There is no clear correlation between the minimum wage and employment levels.

There's a great deal of debate on the minimum wage.  On the one hand, there is the argument that raising the minimum wage will reduce employment.  On the other hand, there is the argument that people should get a living wage.  Well, below is a table that shows what happened to employment in the 12 months after an increase of the federal minimum wage.  Be aware that this table was used to refute the statement that increasing the minimum wage always resulted in job growth.  In this case, that statement was judged to be mostly false.

Source:  Does raising the minimum wage always result in job growth, by Lauren Carroll, Politifact.com, November 6, 2014.

It's clear from the table that sometimes job growth occurred after raising the minimum wage, and sometimes it didn't.  Upshot:  There is no clear correlation between the minimum wage level and job growth.  Why?  Probably because wage levels are just one of many factors that influence the economy.

Do income statistics tell the whole story of income inequality?

It's pretty well-known that real incomes in the bottom 90% of the U.S. income ladder have only improved modestly since the early 1970s, after having doubled (i.e. increased by 100%) over the 25 years before that.  But is it possible that those statistics do not tell the whole story?  Is it possible that, even though those incomes haven't improved, the quality and caliber of the things that can be bought with them have?  And further, does the improved quality of those goods compensate for the reduced apparent income?

Idea for a music app

Wouldn't it be cool if there was a music app that would search for songs based on their beat?

Things NOT to do at work, #2.

Ever get an email that simpy says "see below," or something similar, and has several more emails attached below?  It's then left up to you to sort through all the previous emails and ferret out the point.    This has multiple glaring pitfalls.  First, it is communication by hint, and that leads to miscommunication.  Second, it devalues the time of the recipient since they have to spend their time figuring out what the sender wants them to glean from the chain of messages.  Third, it's basically rude in that it essentially says the the sender's time is more valuable than the recipient's.

Instead of writing "see below," take the time to tell the recipient what you want to communicate from the email chain, or at least point out the specific passage(s) you want them to focus on.  That will then give them the option of reading through the entire chain at their discretion to find context or other meaning.  And it shows that the sender respects the recipient's time.

Things NOT to do at work, #1

Be prepared to answer the phone, even when you've just started a new job.  Answering questions with things like, 'I don't know; I just started working here' or 'This is my first day, so, um, if you can hold on I'll see if I can find out' are terrible responses, both for you and for your new company.  It's important to realize that when you talk in a professional capacity to other people you are directly influencing your brand and your employer's brand.  When you use the just-started-working-here excuse up front you come across as trying to lower expectations to accommodate a subpar performance.  That's not the direction you want to go.

The direction you want to go is either, 1] anticipate and prepare for questions by doing some research in advance so you will actually know the answer, or 2] simply say something like, "Of course.  Give me a minute and I'll be right back to you," and then move heaven and earth to find out the answer asap.

Does anybody care about quality anymore?

  '…there may be some inaccuracies.'  That was the last part of the description of the attachment to an email I got last week.  The sender was essentially telling me that the work he had done (the attached list) might not be reliable.

In another instance, I was cc'd on an email from a guy who wrote something like '... please excuse the typos' at the end.  He was referring to a letter he had written for us and attached to the email.

Why didn't these people vet and spell-check their own work?  And what makes them think it's okay to hand off these tasks downstream?  Would either of these guys put "Handed off sloppy work for someone else to correct" on their resumes?  (I'm guessing, No.  Instead, they'd probably put something like "Conscientious researcher" or "Consistently delivered assignments on time.")

It's easy to produce half-baked products.  And while it does take effort (work) to produce these things, they are not finished products and may even be worthless (i.e. negative value added).

Half-baked goods have very little value.  If you're going to accept an assignment, you should finish the job.  Or, put something on your resume like "Consistently finished sloppy work... on time."

The Price Umbrella in Housing

  It's important to understand the price umbrella if you're going to build a house or otherwise invest in single-family housing.  Most residential neighborhoods in large cities can be categorized as either 1] very desirable, 2] desirable, 3] less desirable, or 4] undesirable.  Generally speaking, the price umbrella for a neighborhood is set by another neighborhood in the same city that is one rung up on the desirability ladder.  Thus, when the prices in a very desirable neighborhood increase, they make room for price increases in neighborhoods that are merely "desirable."  As an example, I will use two neighborhoods in the same part of Texas (full disclosure:  I'm a Texan).

Area A is a well-known upscale area.  Most of the homes for sale in Area A are priced at over $1m.  The public schools are excellent, crime is very low and, most importantly, the residents are either wealthy and/or have "top 1%" jobs, so in all likelihood home values are safe and will probably continue to increase with the incomes of the top 1%.

Contrast that with Area B.  Nice, but not quite as upscale as Area A.  Fewer than 40% of the homes are priced at or over $1m.   The public schools are good, crime is low and most of the residents have "top 5%" jobs.  Like Area A, home values in Area B are safe.

The price umbrella indicates that the potential opportunity here is to buy a lower-tier home in Area B, upgrade it but stay below $1m, and sell it.  Sounds simple, right?  Seems like common sense, right?  And yet, I have seen many professionals -- savvy investors and homebuilders -- violate this guideline by building well above $1m in Area B, and live to regret it.  They either didn't know about, or forgot about the price umbrella.