DEI Initiatives are a Fool's Game

Why do we need DEI initiatives anyway? Frankly, the entire idea of it is simply stupid. What the focus should be on for businesses is to simply hire qualified people. Period. End of story. No further discussion needed. If not enough gay or transgendered people get hired, or Mexicans, or blacks or any other group that might be in the DEI pool, it should not be a question of businesses creating opportunities. It should be a question for the people who would be considered to be in the DEI pool to qualify themselves better.

If the question comes up, "Why do you not have any transgendered (name your job title)?" the answer should be simple. "We hire the most qualified individuals to perform jobs based on criteria that is the same for everyone. If we do not have any transgendered people in that job now it is because from the pool of candidates, none were more qualified than who we ultimately hired."

Granted, there will still likely be backlash. "That's just an easy way to get out from under your bigotry," some might accuse them of. But isn't it bigotry to even have DEI in the first place? Think about it. What does it say to someone who gets hired just because they happen to be gay, black, Mexican or transgendered? 

Were it not for our DEI program, you'd never have been able to succeed in getting this job on your own.

So, now it is admirable and respectable to be chosen for a job to serve as a token for the company to wave around rather than because the job was actually earned? How degrading. At least it would be to me. I would think it would be to most people.

Of course, the reality is that DEI initiatives are unpopular, and companies are finally starting to understand this, which is why many have pulled back their initiatives. Companies like Ford and Target and Anheuser-Busch for example. 

For one thing, it serves no purpose for the business to hire unqualified people, and it alienates customers. So, it's really a lose-lose situation. Of course, any company now has to quietly walk back from their initiatives since they are afraid of back lash from the other side, even though the largest customer base will be from conservatives who will applaud pulling away from DEI.

It's another reason why businesses should always avoid treading into political waters. Their purpose is to sell stuff, and in order to be successful at doing that, they need to simply do things that sell products. All the other stuff is not conducive to good business and should be avoided.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Next Market Run Could Last 20 Years: Here's Why I Think So

No one's talking about it—not that I've seen or heard anyway. But I think the stock market is on the brink of a massive, long term growth spurt. Despite any economic pressures we might face, this could last for at least the next 20 years.

Now, I admit, I have zero data to back this up. It's purely my gut feeling. And yes, I might be a little crazy. But hear me out: Two words.

Baby boomers.

I mean, think about it—if there's one group poised to rake in truckloads of cash, it's the baby boomers. And let me tell you, there are a lot of them out there.

Now, I'm not suggesting that every single baby boomer is going to glide into retirement with a golden parachute. We know the sobering statistics about many entering their golden years financially unprepared. But still, there's plenty to consider that teases the idea of a significant influx of spendable cash hitting the market over the next two decades.

How many billions—maybe even trillions—have been locked up in 401k plans since the 1980s, now coming due for distribution? What about all those pensions and Social Security checks being cashed in? And let's not forget the baby boomers downsizing their homes, unleashing loads of cash tied up in unrealized equity.

The money floodgates are about to open, folks. In fact, they might have already begun to flow. The stock market has been on an incredible tear for a long time, marking one of the longest bull runs in history. The money has to be coming from somewhere, and a good chunk of it might just be coming from baby boomers already.

It's worth keeping in mind as well that these baby boomers are well past their saving years. They've already done that and now they're ready to enjoy the fruits of their labors, which means they will likely be more freewheeling with their spending compared to those still working and saving for their futures.

They know they can't take their loot with them when they leave this Earth, so they're going to want to have a little fun while they can.

Again, let's not ignore the very real fact that many will still struggle through their retirement years. Those darned statistics. So, it won't be all fun and games for everyone. But that doesn't negate the fact that there's a lot of old money set to reenter the markets after being locked up for so long.

The money is coming. It's out there, sitting stagnant, with no choice but to be released.

It's not to suggest we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater and go all in and flood the markets with investable cash. It's simply something to consider about the future prospects and potential for more upside than we might typically see in the markets—the money has to go somewhere, and that means it has to be spent, and that means businesses will benefit from that spending and so will investors.

Maybe. Just maybe. But I have a strong sense it's probably true.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Ford's Long Road: Why its Consistency Keeps me Invested

Ford Motor Company might be the biggest bear in my portfolio, yet I've held this stock off and on for over 30 years and still own shares today. Despite its lackluster performance, I believe Ford is a company worth owning, and its recent dip in share price might present a good opportunity.

I have to admit, my belief in Ford comes with a grain of salt. Nearly 20 years ago, when OneShare was a thing, I bought a share of Ford for my nephew, complete with a framed stock certificate, because he was showing interest in investing. That share cost a little over $9 back then, and today, it's trading around $11 a share.

Granted, it's not all bad. The stock has hit highs in the mid-20s over the years. But overall, it's been a sideways performer. It's also no dividend aristocrat, although you'd think it might be, having suspended its dividend in 2020 during the pandemic and only restoring it in Q4 2021. Still, with a current yield of 5.76%, the dividend offers an attractive opportunity to earn while you wait.

Generally, my approach to trading Ford has been to buy shares under $12 and sell them once they exceed $15. Rinse and repeat. Ford's historical data over the past 40+ years shows consistent cycles, so I don't anticipate any significant stock runs soon. Therefore, I view Ford as a place to simply park money for the yield and occasional gains as it presents a fair overall return beyond just the dividend.

Think of it as a "savings account with benefits." Sure, Ford could suspend its dividend again—a valid concern given their last earnings call and forward guidance, which weren't stellar despite beating top-line and earnings per share estimates. However, considering Ford's current position, I believe the dividend is safe for the foreseeable future. The recent drop in share price stems from Ford's less than impressive outlook, which didn't inspire investor confidence, leading to a 6% dip in post-call trading.

One area of concern and nervousness is Ford's EV division, which has still shown impressive growth despite the overall downward pressures in the EV market. Even though the EV division only accounts for 3% of Ford's overall business, it could still impact revenues, especially as it continues to be a loss-maker. Any significant drop in EV sales in the near future can potentially negate any strides made in more profitable areas of their business, becoming a major drag on their bottom line.

The bottom line for me is that whenever I evaluate Ford's stock, despite its perpetually stagnant share price, what stands out, at least in my opinion, is Ford's consistently strong position. Something I think many investors ignore. Over the years, management has navigated tough waters in a highly competitive market, keeping the company moving forward, maintaining impressive cash levels, and keeping debt relatively low. Even back in 2008, when the government bailed out the ailing auto industry, Ford opted out and pulled through with flying colors.

Ford's stock may never be the most thrilling investment I ever own, but I believe it continues to have value despite some forward-looking hurdles. It holds a place in my portfolio because, while it may never make me rich, I'm confident it won't make me poor either. Sometimes a steady and reliable investment, despite many ups and downs, is just what you need to balance out the highs and lows of a more volatile market. For me, Ford offers that stability, making it a worthwhile investment to continue to hold.

When I say, "Ford's not going anywhere any time soon," sure, I may be saying Ford isn't going through the roof, but I am also saying it's not going through the floor either.

Disclaimer: This information is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered as financial advice. It is important to always do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions or to seek the counsel of a certified financial planner or other financial professional. Jim Bauer currently holds shares of Ford Motor Company stock and intends to buy more shares following the publication of this article.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to know more about the stock market and how to invest? Consider reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Any proceeds from the sale of this book helps to support this page and to continue to deliver content of interest and is greatly appreciated.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

There You Go Again, myLot: Can You Ever Just Stop Being Mean to Members?

It pains me to continually have to write bad press about myLot, a social interaction community that pays its members to interact with each other. At the same time, there is an old saying about staying out of "the news."

If you don't want to be in the news, don't create the story.

I like myLot, and I want to be very clear about that. I would not have stuck around with the site as long as I have if that were not the case. And generally speaking, my experience there is mostly fun and rewarding, especially since it is a rather tightknit community of people who reside there. They almost become like family and friends, even if it is rather unlikely you will ever meet anyone there in person.

However, admin, and I would say even the ownership, is another story, and it wasn't always this way. But it has been this way over the past three or more years, and maybe a bit longer actually. Not good.

The way admin conducts themself, and I should point out that it has been different people during this time, is rude, condescending and quite disrespectful toward members, and blatantly so. And this has been true of at least the last three of them.

I often question why this is. Because as I have stated many times before, the members of myLot are the heart of the site. They are the only reason it even exists. What exactly is the point of driving a wedge between the people who moderate the site and the members who interact within it?

Most who have no ill intentions, mind you, who are operating within the site.

Sites such as myLot, as well as other social media platforms, all have rules, and there's no rocket science behind understanding why they are there, and even why they are important. It's the glue that keeps everything working smoothly so that everyone participating on the site can have a good experience and be free from certain people who may not have the best interests of the site or the community at hand.

And by the way, admin should have the capacity to know who those people are, and who those people aren't. You should also afford any good member at least some leeway when it comes to enforcing the rules since while we are all aware of them, we're not necessarily going to remember every single detail about them.

It happens. We're human. It's not to say that the rules are as complex as say, the tax code. But you're still not bound to remember every little detail. 

Granted, and I have said this many times before about myLot, I will admit some of the rules are a bit weird. But I'm not here to critique that, other than to simply say some of the rules are weird. It's my opinion. The site owners are well within their rights to disagree with me about that.

My issue is more about the manner in which admin interacts with the community and the lack of concern, it seems, from the owners regarding how members feel about that. I have expressed concerns in the past directly to them, and never received a response.

That is, by the way, a response. They simply don't care. Even if they don't say the words, the non-response speaks for itself.

What leads me to this current rant, if you want to call it that, was a post that was deleted by admin that was discussing a lapse in earnings updates at HubPages, a site where writers write articles or blogs and publish them.

There is no rule against writing about other earning platforms on myLot. But they do have a rule about adding a link to the site you are talking about. I am aware of the rule. However, I had simply forgotten about it. So, the reason the post was deleted was not because of the content, but rather because it did not link back to HubPages.

A very minor infraction, mind you. And not one that should, in any case, illicit a holier than thou response from admin.

As is my personal rule, I contacted admin to learn why the post was deleted and based on former interactions with admin that I have had before, I gave a response to it. I will grant, one might suggest my response could be construed as rather immediately "combative" in nature. But if you understand the full back story, the response to my post being deleted, and the reason I worded it the way I did, actually makes sense.

It's not like, when it comes to admin, that it has ever been unclear that I will not challenge them whenever I feel it is necessary. So, is it just to antagonize me in some way? They seem to dislike any member who doesn't bend to their power. And of course, I am not one of them.

I said, "If you decide to delete a post of mine, I do expect an advance notice and an explanation. It's called courtesy. Just letting you know."

Many members have posts deleted often with no explanation, and while it is clear that admin is not required to offer one, I am often perplexed what purpose it serves not to? Especially when most members are not out to break rules intentionally or are otherwise engaged in "nefarious" activities.

If the only problem with the post that was deleted was that it needed to have a link added, there is an edit function for our posts. Admin could have easily sent a friendly reminder for me to simply add a link, and all would have been good.

But instead of taking a practical approach, admin chooses to continually assert some form of "authority" over members that I think, serves no purpose other than to stroke the egos of a person who has been put in a position to be in charge of something that goes right to their head—and let's face it. The people the owners choose to do this are not necessarily at the top of the food chain. Hey, let's be real. It's myLot where, believe it or not, some people earn $5-$10 a month and refer to myLot as a job! 

The former admin was an elderly pot smoking dude who lived with his dad, living on the government teat.

Not exactly the cream of the crop, as you might say. It was often quite the ponderance, to try to figure out how many tokes of the bong he took before getting really nasty with some members, running myLot like a prison camp. "Do as I say or else!"

The response I got from admin was exactly of the sort I am always used to, and so it was no surprise. Nasty, rude, condescending, as well as demeaning. "I will refer you to the Terms you agreed to when joining which state I am not required to tell you when or why something gets deleted. However, if you want to know why, I will tell you. There is a 4-year old discussion by a previous Admin stating you must add a link to a site when discussing other earning sites. Yours was the third such discussion I have deleted in the past week for not adding links (all from members who should know better), and now I believe I am simply no longer going to allow discussions about other earning sites."

Besides the response being poorly written, it belittles members and is quite accusatory. But again, why is there so much animosity dealt toward members of the community, which seems constantly apparent when dealing with admin? I mean, I simply forgot to add a link. This requires swift and decisive action delivered with a commanding blow?

It's myLot remember, for crying out loud. A place where we talk about what we did that day and what we had for dinner. Sometimes there are deeper discussions. But that's pretty much the bulk of them. Menial and rather trivial things that even most people outside the site, if the posts came up in search, wouldn't even remotely be interested in reading about.

So, these are largely inside discussions. The site doesn't seem to care much if organic traffic waddles in. It makes its money by the ads members see. No one else. And I think the owners are realistic when it comes to knowing myLot will never be a multi-million-dollar enterprise. It's just a tiny site that lives on the Internet with a handful of people playing around on it that the owners might be able to make a car payment with.

I'll grant you, even my own response should be, it's just myLot. Who cares? A post got deleted. It wasn't important. It's not important. I might have lost two cents if I am lucky. But it's, of course, the principle of it. And I am big on principle.

I did write to the owners of the site on this one, simply asking the question, "I am curious why you continue to put admin in place that is rude and disrespectful, as well as rather condescending toward members here?"

I will await their response, but if past history is any indication of future results, I am pretty sure my concerns have once again fallen on deaf ears and admin will go about his or her business as usual, waving their iron fists over member's heads. 

I would very much like to give the owners an opportunity to share their thoughts on the issue. But I have no expectation that they will do that.

Either way, I have a platform outside of myLot to talk about it. And of course, that's exactly what I will do. That is exactly what I did here. myLot hates bad press enough that they don't allow any negative commentary regarding myLot within their walls. Yet, they always forget that some of us who are on that site have bigger audiences outside of it, and the commentary that gets put out here will be far more scathing than anything that might get put inside of it.

But hey, just in case Blogspot happens to have its own internal Gestapo lurking around the edges waiting to pounce on me, I'll be sure to leave a link below to myLot that you are welcome to peruse at your leisure.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to check out myLot, you can click the link here to learn more.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Well, What Do We Have Here? The FCC, CBS and Kamala Harris

Is this sort of like a James Comey moment when he had just a small shred of integrity in 2016 when he announced just days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, supposedly on the merits?

Oh wait. No. It wasn't that at all. He was sure that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump, and he thought releasing that information would offer him some cover, just in case he was wrong about that. You see, if you remember, Trump had some very serious questions about Comey's actions, even suggesting some of them may be criminal, and if Trump would have control of the Justice Department, that could present some issues for Comey.

Well, that and his thought that if the information were to come out after Clinton was elected, she'd be considered an illegitimate president. According to Hillary, she contended that Comey's announcement, which came on October 28th, 11 days before the November 8th election, was part of the reason she lost.

Now we have a formal complaint filed with the FCC by the Center for American Rights regarding the recent CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that was found to be edited in a way that could be an effort to mislead the American people.

A serious accusation, by the way, and one that the FCC may have to also take seriously. But it also opens a broader speculation, which has always been clear to some people, but now may wind up being clearer to more people similar to Comey's announcement.

"Maybe Clinton did actually do something bad here. And even something very illegal."

"When broadcasters manipulate interviews and distort reality, it undermines democracy itself," said Daniel Suhr, who is the president of the Center for American Rights. The FCC must act swiftly to restore public confidence in our news media."

It's one thing to believe that the media has it "in the bag" for Kamala Harris. It's entirely another for it to be glaringly obvious and irrefutable. On top of that, it's dangerous that certain details be kept from the public in an obvious attempt to protect her.

When she was asked about American-Israeli relations, in the aired interview she answered, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end." What she actually said was, "Well Bill, the work we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in that region."

As Suhr put it, it's not about editorial considerations in the news media. It's about distorting the news, which falsely represents a candidate or otherwise causes people to potentially have a different view.

Gosh, where has he been in the past decade or so regarding Trump news coverage? But I digress.

The thing is that, and not that it's all that big a surprise, the news media is covering for Kamala Harris and have been for a long time, just like they were covering for Joe Biden. It's simply wrong. It's not the media's job to campaign for or provide cover for candidates. It's their job to report the truth, fair and simple. They owe it to the American people to do that because every time we turn on the news, we are supposed to trust them to give it to us straight, and that trust has been eroding for a very long time. Things like this just serve to speed up that erosion.

There's a bit of a deeper question here as well. So, that clip was found. Or was it leaked? Perhaps by someone within CBS who is not favorable to Harris? Hey, they can't all be die-hard liberals, can they? The clip came out before the "edited" interview aired. But unlike other interviews, CBS has thus far refused to release the transcripts of the full interview.

The question is why? What other answers were edited? Were there some word salads in there that someone thought, "Oh, we probably don't want to show that?" Or, worse, some worse answers that would cause some people to cringe a little bit at the thought of her being in the White House?

Because we know how she talks. We've seen it too many times to count in the past. And we know that she's had great cover since she was announced as the Democratic nominee, making a concerted effort to keep her well on script to reign her in as much as possible.

Whether or not the FCC does anything with the complaint is to be seen. But perhaps there may be some political considerations in acting or not acting similar to political considerations Comey made in 2016. Either way, the filing is in the news. People are going to know about it. Will this revelation of an edited interview have any impact in November? That's to be seen.

I mean, I do think we are reaching a tipping point of some sort here when it comes to the media. From wall-to-wall negative Trump coverage to the cover up of Joe Biden's health and hiding policy positions Harris had before she was the nominee and making her seem like an entirely different person than she was.

I think consumers of news are becoming a bit fatigued and are tired of the lies and misleading coverage.

What the FCC has to decide now is whether they want to ensure they have some cover no matter who wins in November. Because this kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and Trump wins and he might direct the FCC to do something, or Harris wins, and they have to look like they are acting in an actual regulatory manner as opposed to doing the bidding of a political party.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer