The man responsible for making March Madness the moneymaking bonanza it is today – CWEB.com

Rick Eckstein, Villanova University

In a legendary “South Park” episode lampooning the NCAA, the character Eric Cartman asks a university president if he can purchase some of his “slaves” — er, “student-athletes” — who play men’s basketball.

“How do you get around not paying your slaves?” Cartman wonders.

The outraged university president kicks Cartman out of his office. But if the president were being honest, all he would have to do is utter one name: Walter Byers.

Byers served as the NCAA’s first executive director from 1951 to 1988. During this period, the NCAA evolved from an insignificant advocate of athletic integrity into an economic powerhouse.

One critical piece of this growth was the creation of a narrative about the amateur purity of college sports. Walter Byers, who made “student-athlete” part of the American lexicon, played a central role in this enterprise. The NCAA, meanwhile, would become increasingly reliant on March Madness to finance its operations.

Cashing in on March Madness

Contrary to popular belief, college football provides the NCAA with almost no revenue.

A landmark 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that TV revenues for college sports would go to the various athletic conferences rather than to the NCAA. The NCAA still “regulates” college football. It just doesn’t get a piece of the pie.

The same is true for regular season and conference tournament college basketball games. Only March Madness makes money for the NCAA since it is run by the NCAA and schools are “invited” to play in it. Indeed, for many years schools often chose to play in the more prestigious National Invitation Tournament, which, since it was held in New York City, received much more of the media attention that colleges craved.

By the end of the 1960s, though, the NCAA tournament started to become more appealing to colleges than the National Invitation Tournament. Under Byers’ quiet direction, the NCAA invited a larger number of teams to its tournament and paid all of their expenses. This subsidy was made possible by the organization’s then-significant broadcasting revenue from college football (which would subsequently end in 1985). The National Invitation Tournament couldn’t compete with this business model and eventually faded to second-class status.

Just how important is March Madness to the NCAA’s current financial health?

The annual tournament generates roughly US$900 million per year, good for over 80 percent of the NCAA’s total annual revenue. The NCAA uses the bulk of its income to run the organization, give payments to conferences and subsidize nonrevenue sports championships. Even so, the NCAA accumulated a surplus in 2014 of $81 million. Tournament revenue is slated to reach $1.1 billion per year after 2025.

It wasn’t always that way. In the 1970s, the tournament itself probably cost more than it made, although there is only scant anecdotal data on this. In 1982, the tournament generated about $17 million per year. Thus, tournament revenues increased 5,200 percent over 35 years, significantly outpacing inflation over that same period.

Expanded competition for broadcasting rights, fueled by the birth of cable channels like ESPN, turned this once sleepy tournament into the NCAA’s organizational cash cow.

The ‘student-athlete’ is born

But this moneymaker might not have developed at all if Walter Byers hadn’t coined the term “student-athlete” in the mid-1950s.

The term emerged as the NCAA defended itself in a worker’s compensation claim by the widow of Ray Dennison, who had died in 1954 while playing football for Fort Lewis A&M in Colorado. His widow likened college football to a full-time job, and argued that his death should be covered by state labor laws.

Byers and the NCAA’s lawyers countered that Dennison was a “student-athlete” participating in an extracurricular activity that just happened to be more dangerous than, say, singing in the glee club. The courts agreed with the NCAA.

Since then, Byers’ “student-athlete” moniker has become the semantic centerpiece for the NCAA’s claim that college sports is inherently noncommercial. You’ll rarely hear anyone in the college sports industry not use the term “student-athlete” when referring to varsity players.

Regrets, he had a few

Whether or not there really is such a thing as a “student-athlete,” the idea behind the phrase has served the NCAA well for over 60 years.

It allows the NCAA to advertise college basketball as a fundamentally different product than professional basketball — and a better product at that. They can say that March Madness isn’t filled by professional athletes and team owners only interested in making a buck. Rather, the participants are student-athletes who simply love playing the game.

Throughout the tournament, the NCAA will regularly tout the fact that 97 percent of student-athletes won’t become professional athletes. Video vignettes air during commercial breaks and on jumbotrons reminding fans that these players ask questions in class and will one day put away their uniforms and sports equipment in favor of lab coats and briefcases.

But the student-athlete moniker isn’t just about selling a product. It’s about maximizing the revenue from these products. By claiming that college sports is educational rather than commercial, the NCAA can maintain its IRS 501(c)(3) tax-free status. If subjected to federal and state taxes, the $880 million of March Madness revenue could be reduced by 40 percent or more. (The NCAA also doesn’t pay property taxes on its palatial headquarters in Indianapolis.)

One of the great ironies in all this is that Walter Byers eventually learned to loathe the college sports behemoth he helped create.

In his 1997 autobiography, Byers lamented that modern college sports were no longer a student activity — that they had instead become a high-dollar commercial enterprise. He argued that athletes should have the same rights as coaches and be able to sell their skills to the highest bidder.

In short, he came to agree with Cartman: The term “student-athlete” is merely a euphemism used to ensure schools and the NCAA can maximize their profits.

Rick Eckstein, Professor of Sociology, Villanova University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Apple Cuts Ties With Barclays Bank – CWEB.com

Leslie Cohen
Managing Editor.

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) partnering with the investment bank Goldman Sachs to launch of a new joint venture credit card that will use Apple Pay branding. The card could be available in early 2019.

This partnership will terminate its partnership with Barclays. The Barclays card offered an Apple rewards program.   The new Goldman Sachs bank partnership will offer in-store loans for Apple customers purchasing iPhones and Apple products.

The use of digital wallets is increasing. 16 percent of global iPhone owners were reported to have activated Apple Pay.

Apple AAPL (NASDAQ) has been an outstanding stock. As of today 5/18-2018 it has reached a new high of 189.98+2.62 (+1.40%) As of 1:11PM EDT. Market open.

Glassdoor Sold for $1.2 billion- Could an IPO be in the works? – CWEB.com

Leslie Cohen

Managing Editor

Japanese HR Company Recruit has agreed to buy Glassdoor for $1.2 billion. With 59 million monthly members, Glassdoor will accelerate growth into international markets.   The deal with HR Company “Recruit” is expected to close in September 2018. Recruit also own the jobs employment website “Indeed.”

Glassdoor runs the second-largest job website in the U.S. Haitong International Japaninvest KK analyst Yushi Kawamoto mentions that Recruit has paid 7 times earnings, which was a sweet spot in the deal.

Two years ago, the company was valued at $860 million. Decisions will be made if the company will go public to raise more money. Could an IPO on the horizon for Glassdoor? Sutter Hill Ventures, Battery Ventures, and Benchmark were early investors in Glassdoor.

Job seekers look to reviews about the companies they are applying to gain feedback and insight on a company’s culture, salary and interview styles. Glassdoor allows people to stay anonymous when posting a review about their job experience at a company they work for or previously worked for. People can give reviews as to what management can do to improve from an employee’s point of view when they have worked at a company.

Are the figures correct in the salary data that is listed on a company’s profile?   The wage speculation can be quite wide for what employees are paid in particular departments. Of course, data reflecting CEO’s compensation is more accurate as that is public data if the company is publically traded.

The company Comparably takes things a step further allowing you visualize deep data about salaries and the work culture environment. The site has many tools to use for salary data and other tools to help you comprise data for your next salary negotiation. Comparably offers visitors to their site an Infographic user survey tool with a drop-down menu in a question and answer format. The breakdowns are divided into demographics of the participants who took the survey.

For example, the survey question, Q: How long did you have to wait before you heard a response to your last interview? The answer comes up with an easy to use Infographic that allows you to see the data for each gender. You can see the disparity between the Caucasian group, which received a reply from an interview of “Within a week at the most among all other ethnicities,” compared to African Americans who answered “4+ Weeks after an interview,” which were the least among all other ethnicities.

Comparably has a quick salary tool where you can punch in the job title, salaries, and zip code to see data for a specific job title in a specific industry. When you are in your salary negation phase of a job opportunity, the data is quite useful for seeking out salary data categorized by department.

Job seekers can anonymously rate their workplaces, discover company cultures that better fit their needs, and compare salaries and equity compensation. Employers can embrace the website comparing their own company culture, and industry benchmarks to other companies to help recruit top talent.

Jason Nazar, CEO & co-founder of Comparably, a new HR focused startup, and an active entrepreneur who started Docstoc which had over 50 million members. The company was sold to Intuit in 2013. Jason is currently serving as one of two Entrepreneurs in Residence for the City of Los Angeles, appointed by Mayor Garcetti. Jason was named one of the “Most Admired CEOs in Los Angeles” by the LA Business Journal

Chief executive and co-founder, Robert Hohman, will remain at the helm of Glassdoor.

Most successful entrepreneurs are older than you think – CWEB.com

Benjamin F. Jones, Northwestern University and J. Daniel Kim, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The romanticized image of entrepreneurs is a picture of youth: a 20-something individual with disruptive ideas, boundless energy and a still-sharp mind. Silicon Valley has bet on this image for years.

But is this right?

Far from it, according to our recent research with Javier Miranda of the U.S. Census Bureau and Pierre Azoulay of MIT.

Our team analyzed the age of all business founders in the U.S. in recent years. We found that the average age of the most successful entrepreneurs is 45 — and that founders in their 20s are the least likely to build a top firm.

The myth of the young entrepreneur

The idea that the most successful new business ventures come from the young, even the very young, is widespread.

Younger people are often thought to be less beholden to current thinking and thus more naturally innovative and disruptive. Many observers (perhaps enviously) believe the young have more time and energy, with fewer family responsibilities like nightly dinner with the kids or financial demands like mortgages. Besides, as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said, “Young people are just smarter.”

Young founders also make for a dramatic story. The college dropout or young corporate drone shakes off conventional expectations to launch a new business with a ragtag team of fellow 20-somethings. After countless late nights, they emerge with the new killer app or consumer product that takes the market by storm, landing them on the cover of Inc., creating enormous personal wealth, and reminding stuffy executive types that hungry young upstarts can and will eat their lunch.

This stereotype has meaningful consequences. In Silicon Valley, for example, venture capitalists show a clear bias toward investing in younger founders, often leaving older founders out in the cold. The perceived link between youth and success is so prevalent that some tech workers reportedly seek plastic surgery to appear younger.

Prime time for entrepreneurship is middle age

But the image of the young entrepreneur didn’t hold when we looked at the data.

Past studies of high-growth entrepreneurship and age have yielded conflicting results, based in part on small and selected data sets that researchers studied.

To examine the question more definitively, we conducted an internal project at the U.S. Census Bureau. That enabled us to examine all businesses launched in the U.S. between 2007 and 2014, encompassing 2.7 million founders. We compared founder age to firm performance measures, including employment and sales growth, as well as the “exit” by acquisition or IPO.

Successful entrepreneurs are much more likely to be middle-aged, not young. For the top 0.1 percent of fastest growing new businesses in the U.S., the average age of the founder in the business’ first year was 45.

Similarly, middle-aged founders dominate successful exits. By our estimation, a 50-year-old founder is 1.8 times more likely than a 30-year-old founder to create one of the highest growth firms. Founders in their early 20s have the lowest likelihood of building a top-growth firm.

Why would entrepreneurs get better with age? It’s not clear, but we have a few theories. More seasoned entrepreneurs may draw on greater experience in management or deeper industry-specific knowledge. They may also have greater financial resources and more relevant social networks to leverage the founder’s business idea. For example, our study showed that prior work experience in the startup’s specific industry more than doubled the chance of an upper-tail growth success.

Even some of the most famous young founders tend to peak toward middle age. For example, Steve Jobs and Apple found their blockbuster innovation with the iPhone, released when Jobs was 52.

Change the narrative

By continuing to associate entrepreneurship with youth, investors are likely betting too young. If venture capitalists and other early-stage investors take our findings to heart, they’ll consider founders from a broader age range and may thereby back higher-growth firms.

By the same token, middle-aged would-be entrepreneurs may feel more confident about their chances — and more likely to win the resources they need to bring business visions to life.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

On an even broader scale, the emphasis on young entrepreneurs has likely skewed innovation and its funding toward problems that the younger segment understands best. Updating views of the entrepreneur’s life cycle — and peak performance within it — may shift innovation toward areas that older individuals know better.

The myth of the young entrepreneur is an age-old image, but perhaps one whose number is finally up.

Benjamin F. Jones, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy, J. L. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and J. Daniel Kim, PhD Candidate in Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Driverless cars are already here but the roads aren’t ready for them – CWEB.com

Mark Wilson, Michigan State University

The recent deaths of a woman struck by a car Uber was testing in driverless mode and of a man whose Tesla Model X crashed when his hands were off the steering wheel because he was letting the car do some of the driving may shift the debate over autonomous vehicles.

Those tragic fatalities are raising overdue questions about whether people and places will be ready when this new technology moves from beta-testing to a full-throttled rollout.

As an urban planner who has analyzed how technology affects cities, I believe that driverless vehicles will change everything that moves and the stationary landscape too. Until now, the public and governments at all levels have paid too little attention to how letting these machines drive themselves will transform urban, rural and suburban communities.

Critical juncture

Driverless vehicles are closer than you may realize to moving out of testing mode. General Motors, for instance, plans to start producing ride sharing models as soon as 2019.

But public awareness and consumer acceptance will take far longer, perhaps decades. It will depend on the machines’ safety record, plus the time it takes to implement legal and political changes like enacting local laws governing the use of self-driving cars.

This shift requires everyone from automakers to consumers, insurers to planners and officials at all levels of government to work together. Being proactive about guiding this technological change is essential. Rather than waiting until it happens or leaving it for the last minute, now is the time for education, thoughtful discussion and planning.

This juncture resembles what happened when automobiles replaced horses and the internet gained traction. In those cases, the technology changed how people lived, worked and got around. And the transformation occurred before the public or governments were ready.

When the internet first became popular in the 1990s, few people — if anyone — predicted the social and behavioral changes in store.

Likewise, the advent of motorized transportation more than a century ago completely changed cities, towns and suburbs. Replacing horses with the internal combustion engine demanded wider, better roadways and the invention and proliferation of traffic lights, gas stations, automotive dealerships, public parking lots and private garages. Governments had to regulate who could drive and which vehicles were roadworthy.

Driverless transportation, likewise, will demand new infrastructure and laws as it changes commuting and travel patterns in ways that few communities are contemplating today. Depending on what happens, the results could be positive or negative.

Picture this

Ideally, self-driving vehicles will make it easier for people who can’t drive for any reason. These vehicles also promise more relaxed and productive commuting and excursions for everyone else.

Additionally, they could make the roads safer. Almost 6,000 American pedestrians and more than 37,000 drivers and passengers die in car crashes every year. Despite the two recent fatalities tied to autonomous driving, it’s likely that this number would be lower without people in the driver’s seat.

If these contraptions stoke ride-sharing growth, traffic may subside and pollution may decline. The amount of space occupied by roads and parking could shrink.

More homes and businesses will make do with smaller garages or none at all. Entrance ramps and other prime real estate hogs will be repurposed. Pollution will probably decline if in all likelihood most autonomous electric vehicles run on electricity, rather than gasoline or diesel and they draw a rising share of power from wind and solar energy.

Just think about what your community might be like. Picture wider sidewalks, new cycling and jogging lanes, and additional green space. It’s no wonder that urban planners are already pondering the possibilities.

Unanticipated consequences

Yet this technology might have serious downsides.

What if autonomous vehicles were to drive about empty, rather than parking? That would increase congestion rather than abate it. Public transit use could decline once commuters have the freedom to do whatever they wish aboard their vehicles. If they become more tolerant of longer trips to work, driverless cars could potentially increase sprawl.

The truth is, no one knows what to expect. While engineers have been developing the technology for decades, social scientists, politicians and government officials have only recently started to grapple with its repercussions. And public opinion and engagement is further behind.

Leaving everything up to market forces and consumer whims could possibly create more problems than autonomous vehicles would solve. That’s why I believe in taking the planning side of the transition to driverless vehicles off autopilot.

Mark Wilson, Professor and Program Director, Urban & Regional Planning, School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why Am I Getting All These Terms of Service Update Emails? – CWEB.com

BY  DANNY O’BRIEN

MAY 7, 2018

Anyone looking at their inbox in the last few months might think that the Internet companies have collectively returned from a term-of-service writers’ retreat. Company after company seem to have simultaneously decided that your privacy is tremendously important to them, and collectively beg you take a look at their updated terms of service and privacy policies.

You might assume that this privacy rush is connected to the ongoing Cambridge Analytica scandal, and  Mark Zuckerberg’s recent face-off with Congress. It’s certainly true that Facebook itself has been taking some voluntary steps to revamp its systems in direct response to pressure from politicians  in the U.S.  and  abroad. But most of the companies that are sending you email right now are doing so because of their own, independent privacy spring-cleaning. And that’s almost entirely due to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force on May 25th. Most companies that have users in Europe are scrambling to update their privacy policies and terms of service to avoid breaking this new EU law.

The GDPR  strongly encourages  clarity in “information addressed to the public” about privacy — making now an excellent time for companies to provide clearer and more detailed descriptions of what data they collect, and what use they put it to.

Then again, those updates might be a little overdue. Companies were always supposed to do this under European law — and, for that matter, Californian law too, which since 2003 has  required any service  that collects your private information to spell out in detail out their data use. But the additional penalties of the GDPR (with fines of up to 20 million euro, or 4% of global revenue) and increasing confidence of European data protection regulators have poked many international companies to finally pay closer attention to their legal obligations.

The EU regulators are certainly paying attention to these email updates. A  strongly-worded blog post  this week by EU’s head enforcer, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Giovanni Buttarelli, warned the public and his fellow regulators to be “vigilant about attempts to game the system”, adding that some of these new terms of service emails could be “travest[ies] of the spirit of the new regulation”.

What To Look For

So what might you look for in these changes? What are the potential good points, and where might Buttarelli’s travesties be hiding?

First, it depends on where you’re living. Companies aren’t under a legal obligation to implement the GDPR’s provisions for all their users. You may even be able to see those new geographical distinctions in their changed terms. People in Europe (not just EU citizens) must be protected under the new law, but it’s an open question whether Americans or those outside both regions will get the same treatment. You should be able to tell the details of those differences from the new policies. (Or not: Facebook, for instance, is only  showing its new, detailed legal justifications  for its data collection to users in Europe, and hiding that page from other users.)

Some of the changes may just involve refinements in terminology. What companies have to do to comply with the GDPR, for instance, greatly depends on whether they’re “data  controllers” or “data  processors” — roughly speaking, whether they have the responsibility to manage your data, or whether they’re just handling it on behalf of another party.

You may well see some frantic games of pass-the-parcel in the next few weeks as different services attempt to minimize or share their compliance burden. You can spot that in how they describe who is the “data controller” in their terms. For instance, Etsy, whose users are both buyers and sellers, has  changed its  language to emphasize that sellers are independent data controllers of your data. Google, meanwhile, has provoked a  furious response  from Europe’s media publishers, after it declared itself the controller for the data from the ads and trackers that publishers put on their own websites, but expected that the publishers were the ones responsible for obtaining consent to share this data.

Some of the other changes have a more immediate, positive result, though. The GDPR is an embodiment of the data protection rights spelled out in the EU’s  Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, which states:

Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her… Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

When it comes to changes in these terms, most of the work will be spelling out those “specified purposes” in more detail, as well as explaining why the company thinks they can legitimately process it under the GDPR.

But there may also be changes in your ability to look at the data itself, and change it. For instance, Twitter users can now  peer at the full pile of data  that that company has picked up on them from their tweets and cross-referenced advertisers databases. You can also delete data that you don’t want Twitter to keep using.

That right of access also means that you can take your information with you. Under the GDPR, companies have to provide  “data portability”  — which means that they should provide you with your data in a way that lets you easily move it to a competing service — at least if you are in Europe.

Again, some companies have already offered this ability. Google has offered  “Google Takeout”, Facebook its archive download feature, and Twitter its  tweet archive. But their implementations have often been  patchy and incomplete.

Now more companies will provide these data dumps. The pre-existing services have already  markedly improved. For users in the EU, they should also offer a way to truly and permanently delete your account and all its data.

Still, these are the kind of user-empowering features that some companies would rather you didn’t know too much about, so don’t be surprised if the only news you hear about them comes from poring over these changes to long documents.

As Buttarelli says, such “legal cover” might well be against the spirit of the GDPR, but it’s going to take a while for companies, regulators, and privacy groups to establish what the law’s sometimes ambiguous statements really mean. One particularly knotty problem is whether the language that many of these emails use (“by using our service, you agree to these terms”) will be acceptable under the GDPR. The regulation is explicit that in many areas, you need to give informed, unambiguous consent by “a statement or clear affirmative action.” Even more significantly, if the data being collected by a company isn’t necessary for the service it is offering, under the GDPR the company  should  give covered users the option to decline that data collection, but still allow them to use the service.

That’s what the EDPS is complaining about when he says that some of these terms of service updates could be “travesties”. If they are, you might find some more emails updates in your inbox. And so could the companies sending them–from the EU’s data protection regulators.

This article originally appeared on Eff.Org: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/why-am-i-getting-all-these-terms-service-update-emails

Many household products contain antimicrobial chemicals banned from soaps by the FDA – CWEB.com

Any antimicrobial chemicals in there?

Home image via www.shutterstock.com.

Erica Hartmann, Northwestern University

This year marks 20 years since Hasbro was fined for false advertising, claiming their Playskool toys laden with the antimicrobial chemical triclosan would keep kids healthier. It is also the year when soap manufacturers will finally have to remove the chemical from their products.

Triclosan is one example of a potentially hazardous chemical used in some antimicrobial products. The Food and Drug Administration recently banned it, along with 18 others chemicals, from hand soaps because of unacceptable risks to humans and the environment. Exposure to triclosan in general is linked with disruption of hormone function and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

The FDA asked manufacturers to demonstrate that these chemicals are safe for long-term use and more effective than regular soap. Neither has been proven.

But these same chemicals are still used in many other products — including plush toys, pool wings, pacifier pockets, building blocks and even craft supplies like markers and scissors — without any label required. Some of these products are marketed as being antimicrobial, but many aren’t.

Because these products are not under the purview of the FDA, they aren’t subject to the ban, and companies aren’t required to reveal what makes them antimicrobial. This means it is hard for consumers to know what products contain these chemicals.

Why was triclosan banned in soaps?

Manufacturers failed to demonstrate that antimicrobial soaps were any more effective than regular soaps. Essentially, there are no reported benefits of antimicrobial soaps to outweigh the risks of using antimicrobial chemicals. So, are these chemicals any more effective in other products?

Overall, peer-reviewed research showing that household products and building materials containing antimicrobial chemicals, such as cutting boards and industrial flooring, harbor fewer bacteria is scant. Research further demonstrating that these products protect human health is essentially nonexistent. This indicates that, much like in soaps, triclosan in other products isn’t doing much good.

The FDA’s decision applies only to over-the-counter soaps sold to consumers, and not to soaps used in health care settings or any other consumer products or building materials not under the purview of the FDA.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

But some health care providers are deciding to skip the antimicrobials. For example, Kaiser Permanente, a major health care system, stopped purchasing soaps containing triclosan several years ago. And in 2015 the system announced it would no longer use paint and interior building products containing antimicrobial chemicals, citing a lack of evidence that they actually prevent disease along with safety concerns.

Not only does research suggest that antimicrobial products are ineffective at reducing microbes on the product, but several studies also suggest they may be causing an increase in antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic-resistant infections, such as MRSA, cause an estimated 23,000 deaths every year in the United States.

Research that I conducted at the Biology and the Built Environment (BioBE) Center at the University of Oregon demonstrated a troubling link, finding higher concentrations of triclosan and antibiotic resistance genes in dust in an athletic and educational facility. We are currently investigating how these antibiotic resistance genes can get into bacteria.

At the moment, it’s unclear how much of the triclosan we find in dust comes from soaps or other products, but triclosan has been found in almost every dust sample assayed worldwide. This suggests that the more antimicrobial chemicals we use in our homes, classrooms and offices, the more antibiotic-resistant bacteria we see there.

Again, it is worth noting that we have no evidence that using any antimicrobial products other than toothpaste, whether they are soaps or other household goods, makes us any healthier. There is even some evidence to the contrary: Without adequate exposure to the right microbes, our children may be at a higher risk of developing conditions like allergies and asthma.

Why it’s hard to know what products contain these chemicals

Let’s say, then, that we want to avoid products that contain triclosan or any of the other 18 antimicrobials banned in soap by the FDA. Should be fairly easy, right? Not so: Manufacturers are not required to tell us what makes their products antimicrobial.

Soaps are personal care products, which means they fall under the FDA’s jurisdiction. The agency requires that active ingredients such as triclosan be listed. For instance, triclosan is also found in some toothpastes, in which it has been proven effective against plaque, and it is listed on the label.

If you want to avoid buying soaps containing these chemicals before the ban goes into effect on Sept. 6 you just need to read the label. But products that are not under the agency’s jurisdiction are subject to different requirements, and don’t have to list the chemicals they contain. It is incredibly difficult — if not impossible — to find out exactly which products contain which antimicrobial chemicals.

Products that are marketed as being antimicrobial, for instance, often contain these chemicals. But not all products that contain antimicrobial chemicals are advertised as such.

Concerned consumers can get recommendations from advocacy groups like the Environmental Working Group and Beyond Pesticides. However, that information is focused largely on triclosan and not the additional 18 chemicals banned from soap. And as manufacturers reformulate products without making public announcements, information may be incomplete or out of date.

Consumers looking for a simple way to get comprehensive information about antimicrobial products are out of luck. But one consumer with an awful lot of resources is actually starting to collect this information: Google. The tech giant went to such great lengths to uncover the ingredients for products used in their facilities that it developed an online tool called Portico. Unfortunately for us, Portico isn’t yet available to the public.

It would help if regulators adopted consistent standards requiring common labeling practices, and if manufacturers were required to disclose hazardous ingredients. We need to know what chemicals are in the products, especially when those chemicals could have adverse effects on our health and our environment.

What can consumers do? We can apply pressure by calling on retailers to carry antimicrobial-free products and to require clear labels on products that contain chemicals banned by the FDA.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Erica Hartmann, Assistant Professor, Northwestern University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Apple Closes In On A $1 Trillion Market Value – CWEB.com

Leslie Cohen
Managing Editor

Shares of Apple (AAPL)will begin trading ex-dividend on 05/11/18 with a $0.73 dividend payable to shareholders of record as of 05/14/18.

Apple traded up on Friday 5-04-2018 on the news that Warren Buffet-Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK.B) purchased 75 million shares of the company.

Apple’s stock is up 6% on the year, only 1.5% off its all-time high. Apple is the most valuable company in the world. Apple could be the first company to reach a market value of $1 trillion. Apple has a market capitalization of about $935 billion as it reached an all-time high of $184.25 on Friday, May 4.^th

Apple would need to rise to $197.24 per share to obtain a $1 trillion market cap. That would be 7.4% above its current record high to reach the milestone.

Other companies are behind that goal. Alphabet shares Alphabet Inc. Class A NASDAQ: GOOGL is now are valued at roughly values at $719 billion;  Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) has a market cap of approximately $765 billion. (MSFT) is worth $724 billion.

Apple is making deals with publishers for exclusive video content, as it looks to compete with Facebook, Google and Twitter. Apple has been working to introduce a subscription-based plan into Apple News within the next year. It plans to produce lengthier video series on its platform, hoping to attract more publishers and revenue on the platform.

CWEB Analyst’s have initiated a Buy Rating for  Apple (AAPL), and a Price Target of $290    

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping

Will The Federal Government Pass Along A Gas Tax To Help Fund A Massive Infrastructure Bill – CWEB.com

Leslie Cohen
Managing Editor

If the proposed Federal gas tax on consumer passes it would be the first one in 25 years. Obviously, most consumers would oppose a gas tax. People in favor of the bill say that say the people that use the roads should pay this tax.

Energy prices have been reaching higher in 2018 with crude oil prices up more than 10%. General Motors Company, (GM), Ford Motor Company NYSE: F and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (NYSE:FCAU) are all in for this gas tax to pass and give it a green light. The current tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents since 1993 with no increase since this time.

Infrastructure improvements, building charging stations will certainly boost jobs, and increase auto sales and would trigger more jobs at the Department of Transportation, including the contractors for these companies. We would see an uptick in demand for hiring more workers. The Ford’s F-150 truck would be in higher demand as this is the best-selling truck for labor workers in this field. This could clearly benefit the stock of Ford Motor Company.

With better fuel efficiency and higher numbers of electric cars on the road, the means for an alternative to the gas tax is needed to help the underfunded highways of America.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce states increasing the gas tax by 25 ¢ a gallon would generate $394 billion over the next 10 years. The average American would be paying about $9 a month extra.

The gas tax prompts energy independence because Americans don’t’ want to pay the extra tax.

Groupon Acquires Cloud Savings Company, Ltd. – CWEB.Com

Groupon Inc. (GRPN) announces it has acquired Cloud Savings Company, Ltd., parent company of online discount code platform Vouchercloud and brand loyalty provider Giftcloud, for $65 million.

Groupon stock price has risen since last summer by 60%. It was profitable on an adjusted basis to all of 2017. Many analysts see the stock rising in 2018. Groupon delivers record quarterly net income and adjusted EBITDA. 2018 adjusted EBITDA guidance of $260 million to $270 million.

Groupon Achieves 10% Gross Profit Growth in the Fourth Quarter.  As noted in the Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2017 Results CEO Rich Williams states “In 2017, we made progress in creating a better customer experience that removed friction for our customers while also maximizing gross profit,” “We are excited to build on this success in 2018, combining our growing mobile penetration and platform power to ultimately become the daily habit in local commerce for customers and merchants.”

CWEB Analyst’s have initiated a Buy Rating for  Groupon Inc. (GRPN)  , and a Price Target of $8

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping