Why stop printing?

In order to save money, the government is going to stop printing “the roadmap[s] of the ocean,” which are charts that “tell you what’s under the water.” Knowing what is in your pathway “is critical for navigation.” When the government stops printing nautical charts after mid-April, “sailors, boaters and fishermen will have to use private on-demand printing, PDFs or electronic maps to see the information.” The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is still going to chart the water for hazards, such as rocks or shipwrecks.

Even though “most people instead use the [more up-to-date and accurate] on-demand maps printed by private shops,” many prefer to use the nautical charts, and they “say they will miss the charts, which [are also] used as decorations.” Newburyport, Mass., harbormaster Paul Hogg says, “[i]t’s the nautical history, you know, pirates and ships.” He has a chart hanging on his wall. “It seems more nautical. There’s just kind of, like, a feel to it.” It seems to me that the people that prefer the old charts like them because of the historical feel to it. At New York Nautical, store manager James “Smitty” Smith prefers the old nautical charts because they’re “more soothing on the eyes.” He also admits that he “sells far more of the current on-demand map on the lighter weight, whiter paper” and he “saw the end of the old-fashioned maps coming.” He closes by saying “[t]here must be some art value in them because a lot of people love them.”

I don’t see why the government is going to stop printing these nautical charts. They sell the maps “for about $20 apiece, the same amount it costs to print them.” If they weren’t losing money from this to begin with, then how would it be saving money to stop printing them? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pays “about $100 million a year to survey and chart the nation’s waters.” They are planning to “still spend the same money, but provide the information in the less traditional way.” In my opinion, the decision to stop printing the nautical charts is unnecessary. If it is the same money that the agency is spending and earning, then they should have both products be available to consumers. If all of the options were still available, then they would not lose any sales from the people that like the old-fashioned charts. 

Source: "Federal government to stop printing nautical charts" by Associated Press, from foxnews.com published October 22, 2013

The Effect of Obamacare on Job Numbers

Obamacare is a very controversial topic. It could either help or destroy the economy, depending on how you view it. There are so many different views from so many different people on the effect that Obamacare has on jobs and businesses. IHS, a global firm hired to provide analysis of labor trends, does not even mention the Affordable Care Act in their most recent report about factors affecting employment numbers in Texas, which was published last year. Michael Lindenberger says that "the company said that's because it's not clear how or even if the act will affect net employment across the country, or in Texas."

Lindenberger starts off by saying that "Texas' two senators and many other critics of the Affordable Care Act keep saying it will cost America jobs just when it needs them the most." He also says that "senator Ted Cruz said last weekend that the law 'hands down, is the biggest job killer in this country'," and that "that's not happening yet- and probably won't, say labor economists, nonpartisan experts and some Dallas-area business leaders." In my opinion, since I have read so many different views on the topic, it is safe to say that there is no solid answer to whether or not Obamacare is helping or hurting jobs and businesses. There are too many different opinions out there from different people, and even the statistics aren't clear as to whether or not Obamacare has had a positive or negative impact on jobs in the country. Lindenberger says that University of Texas economics professor Daniel Hamermesh says "Obamacare will create some incentives to reduce hours or trim workforces, since insurance costs could rise. But they say the law will also benefit many of those same companies, leading to new jobs and longer workweeks for some." Lindenberger then asks "How exactly will that balancing act pan out?"

Michael Lindenberger's article goes on to basically tell you about many different views of Obamacare from people. Many say it is helpful, many say it will do nothing, and many say it could go either way. "You can raise hours for some at the expense of others and not affect the average workweek. Depending on the balancing, employment either goes up or down. There is no one-way answer," says Mike Montgomery, the U.S. economist for international information and analytics firm IHS. "Mathematically, Obamacare's impacts on job numbers could go either way," he says.

Source: "Economists: Obamacare's impact on jobs likely to be minimal" by Michael A. Lindenberger, from dallasnews.com. 10/12/13

Paying for Sunlight

Every hour, the sun beams onto Earth more than enough energy to satisfy global energy needs for an entire year. Sunlight is already free, but power companies want you to pay if you are using it to make electricity. Utilities say that solar-friendly rate plans are too generous, allowing solar customers to avoid paying for the grid even though they use it. It is becoming more difficult for the utility industry to hold onto customers since U.S. homes and businesses are becoming more efficient and are generating their own electricity. With some of the new fees or rate changes being pushed by utilities, rooftop solar systems would not be economical.

Solar energy is the technology used to harness the sun's energy and make it usable. Today, the technology produces less than one tenth of one percent of global energy demand. Rooftop solar has become a mainstream way to save money on power bills, and utilities are now afraid they will lose so many customers that they won't be able to afford to build and maintain the grid. Solar energy use has surged at about twenty percent a year over the past fifteen years, thanks to rapidly falling prices and gains in efficiency. Solar systems have dropped in price rapidly and grown to be more popular during a time when U.S. electricity use is flat or even declining. More customers are buying drastically less power when they generate their own with solar panels, fuel cells or other distributed generation technologies. This reduces the need to build big power plants and transmission lines, which is how utilities expand their businesses, make a profit for shareholders and keep their borrowing costs low. Regulators allow utilities to make higher profit when they build large projects.

Some power companies are putting forward the idea of an extra fee for solar customers. Utilities have proposed charging special fees or rolling back power-swapping rate plans in Georgia, Arizona, California and Idaho. In California, legislators voted to allow the state's solar rate plan to continue, but it would change the way the state's structures rates in a way that may address utilities' concerns. Arizona Public Service Co. officials propose either charging new solar users a rate that reclaims more of the utility's costs or reducing the benefit of the energy-swapping program.

"If I turn off my lights, the power company shouldn't send me a bill," suggests James Marlow, CEO of Radiance Solar in Atlanta. Power companies have said that Marlow should at least pay for the option of turning the lights back on when the sun is not shining. Now, the question is how much.

Source: "Clouds appear for solar users as utilities seek to recoup grid costs" by The Associated Press, from Dallas Morning News. 10/6/13