The rules of marriage

Marriage is a varying topic, as the so called 'rules' can change depending on religion, tradition, personal preferences, etc. But one thing that always seems to change from person to person is the age that two people should get married at, whether it's just a personal preference or a firm belief that a specific age is most appropriate. However, can a marriage's success really be judged from an age range or how long two people have been dating? Or is it rather merely from the basis of the two peoples characters? I believe the latter. 

Many may believe that if a boy and a girl are dating, and they then go to college, it is best that they wait till they finish college to get married. Reasons for this may be that marriage will put too much distraction on college study, or that one is not ready for the rigors of marriage yet. But why should one's maturity level be judged by their level of education. A poor kid that never went to college can easily be on a much higher maturity level than say a rich kid that recently graduated college. And on the other hand, why should two people's level of intimacy towards each other be judged by the amount of time they have been dating? once again, two people that have been dating for two years can easily be closer than a couple that has been together for five years. And for that couple dating for two years, they may mutually agree that they are ready for marriage while the couple dating for five years may say that marriage is not right for now. 

My sister was dating her boyfriend for maybe four years (more or less) before she got married. This was last year. Her husband is still in college yet they are happily living together with no issues. They were ready for marriage. Also my youngest sister who was again recently married had only been dating her boyfriend for about two years. Her husband is also still in college, but in their minds, they did not need to wait three, four, or five years before they could marry. They made the decision when they felt they were ready, and that was after around two years. 

I think the time of someone's marriage should not be limited to the amount of years they have been dating, or a specific age they both need to be. Of course there is a certain age range where people just simply won't be mature enough to handle the hardships of being committed to another person, but that age range can still vary greatly from person to person. Overall, someone should judge their readiness for marriage on their and their partners character rather than concrete time/age restraints. 

If the Billionaire Boys Club was real

Since 1987, The World Economic Forum, more commonly known as Davos, has been meeting in the small mountain town of Davos, Switzerland to discuss various political, economic, or business issues and so on. Each year there is a theme that the thousands of various well-known elitists will discuss, this year's theme being responsive and responsible leadership. With talk of such serious issues, and so many top-tier people attending, Davos strives to put off a seemingly respectable aura. Yet rather than political or economic expertise, the only thing each member seems to have in common is a high social status and a surplus of money. 

As described by Simon Constable, a writer for Forbes, rather than "the intellectual pursuit of economic ideas," The World Economic Forum "was a vision of social climbing on steroids." The name 'World Economic Forum' seems to be a name that thousands of elitists simply hide behind as they enjoy various parties veiled in exclusivity. Members give the impression that the different lectures and panel discussions are just a side show, as they rush to an expensive hotel to make an exclusive meeting with a businessman. Liz Alderman for the New York Times explains "Many deal makers retreat to hotel suites for much of the conference, forsaking the official program in favor of a whirl of meetings, emerging only to attend private parties in exclusive chalets on the Davos slopes or invitation-only power dinners." Another article by the New York Times tells of the various colored badges each member receives. The badges essentially display how important each person is. The higher the badge level the less restrictions one has. Another reason for people to, as described by Constable, try to climb the social ladder of success. 

All of this is not to say that Davos is a useless meeting made for big names to grow even more, however. Though it may seem few and far between, important issues are addressed during this meeting, and as there may not be immediate effects, there is no doubt that some advancements are being put forward.  Various topics of discussion included strengthening global collaboration, restoring economic growth, and reforming capitalism. Bloomberg does an excellent job of summarizing the key issues discussed. 

If thousands of top-class politicians and businessmen want to gather to make various business or economic plans, I think that is completely fine. But the problem that Davos holds is that it tries to hold a status of a meeting that will automatically reap benefits for the world, just because its members are at the top of society. As Simon Constable said, "Of course, there were some wonderful folks present, but mostly it was a disgusting spectacle of the shallow seeking to shimmy their way into prestige positions." 

What immigration really does to our country

As Trump moves into his new position as president, many policies will be changed. One of those being immigration. Trump says "Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens." Trump obviously apposes immigration. Saying that it takes away our citizen's jobs and hurts are country. This may be true to some extent, as every foreigner that gets a job is one less American that gets one, but there are more nuances to this issue. So what does immigration really do to America?

The problem with thinking this way is you are generalizing every immigrant as a low-educated, low-skill worker that won't contribute much to this country, and that simply isn't true. In fact, arguably foreigners coming into America, skilled or unskilled, actually increase job opportunity and income of American workers. Studies show that immigrants do lower wages, but that is only to other immigrants. According to Current Population Survey (CPS) data from 1994–2007 as well as a study by Heidi Shierholz from 2010 titled: Immigration and Wages, we see that an increase of immigrants lowered previous immigrants wages by 4.6 percent. However, for American citizens, it actually increased wages by .6 percent. The reason for this is that when immigrants come here, they often have the same skillsets, if not better than the previous arrivals, making them easily replacable, while American citizens are seemingly untouched. 

The Huffington Post says, "A big part of the anti-immigration narrative is the perception that the majority of immigrants are poor, uneducated, and unskilled." But as stated, even for lowskilled immigrants, the effects are rarely negative, rather  positive even. However, one thing that is often over looked is the contribution that highskilled immigrants bring. 

According to a study by Stuart Anderson titled: Immigrants and billion doller startups, "Immigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America's startup companies valued at 1 billion dollars or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these companies." Of those startup companies, immigrant founders create about 760 jobs per company. Do the math and that equals to around 33,440 jobs. To put the immigrant contribution into an even better perspective, we can compare their contribution to the American economic output. Studies show that from the years 2009 to 2011, immigrants contributed 14.7 percent of the total economic output, while the overall population only contributed 13 percent. 

Of course their are still drawbacks to immigration, but facts show that the positives obviously outweigh the negatives. When looking at America on a long term basis, it's obvious that immigration is necessary to help develop the well-being of our country. 

Fashion at the expense of someone's life

Whether it's a 20 dollar jacket from Walmart or a 1000 dollar jacket from Gucci, we all buy clothes. Some enjoy fashion more than others and are willing to pay top dollar for top quality items, but often times, it's not the quality that people care about, but rather the name brand. But with designer items being so expensive, many people don't have the money to buy them, and instead, resort to buying fakes. Other than a disrespect for the original designer, most people don't see a problem with buying fakes. Just another business trying to make money, just in a semi-unethical way. But what many don't understand is that the counterfeit industry is much worse than it seems, and a documentary by Complex puts this trillion dollar industry into perspective. 

January 7, 2015, in Paris, two masked gunmen, Said and Cherif Kouachi, entered the office of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine. The two brothers were working on behalf of Al Qaeda and were seeking vengeance on the staff who released a cartoon that seemingly mocked Islam and the prophet Muhammad. By the end of the day, the gunmen had killed 12 people and injured about a dozen more. Their arsenal consisted of various assault rifles, machine guns, pistols, a shotgun and a grenade launcher. And how did they get the money to obtain these weapons? Through the selling of counterfeit goods on the streets of Paris. 



This example was a direct link between counterfeit items and an act of terrorism, and of course, the selling of fake goods is rarely going to have this straightforward of a connection. But just because there isn't a direct link, it doesn't mean that there is no link at all. In fact, profits from the selling of fakes have been linked to sex trafficking, identity theft, gang violence, and the global drug trade. Funding these illegal activities isn't the only thing that goes on behind the scenes, however. Often, to make the most money, these organizations use child labor and run under sweat shop conditions to fuel their production. "There are a lot of ugly things that go on to make this allegedly beautiful bag." says retired NYPD captain Peter Moreno. "There's all kinds of kidnapping, dirty money." 

Throughout the years, many stories have arised of the various ways these groups produce their merchandise. Li Qiang, founder and executive director of China Labor Watch, says "Factory workers may work 12 hours each day and have only one day or two days off each month. They live in a small dormitory with ten roommates, and they may have contact with toxic chemicals during work." Ariele Elia, assistant curator at The Fashion Institute of Technology in New York, reports of children being handcuffed to sewing machines being forced to work. Dana Thomas, in her book 'Deluxe: How luxury lost its luster' tells of an investigator who found seven children under the age of ten making fake designer handbags. "The owners had broken the children's legs and tied the lower leg to the thigh so the bones wouldn't mend. They did it because the children said they wanted to go outside and play." 

With stories such as these, many people may ask why the police do not shut down more people distributing counterfeit items. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. With the selling of goods online becoming more popular, it becomes harder to track down the sellers. "When you're in the online universe it's very difficult, because of privacy protections, to actually locate the true owner." says Amy Goldsmith, co-chairman of the IP department at the law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin in New York. To further complicate matters, online sellers try hard to hide their identity in case of being caught. "The addresses are fabricated. The addresses are in the wrong country." also says Goldsmith. "The addresses will give you the right town, but the street name doesn't exist. The company name can be incorrect. It's a total fraud." Even for sellers that sell on the streets, officials won't pay much attention to them. The big crimes are often buried under a lot of smaller, less important crimes. And with other issues such as murder, rape, theft, etc, some people selling fake purses on the street just aren't a big enough issue. 

With the consumer being the main fuel for this industry, it is ultimately the consumer that can make the most change. Smart decisions on the buyers end can essentially have a greater impact than efforts made by the government. As Elia says, "If you find a fake Louis Vuitton for 26＄," before you buy it, ask yourself "what is the human cost?" 

Resolving our debt

As many know, America is largely in debt, with our national debt being over 14 trillion, 75% of GDP, and gross debt being over 19 trillion, 105% of GDP. For the past 2 decades, the national debt has constantly increased, and if nothing is done to help lower the debt, it is projected to nearly double in the next 30 years. 
                                                                                                                         

When seeing such a high number, many people will automatically assume that our country is in great danger and that we must work to solve this problem as soon as possible, and yes our debt is dangerously high, but what many people don't understand is that having debt isn't necessarily bad, and a monitored amount can actually benefit a country. As said by Investopedia in its article titled The National Debt Explained, "When debt is used appropriately, it can be used to foster the long-term growth and prosperity. But high levels of national debt for prolonged periods of time has a severe impact on the overall economy." Our country seems to be keen towards spending too much, yet many suppose that without that spending, our country might be in an even worse condition, but there is no doubt that a continuation of this habit will most definitely put our country in a worse condition. That is why addressing the growing debt issue now rather than later is very crucial in controlling it. Fixing the debt can not happen in a day, but will require a gradual process, and starting now will help ease the disruptions that come with that. As stated by fixthedebt.org, "if we start now, we would need spending cuts and/or tax increases equaling 2.9 percent of the economy to bring the debt gradually down...in the next 30 years. Waiting 5 years, however, would require adjustments of 3.4 percent of GDP and waiting 10 years would require 4.3 percent."

In November of 2014, the CBO issued a report that analyzed 79 different options to reduce the annual deficit and the national debt. Of those 79 options included plans to increase government revenue, reduce spending, changing entitlement-specific programs, etc. Of course, many of these options are hard choices to make that many people will not enjoy, and for years, Americans have been ignoring the real issue and opting out for what is easy now, which in turn has continued to intensify American's debt problem. CBO's tax plans claim to be able to raise federal revenues by 1.9 trillion dollars from 2016 through 2024. Whether the plans would work or not, it seems to not matter as politicians have seemingly been forced to sign a pledge to never raise taxes. "the pledge has become practically required for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts." says Grover Norquist's Americans for tax reform.

America's debt may not need to be completely exstingished, but it's obvious that measures need to be taken now rather than later. But the real issue lies within the minds of the Americans. If a solution is to be put in place, the people of America need to allow it, rather than putting it off until they are forced to deal with it.