“FINRA whistles the play dead”, The MMTLP Winners and Losers

Crank up your HBOMax app, or borrow a friends account and watch “Gaming Wall St“, if you need background on the reddit by the name of wallstreetbets that has gone viral among common folks who dabble in stock investments. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept of people banding together to share trade information and investing as a group, or not, its happening all over the world. For example, for people interested in trading in FOREX markets, there are paid subscriptions where people join conference lines and invest in calls or puts against currency pairs, real time, based on an expert’s educated guess shared on the conference line. Its foundational that when you plan to invest in anything, you want to be able to weigh the risks and potential gains. In a society of impatience, people are willing to lean on the expertise and research of trusted sources, even if those sources are sources by association. Kindergarten games teach us, the further away from a personal connection to the true source, the less likely your information is credible, yet the daring members of wallstreetbets stay the course and sometimes risk it all on opportunities to win big. The publicly traded security Meta Materials Preferred Shares (MMTLP) had a unique and tremendous upside, because the company submitted documentation, signaling they were going PRIVATE and giving trade of the security a hard stop date of 12/12/2022. This setup the uncommon environment for an inevitable short squeeze. However, to the surprise of many investors, MMTLP wasn’t available for trade at all in the pivotal last days of trade. I guess I have to give you a little back story on MMTLP before I get into winners and losers.

Torch Light (NASDAQ:TRCH) was a stock that some in the wallstreetbets group speculated would grow massively last year. The company was acquired by Metamaterial Inc, and the symbol was converted to MMAT and a number of MMTLP preferred shares were awarded to any current shareholders of TRCH in the process. Anyone still holding these shares or still paying attention learned that, this year, the company filed documents with the proper trade authorities, committing to going PRIVATE. When a publicly traded company decides to spinoff and go private, all investors must close positions before the deadline given, or the respective brokerages will have to forcefully close the positions themselves to balance their books. This isn’t unusual, MMTLP is not the first company to spinoff, and they won’t be the last.

What I found to be blog worthy about this particular situation is the unequal treatment of individual investors in comparison to hedge funds. After word was given that MMTLP would be going private, hedge funds were given continued authorization to short sell this security. When you short a stock, you are basically loaned someone else’s shares to sell immediately receiving the cash, with hopes and expectation that the price of the stock will fall. Then you can buy back the loaned amount of shares and keep the difference. How hedge funds were allowed to do this, while at the same time, some brokerages weren’t allowing MMTLP to be purchased at all by the public is perplexing. According to some in the wallstreetbets group who claim to have credible sources, the security was shorted well beyond the amount of shares that exist. When a company is heavily shorted, there is a simulation of low investor confidence. The price of the stock dips because so many shares are being sold in a short amount of time. Ask yourself why would a hedge fund be allowed to do such a complex transaction, if the average Joe couldn’t even do simple transactions like buying on the same symbol?

With the hard deadline for the MMTLP spinoff approaching, countless shares of the security would need to be bought back by the hedge funds to close their short positions, which was set to send the price of the security soaring, or as wallstreetbets members say, “to the moon”. FINRA, “the powers that be”, decided to do what some unpopular referees do in American football. In the NFL, if a player fumbles and the opposing team picks up the ball, and runs in for a touchdown, the play can be reviewed, and depending on the video review, the defensive team can be credited for 6 points, or the ball can be placed back at the yard-line of the fumble if the offensive player was found to be “down by contact” post-review. In hindsight, they can get the RIGHT call and proper outcome with the help of review. However, if the referee whistles the play dead, the defensive team never has a chance to run the ball in for the touchdown, and the best possible outcome for the defensive team is never realized. Even if the defensive team’s coach challenges the call and it turns out that the offensive player really fumbled the ball, the defensive team never gets that moment of open play to score again. In a situation where there was a clear path to the end-zone, defensive teams often feel like losers, even if they are awarded possession, because of the opportunity to score they were robbed of.

FINRA whistled the play dead. Instead of allowing the living breathing markets to balance themselves, and the chips to fall where they may, the markets were trifled with by FINRA, and MMTLP was administratively and prematurely taken off the market on 12/09, days before the deadline. Investors never got to see just how many shares hedge funds needed to buy to close their short positions, and never got to see what that demand would have done to the price of MMTLP. The settlement of the shorts was handled under the table and off the books, mafia style. A hedge fund would have had to close its short positions and depending on how reckless the hedge fund had gotten with MMTLP shorts, the event may have wiped them out completely, causing any other stocks to dip, if in the proverbial blast radius that is said hedge fund’s portfolio. As the price of MMTLP went up, investors would have had the opportunity to sell their shares and reap the benefits of stock purchases at prices that some had waited over a year to see. Reports of suicide attempts and devastation for the people who were deemed less important than hedge funds by FINRA have rang out all over twitter and reddit. Are some hedge funds “too big to fail”? If so, shouldn’t the risks they’re allowed to take be regulated?

In this NFL analogy, FINRA is the referee, hedge funds are the offensive team, the winners, who fumbled the ball, and everyday investors, like the people in the wallstreetbets community, are the defensive team, the losers, who recovered the ball and looked to score before the play was blown dead. The unknown actor is the defensive team’s coach. Who challenges the ruling on the field? The damages are unknown since trade was stopped, but it is no question the ball was in the hands of the real shareholders of MMTLP, and they deserve more than Next Bridge Hydrocarbons‘ private stock. I hope to God this situation results in real change, new regulations on hedge funds and FINRA, and less market manipulation in the future. It stinks of corruption, and gives me little faith in the concept of the market being free flowing and administered ethically. At time of posting, this was the most recent update I received regarding the matter, and it leaves a sliver of hope for MMTLP shareholders. I hope things work out in their favor.

Missing Child: Losing Enzo

I’m going to tell you a story about a father, or at least a guy that thinks he is a father. From what I hear, he is pretty excited about the prospect of fatherhood, and considers it an awesome responsibility. How he came to be a father is far from conventional, but that didn’t paralyze him, and he was looking forward to everything he could comprehend about how his life would change from the moment he looked into the eyes of his own son. For him it was a dream, and his dream turned into a nightmare when his son went missing before he could ever lay eyes on him.

To tell this father’s story, there is only one name he would want you to know, and that’s the name of his boy, Enzo. For over 8 months he prepared with the child’s mother, though there was no romantic relationship between them. On nearly a weekly basis during the prenatal months, the expecting parents spent hours planning how the child would be taken care of. When angered, the mother threatened to run away with the child. Sometimes she humored the idea of co-parenting, but was strongly against broken homes. Because the father refused romantic relationship with the mother, the mother often wanted to abort the child or give the child up for adoption, and favored those options above allowing the father to raise the child absent of her involvement, even when assured no child support would be requested. You see, the mother had a bad experience growing up in a broken home and wanted no such life for her unborn child. At the same time, she wrestled with the thought of abortion. She knew the father wanted Enzo, even if it meant raising him alone. The mother knew how the father was preparing for the child, but was very upset when the father was out of town on the day she went into labor. She had not forgiven her own father for not being present for her mother when she was born. She decided to give the baby up for adoption, saying “He should have been there”. The father was denied access to any information about the child due to HIPPA though some US states have laws that allow anyone to inquire about the identity of a parent leaving an infant child at the hospital, emergency medical services station, or fire station. This situation would have to go to court, and that’s when things really take a turn for the worse.

The effect of COVID 19 caused delays in securing a court date. When a court date was finally set, Enzo would have been 5 months old. The first day in court, the mother’s lawyer submitted a motion to dismiss the case, stating that the child was left at the hospital, so the father should be required to gather any information from the hospital directly, as the mother’s parental rights had been forfeited. The judge denied this motion and ordered the parents to sort out their grievances in mediation. When the mediation date arrived, the mother was uncooperative, exercising her right to remain silent. When Enzo would have been about 6 months old the parents met in court again, and the judge thought it was reasonable to require the mother to disclose the hospital of which she gave birth. The mother gave this information begrudgingly. The father and his lawyer, spent the next few weeks contacting the hospital and worked their way up the chain of command until they got someone to acknowledge and obey the court order over HIPPA and disclose data they had in their system regarding mothers who left their infant at any of the hospital’s locations. There was no match on the mother’s name or child’s name at the hospital that was given in court, for all the reported hospital’s locations in the tri-county area. By the next time, the parents would appear in court, Enzo would have been just about 8 months old, and the father would have to begin apologizing to friends who gifted clothing for the baby’s first few months of life at the intimate baby shower he organized for Enzo weeks before birth. When the inconclusive report from the hospital record search was given to the judge, the mother would be sworn under oath for the first time, and asked to provide sworn testimony under penalties of perjury regarding where she gave birth. The mother, representing herself, stated under oath, that she did not know where she gave birth, and after 8 months, had forgotten. The judge then gave the father and his legal team the ability to search the mother’s phone because the mother reported to be in possession of a photograph of baby Enzo at the hospital, on the day the child was born, which could have been used for geolocation purposes. A private investigator and the father’s lawyer examined the mother’s phone and photo files of the child to no avail. The mother appeared in court with new representation 2 months later, and under oath stated she was never pregnant and the whole thing was made up. The father contests this, but his legal team has lost interest in his case, as it has taken longer than expected and has yielded little money for them. With proper, diligent representation, the father could get the information he needs to find if the baby was adopted, or if something more sinister has taken place of which the mother is trying to cover up. He maintains that he was in the presence of the mother the entire duration of her pregnancy, and even helped her to make a “paper mache” mold of her stomach at 7 months. He has several ultrasounds the mother gave him during the prenatal months that he is forced to cross-reference with local hospitals and clinics, when he gets off from work, due to stagnating support from his legal team.

Men like Enzo’s father, are in need of reform in the area of father’s rights, as well as financial assistance while awaiting on the law to mature around the issues of father’s rights. As Florida Governor DeSantis approves millions towards Father’s rights, there are fathers in desperate need of competent legal assistance. Not only should more Governors initiate similar initiatives in their states, but providing grants to help fathers secure better legal assistance would help since so few laws give the father any inherent rights to a child without DNA testing. When a father has been proven to have done due diligence with respect to establishing paternity, such a grant would allow swift legal paternity actions to be filed to overturn unjust adoptions, and also provide justice in cases when the mother may have acted criminally against her unborn child. Florida happens to be a state that has such laws that allow fathers to inquire about the identity of a parent leaving a child at a hospital, however no hospital would place this state law above HIPPA, even when pressured by a lawyer. The legal teams of hospitals have to be involved which wastes more precious time as the trail for children like Enzo grows colder by the day.

Positively Polarizing Times

The unjustified murder of George Floyd, the protests, and the riots combined with the already stressed economy, unemployment numbers, and unconquered COVID-19 pandemic has had a way of dividing the country in unprecedented fashion. Not only are we being divided into many subgroups based on our opinions on the issues of the day, but we are being much more open about it. The initial public response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with all of its Tik-Toks and social media challenges, has created a phenomenon where more people than ever before have become comfortable being themselves online and have begun welcoming the world into the more intimate parts of their personal life through social media. Americans are sharing images and videos of their children, pets, living rooms, eating habits, and love lives. Likewise, our followers and who we follow has increased and diversified, as more of the population has adopted use of social media platforms. In this time of controversy, Americans, in their newfound comfort for web broadcasted self-expression, are sharing their more intimate opinions and philosophies regarding the polarizing issues of the day. One’s political views has never been so public as it is today.

While the present times are exposing how we are different, they are also showing us how alike we are. The country’s use of the internet and social media has left us with very few barriers to information and very little censorship of ourselves with regard to our opinions, which is exposing how we share similar viewpoints on issues with demographics of people we’ve never associated ourselves with previously. Even in the context of our differences, we’re seeking an understanding of exactly why we have the differences we have with renewed enthusiasm. The time in quarantine has given us unprecedented exposure and acceptance of groups of whom we’ve never previously given our attention to. The people we’ve found refreshingly entertaining and inspiring during the early pandemic times, are now sharing their opinions with us on things like criminal justice reform and giving us unique angles on complex issues. All this opinion sharing is publicly dividing us into much more complex and uniquely diverse subgroups.

If you’ve been paying attention, you should have noticed how there isn’t only two groups or two opinions about the issues plaguing our society these days. There isn’t one unified Republican or Democratic opinion, neither is there one unified white or black opinion. Instead, we are able to see, now better than ever, how misaligned our stereotypes and biases are with reality. There are violent and peaceful people of all races and backgrounds. There are black people who refuse to protest for black issues, while there are white people who willfully stand against injustice in spite of their own personal risks. There are black people who refuse to be violent or loot businesses, and there are white people who are showing up to the scene for the sole purpose of looting. There are unique struggles for the small business owner that are blind to race, and the same for the struggles of the uneducated non-essential worker. For all the different ways a person can choose to identify themselves, there are those who are fine with how their life is working out, and there are those who are demanding change. If we wish, we can continue to focus on what divides us, but it is growing increasingly difficult to remain ignorantly affixed on race-based stereotypes and historical lies. History is repeating itself in a way, that won’t allow us to be passively ignorant because the truth is too frequently flashing across the screens of our timelines. Many are googling historical accounts of abuses of power in America and relearning the lessons fed to them in history classes.

Through research and understanding, we should take the time necessary to break down the mental barriers we’ve placed on people who don’t look like us, believe what we believe, or share our sexual preferences. If we adopt a new understanding and stop categorizing ourselves in all these outdated subgroups, we can have more honest conversations and treat each other as humans, and nothing more or less. This could potentially be a powerful lesson for our collective social consciousness, where “the majority” isn’t viewed as the white majority, but as the voting majority. The voting majority desires to live in peace, with all the rights and privileges the constitution affords the citizen of the United States of America. The voting majority could demand the government to make changes that benefit all people in the country and stop those in position of power from violating the rights of anyone.

This is a pivotal time where we should better understand the quote “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”, seeing first-hand how the issues that plagues me today can affect you tomorrow. This was illustrated in the supposed mismanagement of COVID-19 by the Chinese government which has resulted in global outbreak and an investigation into China’s actions by other allied nations. This is also illustrated in massive protest and outrage of the American public that is currently aimed at the criminal justice system of our country but has had collateral damage in the form of curfews and property damage that has affected people who never saw it coming. In the midst of division, there are Americans standing together today, that may have never stood next to each other if it were not for the combination of monumental events occurring back-to-back. It is clearer today than ever before, that our differences, as humans, are much less than our differences of opinions. It is clearer than ever before, that our socioeconomic status and education levels govern our choices much more than the color of our skin. As people organize and protest together, new and diverse networks are being formed and I predict this year’s voter turnout and voting results will be unlike anything of the past. The ability to construct a platform that reflects the sentiments of the voting majority, using all the statistical data made available in the last 6 months of social media activity, and the conclusion or lack of conclusion of the issues we currently face is going to make for an interesting election in November.

A Looter’s Mindset

I present to you, the backdrop. Humor with me this scenario…

You believe in the right to protest. You believe in the principle of “government for the people, by the people”. You believe it is the right of the people to stand up and voice their displeasure when their government does not serve them, or worse, wages war against them. In this scenario, you are a black person in America, and there are certainly black people who feel under siege by the police in their communities. This is your reality. You feel, in America, people with darker pigments of skin only benefit from the white majority being morally and financially divided on the issue of how to treat people who have similar skin tone as you. Surely, there are some who still believe you are less than human. Surely, there are some who will believe in your humanity but view your life as something less valuable than a white person’s life. Somewhere out there, there may even be some who believe you are created equal to a white person. Since the abolishment of Slavery in the USA, White America has wrestled with it’s divided opinions surrounding how to treat those classified as “black” in our society. People with brown skin have secured rights within society over the years, but brown people keep finding inconsistencies in society’s enforcement of the laws surrounding the violation of their rights.

The reality that White America is the real America and Black America is some cheap derivative is made painfully clear when you witness someone black being killed by the police on a video you watch from your social media timeline. The image of that person’s last moments on this earth is imprinted into your mind, and you follow the story in the news and on social media to learn more. You find out that no arrests have taken place, and your mind cannot fathom why. For you and people who look like you, the presence of physical evidence like the video you watched does not yield the same arrests that the video would yield if it were you in the video doing the killing. You are outraged.

You decide to protest, and you assemble with a group of other people who share your outrage on the injustice, some you know but most you do not. You hold your sign, yell your message to all that will hear. You reflect on the history of your people as you walk and chant, because the act of protesting in this way is reminiscent of the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Yet, your reality through the prism of the Civil Rights Movement only intensifies your outrage, making you increasingly determined to get more definitive change within the system that oppresses you and people like you. You want to finish what your people started years ago. What will you do differently to bring about the change they could not? You wrestle in your mind for an answer to this age-old question, understanding that both the nonviolent and violent actions of your people, together, led to the incremental changes of the Civil Rights era. Suddenly, you hear glass shatter nearby. Someone in the crowd has caused damage to a business, and people are beginning to enter the building and take things…

What happens next will differ for you based on the combination of a multitude of factors. Your personal core values and morality, your needs, your socioeconomic status and ability to provide your own needs, your familiarity with the business that was damaged, and your level of outrage are only a few of the factors that will dictate what you do next. In fact, if not merely provocateurs, the same contributing factors would be the likely motivation for the unknown person who damaged the building in the first place.

Consider the mindset of the immoral looter. For whatever reason, life experience has not given them the core values and morality to resist the temptation to steal. This person may shoplift on a normal day, merely because they have devised a scheme to get away with it. During a riot or protest, when the police are preoccupied, they could act with no respect or care for the just cause of the people assembled to protest injustice. This kind of person would even seek out such an environment to carry out their scheme, because it presents opportunity to escape consequence.

Consider the mindset of the need-based looter. This person develops a higher sense of morality when they themselves do not have a need. On a day when they just purchased the newest iPhone, they will be zealous about turning in a smartphone they found unattended at the Starbucks condiment counter to lost-and-found. However, when their current phone is “on the fritz”, stumbling upon a shiny new smart phone may be too good to pass up, even though they don’t feel completely right about taking it. This person could simply hear word that Target was broken into and show up to grab a TV because they wanted a new one.

Consider the mindset of the poor looter. This person lives their life on the edge of going without basic needs on a regular basis. This person may or may not be homeless, but they are living in poverty, nonetheless. If they have the opportunity to take something, they don’t have to know what it is or how valuable it is. They’re basic needs are on the forefront of their minds, so much so, that they would take anything and figure out it’s value later. This person could benefit greatly from riot in their community and would certainly seek out the opportunity to secure anything valuable for themselves in such an environment.

Consider the mindset of the vindictive looter. This person can justify doing wrong to those who they’ve associated as the source of their anguish. We all know someone who is vindictive. When given the opportunity to kick their enemy when they are down, they will most certainly take it. If there was a negative interaction with a representative of a business, it may be all this person needs to destroy and loot from the business.

Lastly, consider the mindset of the enraged looter. This person is in a genuine state of rage over the issues that plagues them. There is not much forethought to any of their actions and they are capable of almost anything in this dangerous mental state. They’re looting is out of their anger and it doesn’t have to be anything personal. They are reflecting their pain on the world around them in any way they can.

In America, especially during this time of pandemic, you cannot isolate any of these mindsets to only black people. You, most certainly, should not link the actions of any looter to the cause of the nearby protest. You could consider looting a byproduct of the cause for some, while most others are merely capitalizing off an opportunity for free goods while the law of the land is too preoccupied to enforce immediate consequences. Minus the unknown provocateurs, I believe the video footage of the George Floyd riots reflects the diversity of the people with these mindsets. However, if you tried to isolate these behaviors to only black people or tried to provide some statistical analysis of why the mentalities I discussed are more common among African Americans, you would only be highlighting factors created by systemic racism and highlighting the things that we should be trying to change rather than perpetuate.

Too often, the laws of our society fail to serve the black man and woman. If this yields lawless acts of the black man and woman, we should not pretend to not understand their reactions, whether we agree or disagree with the lawlessness. Looting has always been part of riots because of the lawless climate it creates. If someone would steal on a regular day, they would certainly loot during a riot. When the thing you want for yourself is right before you, nobody is going to stop you from taking it, and if you don’t take it someone else will because you’re surrounded by takers, only a higher sense of personal accountability and morality will stop you from doing so. You cannot fathom what you will do until put into position and presented the temptation of no immediate consequence. This is the mindset of the looter, yet this is ironically the mindset of the police officer abusing his or her power of authority and use of force. If we care about the lawlessness of the rioting looter, we have to care just as much about the lawlessness of the police officer. It is the African American’s desire for police officers to have a similar higher sense of morality and personal accountability in their use of force, yet we are still trying to fix the system that should hold them accountable when they they fail to protect and serve the black civilian. The black civilian only has the ability to loot in times of riot, while the police officer can exert their power over the black person at any time. Certainly, there are abuses the black person endures at the hand of police that are less severe than death. Yet, it is only in the extreme cases of wrongful death do you get the mass media response, subsequent protests, and occasional riots. It is my hope that law and order is reestablished across the board, that there may be justice for all lawlessness and less hypocrisy in the world.

Biden v Trump 2020: Old, White, and Unfiltered

As the country reacts to the news about Joe Biden’s possible miscue on “The Breakfast Club” interview with Charlamagne, I’m strapping myself in for what may be a wild ride to the polls in November.

Two old white guys, one democrat, one republican, both with mouth-filter issues. Should one be held to a higher standard than the other? Should only one be allowed to shoot his mouth off, unfiltered. Two old white guys who know they are to represent their parties in the presidential election. I expect they will both boast and speak very proudly to their respective bases from now until November. They will defend themselves and their records and paint themselves as profits who saw the drama of 2020 before it happened. Along the way, one of them may say things that will make groups of people feel uncomfortable and may upset a few communities. A scandal may resurface for one or both of them. With all that in mind, I hope there is no double standard, this time around.

Last election year, whether you love Hillary Clinton, or you hate her, she was a million times more presidential, in her presentation, in how she conducted herself, and in how she spoke on the issues. Every debate, when asked a question, she communicated competency on the issue, dropped a reference to her record on the issue if applicable, and explained how she would handle the issue if elected president. In the same debates, on the same questions, seconds before or seconds after, it was optional if Donald Trump ever explained what he would do about the issue, if elected. Yet, after the debate, when everyone weighed in with their analysis, Trump was praised when he simply “held it together”.

It is my hope that this year, when the country looks at their televisions, and listens to these two old, white, and unfiltered gentlemen, they’re treated as equals in the post-debate analysis. I hope the media, and the nation holds the two of them to an equal standard. For free, I hope nobody wonders how we got here. I hope nobody bothers to say, “I’m not voting for either of these guys”. Come November, if Trump doesn’t pass from complications related to hydroxychloroquine, I hope the majority of the nation looks at these two guys, acknowledges that one of them will be elected, and chooses one or the other based on their understanding of the issues and ability to articulate their plan of action to “Heal America”. Because, man, “Heal America” could easily be someone’s campaign slogan. America is hurt, America is sick, America is suffering, America is crying out for help. Americans need rehabilitation, Americans need therapy, Americans need healthcare, Americans need solutions.

Let us not give anyone any points on “holding it together”. Let’s educate ourselves on the issues as we quarantine. Let’s become smarter voters and understand how to make our votes count. Let us sign petitions, create SuperPACs of our own, and take actions to make the issues that plague our communities part of the conversation, and vote on the platforms of our candidate of choice. Let’s vote with our brains, and our conscience. Nobody should have been surprised when Trump used twitter as his platform of choice to communicate matters of national security. Nobody should be surprised how Trump answers tough questions from the press from the podium, given the way he answered questions on the debate stage. Trump always talks of his “numbers”, whether he’s talking about the polls or how many confirmed carriers or deaths associated with the COVID-19 virus the US has. To him, it’s a game of numbers, and if Biden comes in and plays the same game, I hope it is equally acceptable. I’m sure it’s obvious who I don’t plan to vote for, but regardless of the outcome, I hope the double standards of 2016 don’t resurface in 2020.

Equal Pay for All

Violations of the law of anti-hypocrisy must stop wherever it may rear its head. Whether you learned it as “love thy neighbor as thy self” or “Would you like that if your sister did that to you?” almost everyone has been taught the concept of anti-hypocrisy by a person that loved them at an early age. It is something that is assumed we all know, and it should be obvious we do not all live by it. This principle shapes our laws of ethical business practices, criminal law, and is the spirit of fairness. It is the spirit of sportsmanship, and the spirit of many sacred things that we as humans hold dear like the price for food and commodities. You want a “fair price” don’t you? You want the umpire to call a “fair game” and you want “fair pay” for the work you do…Oops…Maybe I shouldn’t go there. Since there are still companies that pay women less money when they do the same work as men. Just as well, employers are still paying black people less than white people for the same job…but wait…Where does that leave black women?

If John negotiates a great salary for his project management position, it should be considered unethical to pay anyone less, with similar experience, at the same office, for the same position, if hired after John. John set the bar, and everyone else benefits from the bar he set. Is this not fair? Is this not what equal pay for equal work is all about? Sometimes there is no way to know what John negotiated, unless you ask him. But should you have to ask? The company knows, and they should acknowledge what the position is worth to them and should pay all future employees that amount. On the back end, when reviews are given, any person excelling at John’s position should be given a raise to get them somewhere within range of the new standard pay for the position.

Violation of the law of anti-hypocrisy has to end. Let’s start paying people fairly. If anyone, white man, black man, red man, method man, or orange man perform the same job, for the same organization, with similar or offsetting credentials (education, experience, certification, etc.), lets pay them the same. Let us govern our pay scale as they do in the NBA, NFL, FIFA Soccer Leagues, etc. If a starting quarterback at the top of his game negotiates a record contract from his team, it helps all the rest of the starting quarterbacks at the top of their game in the NFL. The same goes for NBA players and soccer players. Why should it be any different for INSERT OCCUPATION HERE?

Essential Value

Essential Value

As the number of unemployed continues to rise in America, it is painfully clear that, in addition to health, the financial worlds of many have been shaken by this COVID-19 pandemic. Those of us fortunate enough to still have our jobs, are doing what we must to keep them. Empathize with me, the stress of the Essential worker who has to continue to get up in the morning and commute to their jobsite, as if none of this is going on. It’s hardly “business as usual”. Imagine the fear of being infected by a co-worker and bringing that infection home to the ones you love. Imagine witnessing coworkers quit or elect to stay home without pay in order to prevent exposure, and wondering if you’re doing the right thing by continuing to work to provide for yourself and your family. Imagine how hard it might be to go to work, when you actually know someone, personally, who has been very sick or, worse, has perished from this deadly virus. You’re receiving the same paycheck but at a greater risk than ever before. If at no other time in your life, you may do some cost to benefit analysis of taking advantage of the government assistance that is available versus continuing to leave your home. If at no other time in your life, you may consider many new avenues to get what you consider “essential”.

Now then, imagine you’re a warehouse worker for Amazon, Target, Walmart, or a similar company. How could your employer make you feel like you’re essential to them? What if your employer provided an exclusive shopping experience for you, their essential worker? Would that make you feel important? If it were me, I’d say, “It’s a good start”. As an essential worker, why should you have to go without the essential goods that have all but disappeared from the markets? If you’re picking, packing, and shipping the very toilet paper, hand soaps, bottled waters, and other items you find impossible to secure when you get off from work and head to the super market, wouldn’t it be awesome to have some exclusive access to buy those items directly from your employer? I asked someone, who works for Amazon, how they would like to have an “employees only” store, and they’re response to me was insightful. “We have to look at the stuff all day anyways”, they said. They compared working at the fulfillment center to window shopping. I figure it’s a lot like working at the mall. You’re seeing all kinds of things you want to try out, along with items you feel like you need. As you’re working, you’re subconsciously creating this shopping list based on the items you’re seeing throughout the workday, like ads you see as you scroll through your social media feed. As if these essential workers didn’t have to deal with enough, they’re being teased all day at work, sometimes coming in direct contact with items they’ve run out of at home.

Many are extending their gratitude to the essential worker, and while simply having a job is a clear and obvious blessing in this economic climate. This time has given us unique perspective on specific job functions within our society. The essential worker contributes to society in such a way that we cannot do without them. They’re part of an ecosystem that keeps our nation going and keeps us all alive. They shouldn’t have to go without the things they need for their families, and, if only during this time, they should be paid better wages for their health risk. Let’s give our essential workers hazard pay, and let them know we appreciate their sacrifice.

America’s Grand Re-Opening

The states of America are not so united on how to handle the economic pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic. As states like New York, continue to plan, and states like Georgia, seemingly, throw caution to the wind, our nation appears as divided on how to deal with the Wuhan coronavirus issue as any issue that happens to fall on the cracks of political party lines. While many shout to the heavens, “this is a health crisis, not a political one”, some factors of the issue strike political nerves at their very roots. Republicans believe in shrinking government involvement in private matters, in preservation of freedom. Democrats have a more “save the people from themselves” approach to governing, because they know that the people look to the government to make decisive actions, or at least set the standards, on many issues that affect the masses, like healthcare. When you consider those perspectives, it becomes a lot clearer to understand that the confusion surrounding this issue, like any other political drama, is the cause of unwillingness to compromise.

The more right of center your viewpoints are, the more likely you are to believe that the government should stay out of the way and let people do what they feel is best for themselves and their families. The truth of the matter is, the quintessential “American Way” of governing should not involve country-wide mandates, telling people how to do what is best for themselves and their businesses. Frankly, telling the masses to stay home and forcing businesses to close their doors is very similar to what Obama called “crippling sanctions”, only these sanctions aren’t to prevent nuclear weapons from being created abroad, they’re sanctions on American businesses. The American businessman and woman who, like the rapper Roddy Ricch says, “got it out the mud”. These business owners do not want to sit around and watch their hard work go up in smoke. As a business owner, I would want the opportunity to conduct my business in the safest way possible, in effort to save what I’ve worked so hard to build. Owners of businesses, small or large, have a responsibility not just to their own families, but to the families of their employees and the people who demand their goods and services. Shouldn’t it be a business owner’s right to conduct their business, if they believe they can tweak their business practices to the safety standards set in place?

The more left of center your viewpoints are, the more likely you will believe that the masses cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to health issues, because the average person isn’t a health expert. Daily, on the news and on social media, you can see the confusion of the masses. The death tolls are rising, and the loss of life is a cost that cannot be repaid. The virus is still so new that even the experts are changing their story on how to combat it. You don’t have to be an expert to know the country isn’t ready to go back to how it was at the new year. Many feel this time is a break that the planet needs to heal as carbon emissions are at record lows, and many companies are already changing their business practices to allow people to work from home. This could, very well, be a re-tooling moment for the American workforce. The nation could benefit greatly if more people took advantage of education and training resources, becoming more tech-savvy and computer literate. App downloads are way up as more people step outside their comfort zones to find new comforts. Online Shopping and video conferencing are just a few ways people are continuing old habits, in new ways, and it’s about time. It’s about time more companies offered work from home positions, it’s about time more companies invested in their network infrastructure and data security, it’s about time more people invested in themselves and their own talents through entrepreneurship, it’s about time for many changes that have come with being placed outside of our comfort zones. We all want this to come to a safe, peaceful end, right?

In conclusion, whether your viewpoints are right or left, we all can be right on this issue if we meet in the middle. We must all demand for competent direction from our leaders. Both Democrat and Republican citizens have been told their jobs are not essential, but no one disputes that taking care of your family is essential. Business owners shouldn’t be forced to close by the government, especially when the government has no means to cover the losses. That would be disenfranchisement of the American business owner. However, business owners who don’t want to close their doors need detailed guidelines that spell out, plainly, the acceptable standards for conducting business safely in this pandemic environment. If a business cannot meet the standard set in place, they can, at least, focus on a new business or make the necessary adjustments to become compliant. Without enforceable standards, businesses are free to do “due diligence” measures which may not maximize safety by minimizing the spread of infection. Without clear standards, the consumer cannot make educated decisions on whether they want to patronize a business. Now more than ever, we need leadership at the highest positions in our nation to be on the top of their game. The futures of all our children depends on it.