparing nuclear power to other power sources, let’s take a look at the risks associated with working at the 99% of plants we haven’t talked about yet. Working in a nuclear power plant is safe. If you were to compare the negative health affects of working in a big city office to working at a nuclear power plant, one might assume the nuclear power plant is worse. But, according to The World Health Organization (WHO), the big city office is far worse due to air pollination. Another study found “Air pollution in major cities may be more damaging to health than the radiation exposure suffered by survivors of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster,” according to The Guardian, which reported on the study. When it comes to the highest risks to our health from energy production, it’s time to start looking at other sources of energy.

While not the primary purpose of this post, I felt it helpful to compare nuclear energy to other clean energy sources. I’ll save my nuclear versus other clean energy sources argument for a future post, but here are a few highlights:

• Nuclear is better for job creation. For every 500 jobs nuclear creates, wind creates 90 and solar 60. (Source: US Department of Energy).

• Nuclear produces four times less carbon pollution than solar farms (Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

• Wind takes up 360 times the land area, and solar 75 times, compared to nuclear (Source: Nuclear Energy Institute)

• Nuclear reactors requires significantly less materials compared to wind and solar (Source: US Dept. of Energy)

• Wind and solar are intermittent (wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always shine), but nuclear is always on. (Source: 🙄)

• Wind, Solar, and Nuclear have a nearly identical death rate (Source: Our World Data)

In summary, nuclear isn’t perfect, it’s just better.

One more thing…

In researching this post, I came across one more interesting piece of nuclear technology that is often ignored. For background, the reactors we have today are uranium fission reactors, which use the element Uranium to produce the heat. There is an alternative uranium, and research suggests its even better. Today, only about 0.5% of the fuel is extracted from uranium before it is thrown away. Throium, on the other hand, allows us to extract 18% of the fuel. In turn, this would lead to even less nuclear waste.

Even more surprising is that this isn’t new knowledge. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, said in the 1950s that abandoning thorium was a mistake. It was abandoned because it didn’t have the potential to produce nuclear weapons. In Teller’s estimate, running a nuclear reactor running on thorium instead of uranium will give us energy for thousands of years. Along with being more efficient, thorium is also cheaper than uranium. For instance, Thorium’s LCOE (Leveled Cost of Electricity) for a thorium molten salt reactor is $53.51 per MWh (Megawatt Hour.) Uranium’s LCOE is $63.08 per MWh for a conventional uranium reactor.

Thorium has also been proven to be a success in the past. From 1965-1969, the U.S. was testing thorium as an alternative fuel source to uranium because of fears that global uranium supplies would run out within decades. The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment, as it was named, was called a success by Glenn Seaborg who was the chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission at the time.

So where do we go from here?

The future of nuclear energy can be bright if we allow our fears of the past to catch up to a modern understanding of this incredible technology.

With nuclear waste being dealt with through recycling, nuclear energy being proven to be safe time and time again, and new fuel sources such as thorium, nuclear energy is a great energy source. It is also far better for the environment, at a lower absolute cost than alternative ‘clean’ energy sources like wind and solar. If we choose to focus our clean energy investments in this amazing energy source, our current energy issues can become a thing of the past in about 20 years.

With that being said, please subscribe if you want to receive notice of my future posts. I appreciate your support, and I hope you consider joining my community.

Individuals are also being canceled for things they said in the past, even when their current views have changed. For example, Niel Golightly, an executive at Boeing, wrote an article in 1987 in a US naval magazine where he objected to women taking place in military combat. In 2020, one of his employees found it and demanded his resignation. He apologized and said his views had changed but was forced to resign anyways. “As youngsters, we’ve tried out ideas; we’ve done things that we look back on and say, ‘That was kind of silly, but boy did I learn from that,’“ Golightly told the New York Times. “I think that’s what we want from leaders in society and politics and business.”

James Bennet, a former editor at the New York Times, published an opinion piece by Republican Senator Tom Cotton about the Black Lives Matter riots. Bennet’s colleagues were outraged that he allowed Cotton’s opinion to be published and demanded that he step down or be fired. Even though Bennet apologized and explained how he wanted the readers to be exposed to a different point of view, he was still forced to resign.

But is cancel culture a force for good? According to Aja Romano, a reporter for Vox Magazine, cancel culture “began as a tool for marginalized communities to assert their values against public figures who retained power and authority even after committing wrongdoing.” It’s underlying goal is often to drive social change. It’s a belief that if there is enough public outcry against something or someone, we will positively move society forward toward a “better” ideology.

Now cancel culture has evolved to something more sinister. It now seems cancel culture is mostly about people wanting everything they see in society to reflect their own values. Take the recent Bud Light controversy as an example; the right boycotted the company to end their business sponsorship of TikToker Dylan Mulvaney. It wasn’t done for malicious purposes; the consumers of Bud Light didn’t see themselves as individuals who wanted to associate with a brand promoting what they saw as a political ideology different from their own. After Bud Light separated itself from Mulvaney, LGBTQ+ activists and businesses started their own boycotts against the brand. In the end, who wins?

While both the left and right now feel they're on a successful path to drive social change, the end result is only fueling further divide in our country. And while both sides feel the cancellation was done with good reasons, there appears to be no path to a positive outcome.

Is it really worth it to cuss someone out online and call them monsters? All it appears to be doing is driving more division and hatred toward our fellow Americans.

Many public figures on the right and left have said there’s a big difference between making real social change versus simply cursing someone online. President Barack Obama stated, “Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out… That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.” Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Co-Founder of Black Lives Matter, also added, “People don’t understand that [social activist] organizing isn’t going online and cussing people out or going to a protest and calling something out.”

According to Pew Research Center, 14% of adults described cancel culture as a form of censorship. They also stated that it was a violation of free speech and destruction of our history. And another 12% said it is “mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm.”

Even if an individual or company apologizes for saying or doing the “wrong thing,” it doesn’t mean they’ve actually changed. It’s not uncommon for people and companies to say things they don’t believe when they think it boosts their reputation. Think about when people posted black squares on their Instagram in support of black lives. Do most people really believe the people behind those posts care about driving social change? Taking someone's words at face value ignores the underlying risk if that same person or organization were to say the opposite.

Alongside the idea that cancel culture doesn’t truly drive social change, the most crucial downside is that it incentivizes people to stay silent and prevents them from expressing their views for fear of being fired from their jobs and becoming socially exiled. Some who have been “canceled” have received death threats from strangers online. Steven Mintz, Professor Emeritus at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, puts it this way: “We need to become a more tolerant society not only in matters of differences in sex, sexual preference, race, religion, and nationality but also in showing the willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with and not seek to harm the offender.” 

In a country that prides itself on our first amendment, being offended or attempting to cancel every person we disagree with is dangerous. It’s a way of thinking more commonly found in totalitarian societies and the opposite of what those in a democratic republic must strive for.

Cancel culture also denies forgiveness to past “offenders.” As a result, individuals are permanently judged for mistakes in their past without any chance for redemption and growth from their past selves.

"Just because you did something wrong in the past doesn’t mean you can’t advocate against it now. It doesn’t make you a hypocrite. You just grew. Don’t let people use your past to invalidate your current mindset.” – attributed to many.

To conclude, not only does cancel culture not drive the social change many strive for, but it also forces our society to live in fear. It offers no room for forgiveness and no room for growth. For those reasons, we should stop cancel culture to uphold our country’s universal values of respecting our differences and protecting everyone’s right to free speech.

Thank you for reading my blog. Please consider subscribing below to get updates when I post. I truly appreciate your support.

Chart: Shayanne Gal/Insider Source: Github.com/unitedstates/congress-legislators; Wikipedia; Insider Data

The average age of recent presidential candidates and Congress members suggests a consideration as to whether we should add age limits to the presidential race, and potentially Congress. For example, in the current political climate, we need fresh ideas in government, and with a high percentage of career politicians, we’re not seeing enough new perspectives. At the same time, age limits can serve as a power check for government officials so they don’t overstep their authority. As you age, especially over the age of 70, cognitive decline begins to set in according to the National Institutes of Health. Being president requires you to be able to function at the highest level. Joe Biden has become a target because of his age, as many experts believe he has dementia or is in cognitive decline. Electing individuals in their 70s, with all the demands of today, is more a roll of the dice than we should be comfortable with.

At the same time though, adding an age limit might not happen anytime soon. American politicians have a long-term incentive to stay in government and remain in power. According to Business Insider, “because of the seniority system, a campaign-finance program that favors incumbents, gerrymandered congressional districts, and the ability to continue to seek office indefinitely, it is even easier for those politicians to stay in power.” Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, the youngest member of the Senate at 35, said “More important than those constitutional limits are the various structural impediments in our political system as it functions today that deter, and make it so difficult, and discourage young people from seeking office."

With the obstacles standing in the way of change, you might be asking why age limits are important for us to consider? No matter what political side of the spectrum you’re on, new ideas and policy changes are something that almost everyone wants. Adding age limits will bring in a new generation of political leaders that can bring in a fresh perspective and help get us out of the current gridlock. Not only that, but people in power will feel more pressure to take advantage of the limited time they have in office. Lastly, incumbents are “less able to use institutions to manipulate elections or erode the power of rival branches of government and political adversaries,” according to the Young African Leaders Initiative, a government run website.

In conclusion, as the average age of politicians become older over time, the need for new leaders becomes greater. We desperately need young politicians to come up with solutions that give Americans hope for a better future. And whether you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican or something in between, there’s probably a young politician out there who might share your views.

Thank you for reading. Please consider subscribing below if you want to get updates on my future posts. I truly appreciate your support.

Hello everyone, my name is Gabby. This is a brand new blog that I started to help people learn about what’s going on in the world, from a teenager’s point of view. As a 13-year-old living in today’s world, I personally see our education system’s flaws every week. From teachers with an agenda to book banning, I’ve seen it all. But what frustrates me most is that when people in power are challenged on their opinions, they don’t know how to have respectful conversations anymore.

Some of the main topics that I will advocate for are protecting the integrity of women’s sports, protecting kids, transforming our education system, and minimizing the government’s involvement in our daily lives.

To cut to the chase, I’ll post 3-4 times a month about what’s happening in the news and some debates about controversial topics. If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider subscribing below to get updates when I post new content. Thank you.